Begs the question, efficiency at what, in what? Effective at/in what?
A little conversation about marketing, and the need (or the assumption/prereq/whatever) for efficiency in marketing. Perhaps it’s more about what we are being efficient in.
We spend a great deal of time/energy/money/people on becoming/proving efficiency.
Curious what might happen if we spent more of our time asking ourselves, daily, what is worth being efficient in/for.
|Seb Paquet (@sebpaquet)
1/8/13 7:39 PM
The Most Efficient Die Early –blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/12/the…
Eliminating all errors makes it hard to compete in the trial-and-error process that’s required for a company to adjust, because there are no trials without errors. Clayton Christensen has nicely described how the very things that made a company successful, including its efficiency, can also cause it to become obsolete when it’s unable to adapt to disruptive change.
where efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing the right thing..
data, information, understanding, knowledge, – all concerned with increasing efficiency
wisdom… is concerned with effectiveness
difference between doing things right and doing the right thing .. – Peter Drucker
it’s better to do the right things wrong than the wrong things right..
most problems today are consequences of doing the wrong things right..
instead of looking at the efficiency of objectives.. best to re-examine the objectives..
it’s not a matter of efficiency, it’s a matter of effectiveness
it’s like – measurable (efficiency) vs useable/useful (effectiveness)
if we want things to last (like a good/alive people), then we need to quit measuring things.. measuring causes dependence on extrinsic motivation.. as well as dependence/blind allegiance in the myth that alive things can be measured..
if we want things efficient.. by all means measure.. algorithm-u-late.. just don’t expect that efficiency (or whatever) to last (stay/be alive).. when extrinsic motivators are gone (or even if they stay)
so perhaps.. if you’re able to measure/predict/algorithm-ize something.. that could be a sign of non-effectiveness (of people)
alive people are more like pi (never ending, never repeating), less like algorithm.
– – –
perhaps machines can be efficient.. but people?
1:16 – automation is good for doing things that are efficient…so that goes to the robots.. what we’re left are things that are very inefficient.. ie: exploration, innovation – a type of questioning.. what if..
so what i was saying above.. decisions are inefficient.. or could say.. efficient if able to be always changing.. (so inefficient to machine)
human relationships… inefficient.. so we are moving into this area which will be our strength.. asking good questions.. that’s where our strength is compared to the machines…
1:19 – art is a question that’s not answerable..
things don’t have to always be pragmatic/useful..
how do you know if a question is unanswerable.. question become the essential thing..
machines are efficient.. people are human/random/whimsical/antifragile/inefficient
assuming we use our current defn of efficient..
Andreas Weber‘s essay
all proposed efficiency revolutions invariably point to nature itself as the supreme model of efficiency. but this model is wrong. nature is not efficient, …. it is only to a huge extent edible or usable. living being are one interrelated, embodied whole, of which humans comprise only a fractional portion. the real flaw of the efficiency approach to sustainability is that nature is still seen as something outside that can be used for human means. but nature is not outside of us. it is inside of us – ad we are inside of it.
there is a threshold limit for any increase in efficiency, and that limit is the natural imperfection of embodied being….humans as natural beings will always suffer from deficiencies: they are mortal and full of contradictions – as every organism is. higher efficiency is not capable of improving upon that.
efficiency as a solution therefore amounts to a category error in thinking.