Efficiency? Who would argue with wanting to get the most bang for the buck? But there is a trap!
Think about a restaurant. What qualities would make it an "efficient restaurant"? Fewer servers? No waiting? Decreased food wastage? Is this how you choose the restaurant to have dinner at?
Think about efficiency at a sporting event. Get people in and out quickly? Reduce the number of performers? Is that how you choose the sporting event to go to ... the one that is most efficient?
Efficiency is about cutting costs. We all agree that that is not what it is supposed to be. It is supposed to be getting the BEST output and trimming unnecessary
expenses. The problem is that is it often very hard to measure the value of a good meal, or the value of a good event. The value of good service is hard to measure, while the cost is easy to measure.
Nobody ever says: lets increase the efficiency of this restaurant by adding items to the menu. This might
actually increase the service with a smaller increase in costs, and that would increase efficiency. But this is never done. Instead, efficiency typically means one thing: cut the costs because we can measure those, and lets hope that the quality of the service is not effected.
I show that a particular primitive society was dependent upon being inefficient in this post about ancient wisdom
. A modern anthropologist declared them to be stupid for not consolidating their fields which would be more efficient
. What he didn't see is that that might allow a small problem to be lethal.
It is better to focus on "customer satisfaction
" and not efficiency.