Productivity, Efficiency, Efficacy, Predictability… Adaptability: all those words…
And so it happens again… John Cutler did that thing he does quite often: make me think, in a rather intrigued yet insightful fashion. This time around, with the LinkedIn post below:
I started to wonder whether I could somehow put together a little model to visualize a kind of useful puzzle of the interplay of those different concepts. I couldn't quite get my head around what that could look like (hopefully not yet!). Then I thought, here's something that is quite often helpful to me: think it out loud!
So, here I am, with a rather random-thought-like post here, in an early attempt to better organize my own thoughts – and hopefully that is also already useful for you (or anyone else out there). By putting stuff out here, maybe some pattern might emerge, and later on I can take another go at it, to systematize it in a useful visual model (that's my hope at least).
First, let's start with the fundamentals – what we are trying to achieve in each of those concepts:
Productivity has the goal of maximizing output (over whatever time frame). It doesn't necessarily care that much about the quality or whether it is even the right thing to do (what is needed). Perhaps a fairer way of putting it is that it takes those two things for granted – I know what has to be done and can ascertain the quality.
Efficiency has the goal of maximizing output by effort (or cost, or whatever measure of "resources" we put in). Again, it doesn't necessarily care about whether it is the right thing to do (what is needed), but it arguably tends to have some aspect of caring about quality (as it implies doing something optimally). It will tend to be easier to assure that, with less variability, if I have quite some certainty over what needs to be done.
Efficacy has the goal of being effective in producing the intended result (the right thing to do). It doesn't necessarily care about doing it efficiently or at a high rate (productively). It has a clear, perhaps a super-focus on quality. And it somewhat implies uncertainty over what needs to be done - so, e.g., as the jargon goes, "we need to nail it before we scale it".
Predictability has the goal of maximizing (planning/forecasting) precision (so kind of more related to a say/do ratio). It has similar characteristics to productivity, in the sense of being agnostic to whether it is the right thing to do, or has the right quality – or rather taking those for granted. It differs on looking for reduced variability over one single dimension - which tends to be the time when something should be expected.
Adaptability has the goal of being able to cope with changes without compromising too much on being effective. Because of that, I almost feel like it has its own category, possibly permeating all the other aspects. What I mean is that depending on the context, one may need to adapt for efficacy's sake, or in other cases, efficiency, perhaps also sometimes productivity. It is somewhat agnostic to what you are trying to achieve and maximize. You are just assuming things will change, as they tend to, and that you need to develop some sort of muscle to deal with it, and adjust whatever is necessary in context and considering the goal of what you are optimizing for.
I think, given the briefing above, we could all agree that adaptability is more often than not required – after all, as the ancient quote goes:
"The only constant in life is change" – Heraclitus
But what about the other aspects? Well, I guess in an ideal world we might want all of them, but is that realistic? If we need to compromise, which one we would choose is a rather contextual matter. It is ultimately linked to the fitness criteria of what one is looking for… E.g.:
Sometimes you may compromise on efficacy (not getting exactly what you wanted) because you are valuing more getting a lot of it now (thus, linked to productivity). Or because you need it by a certain date, and that is non-negotiable (i.e., predictability). Or because you need it not to consume more effort than agreed upon (linked to efficiency).
Sometimes you may compromise on predictability because you need to be absolutely sure you are getting what you need (i.e., with efficacy), and perhaps that needs to be balanced out by not consuming too much effort (thus, linked to efficiency) and delivering right about enough output (so not caring too much about productivity).
And I could go on, but I think you get the point…
Likely the truth of the matter is that rarely you will need only one of those (besides adaptability as the more universal)… They are rather kind of levers you are pulling and often trading-off with in context. There is possibly quite often an element of predominance that you could state in context, though - i.e., what we are optimizing for, now.
So, I am starting to visualize it in my own head, a bit like a dance… I still would like to attempt to have a useful little model on the interplay in a couple of dimensions that might be highly applicable, thus helpful, in many contexts. I don't feel like I have it (just yet).
To be continued… And in any case, hopefully this little "thinking out loud" piece has already been useful for you (or anyone else).
By Rodrigo Sperb, feel free to connect (I only refuse invites from people clearly with an agenda to ‘coldly’ sell something to me), happy to engage and interact