![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
forsythThere's a stigma around efficiency. It's become associated with corporate lobbyists, Soviet concrete architecture, layoffs, consultants, cheap plastic crap, and soulless machines. And I can understand why. It's because people misunderstand efficiency. Both on the "anti" side and the "pro" side, though there's not really any neatly defined sides, nor are they really that divided. Even most of the consultants and CEOs who worship efficiency will usually admit the downsides, but figure they're acceptable.
But see, that's the thing. They're defining efficiency too narrowly. There's more to efficiency than how little it takes to make something. efficiency is more a matter of how something fulfills its function. You've heard the cliche, "Form follows function"? It's a cliche because there's a germ of truth to it. How you make something depends on what it's supposed to do. So the problem is really more one of people misfiguring the function something's supposed to do.
"Cheap, fast, good, pick two." Just because something's cheaper, or easier to do it that way, doesn't mean it's better or costs less, really. I'll start with the subject of computer interfaces, since I'm working at a computer, it comes to mind. What's simplest or easiest for the person creating the program isn't always the best way to do it. Often, it's not. Because the function of the program isn't just to do thing X, it's to do thing X for the end user. So the most efficiency way to make the program is the way that makes it easiest for the end user. Something it'd be nice if Microsoft's programmers understood. Or more programmers in general. And yes, aesthetics matter. Many times, the little graphical touches and interface tweaks at the end make the whole thing a lot easier AND a better experience for people. Which is what it all comes down to, of course, people. If the program's not doing what it should be doing for people, it's not working. And if it's not working, or not working well, then it's not doing its job efficiency, no matter how simple it seemed at the time.
And that can obviously extend to other areas, too. If a building took less to make and was quicker to build, then in theory it's more efficiency. But if people aren't getting any benefit from living there, then it's not working efficiency. Sterile hallways, unpainted walls, bare light bulbs are CHEAPER, not BETTER. The problem is the real goal of things get missed. If you're building somewhere for people to live, or work, then if it provides things to make them be better people, it's fulfilling two (or more) goals at once. It's working on the "keep rain off" level and the "ooh, pretty" level, sort of. It's something that should have been learned by anybody who's played the Sims, or SimCity.
It all comes back to people. Architecture, computer interfaces, clothing, industrial design, city layout, transportation, whatever. It's a matter of goals, and scale. If you're designing something and leave out the human element, then you're missing most of the picture. It ties back into the hidden costs thing I posted about a while back. If it looks like something's more efficiency, look at the other costs, especially the hidden ones. And look how well made it is, something that lasts a year and then breaks costs more than something that lasts ten years, usually. Vimes' Boots Theory of Economics. (A quick google search for that phrase brought up this post which is saying the same kinda things I'm saying here. Along with this over at everything2) "Then there's the Vimes boots theory of economics; an expensive set of boots will last you more than a decade, while cheap shoes, at a tenth of the price, need replacing every year and don't do a very good job most of the time anyway; you still end up with wet feet." (Which just proves Terry Pratchett is a wiser man than I, and a much better writer too, since he said what I was saying in one sentence.)
Efficiency isn't the problem, the problem is we keep looking at things through half-blocked lenses and missing bunches of the picture. And most of the time, something beautiful that works is better than something that just works, if they work equally well at the first thing. But I am SO not getting into any discussions about "What is Beauty", because Beholders are nasty monsters.
Tags: Mindscribbles, Politics
But see, that's the thing. They're defining efficiency too narrowly. There's more to efficiency than how little it takes to make something. efficiency is more a matter of how something fulfills its function. You've heard the cliche, "Form follows function"? It's a cliche because there's a germ of truth to it. How you make something depends on what it's supposed to do. So the problem is really more one of people misfiguring the function something's supposed to do.
"Cheap, fast, good, pick two." Just because something's cheaper, or easier to do it that way, doesn't mean it's better or costs less, really. I'll start with the subject of computer interfaces, since I'm working at a computer, it comes to mind. What's simplest or easiest for the person creating the program isn't always the best way to do it. Often, it's not. Because the function of the program isn't just to do thing X, it's to do thing X for the end user. So the most efficiency way to make the program is the way that makes it easiest for the end user. Something it'd be nice if Microsoft's programmers understood. Or more programmers in general. And yes, aesthetics matter. Many times, the little graphical touches and interface tweaks at the end make the whole thing a lot easier AND a better experience for people. Which is what it all comes down to, of course, people. If the program's not doing what it should be doing for people, it's not working. And if it's not working, or not working well, then it's not doing its job efficiency, no matter how simple it seemed at the time.
And that can obviously extend to other areas, too. If a building took less to make and was quicker to build, then in theory it's more efficiency. But if people aren't getting any benefit from living there, then it's not working efficiency. Sterile hallways, unpainted walls, bare light bulbs are CHEAPER, not BETTER. The problem is the real goal of things get missed. If you're building somewhere for people to live, or work, then if it provides things to make them be better people, it's fulfilling two (or more) goals at once. It's working on the "keep rain off" level and the "ooh, pretty" level, sort of. It's something that should have been learned by anybody who's played the Sims, or SimCity.
It all comes back to people. Architecture, computer interfaces, clothing, industrial design, city layout, transportation, whatever. It's a matter of goals, and scale. If you're designing something and leave out the human element, then you're missing most of the picture. It ties back into the hidden costs thing I posted about a while back. If it looks like something's more efficiency, look at the other costs, especially the hidden ones. And look how well made it is, something that lasts a year and then breaks costs more than something that lasts ten years, usually. Vimes' Boots Theory of Economics. (A quick google search for that phrase brought up this post which is saying the same kinda things I'm saying here. Along with this over at everything2) "Then there's the Vimes boots theory of economics; an expensive set of boots will last you more than a decade, while cheap shoes, at a tenth of the price, need replacing every year and don't do a very good job most of the time anyway; you still end up with wet feet." (Which just proves Terry Pratchett is a wiser man than I, and a much better writer too, since he said what I was saying in one sentence.)
Efficiency isn't the problem, the problem is we keep looking at things through half-blocked lenses and missing bunches of the picture. And most of the time, something beautiful that works is better than something that just works, if they work equally well at the first thing. But I am SO not getting into any discussions about "What is Beauty", because Beholders are nasty monsters.
Tags: Mindscribbles, Politics
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-02-16 03:25 pm (UTC)