Ain't common sense enough?

You might have heard someone arguing: ‘why do we need frameworks like Agility or Lean? In the end, it is all common sense!’

I found it hard to give a better response than ‘Yes. Unfortunately, common sense is not so common.’ My intuition says common sense is not enough in operational excellence.

Several principles common in Lean or Agile thinking are counter-intuitive. Below are a couple of examples that apply to the business environment in which Ithaki operates.. Although fascinating, several of the paradoxes are rather abstract. They all have a clear implication for organisations, unfortunately not so easy to grasp.

This is different for ‘Braess’s paradox’, which applies to all of us: how we make commuting worse for everyone and ourselves. (I leave it up to you whether you just scroll down to read that one or watch the included video).

(Based on feedback I received, I have added several more laws and paradoxes at the bottom of this blog).

Efficiency paradox

The efficiency paradox explores the idea that the relentless pursuit of efficiency in organizations may not always lead to the best outcomes. As an example, a patient has to wait very long because the pursuit of efficiency maximises utilisation of the medical equipment.

Resource utilisation trap

The resource utilisation trap states that as a system becomes more utilised, the flow & throughput will reduce. Ultimately, throughput will be zero at 100% utilisation. The best example is a major traffic jam: the road is a 100% used and no car moves forward.

If you ever had a boss, wondering whether you had nothing useful to do, that is the resource utilisation trap at work.

Simpson’s paradox

A statistical paradox, where it is possible to draw 2 opposite conclusions from the same data depending on how you divide things. Statistics alone cannot help us solve it. We have to go outside statistics and understand the causality involved in the situation at hand.

As an example, when comparing schools or universities, you need to take into account socio-economics such as race / ethnicity.

The Simpson’s paradox

Cobra effect

The cobra effect occurs when an attempted solution to a problem actually makes the problem worse because of unintended consequences.

The cobra effect is very common in target setting if a balancing metric is not included. An example is the pursuit of cost cutting.

Tragedy of the commons

The tragedy of the commons is an economic concept that describes a situation in which individuals, acting in their self-interest, deplete shared resources leading to the detriment of the collective good.

It manifests itself in our usage of raw materials and how we deal with pollution.

Law of diminishing returns

The ‘law of diminishing returns’ is an economic principle stating that as one input factor is increased while keeping other factors constant, the resulting output will increase at a decreasing rate and eventually diminish.

If you make your New Year’s resolution and you have more than 3 good promises, the chance is high you won’t make them all. If you have 10 resolutions, you are likely to achieve none of them. If you have 1 resolution per year, after 10 years you will have achieved 10. If you have 10 resolutions each year, after 10 years, you will probably have achieved almost nothing. The same applies to business aspirations. Aim for a few (and you might aim high), rather than pursuing everything.

Law of expected delivery

The law of expected delivery states that as time passes, the expected delivery of a project, an approval, a mail, etc will actually increase rather than decrease.

Braess’s paradox

In short, Braess’s paradox states that by removing a short, fast road from a network, you might actually decrease travel time. This is not a theoretical concept. It has happened in Seoul and Stuttgart, where the removal of a road has actually caused travel times to go down without the number of cars on the road going down.

I use the explanation by Steve Mould: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/LwVfpfDT7E52ird4/

Imagine a road from A to B. This is a stable system, since no one would take the longer detour.

Unless we cut the blue road.

All of a sudden, everyone has gained time because traffic is spread over 2 parallel, high capacity roads.

To bad for people who need short distance travel. So why not re-open the blue road for local traffic?

Look how attractive the blue road has become? So it makes sense for anyone individual driver to defect to the blue route.

And unfortunately, every driver that defects, makes the blue route a little bit worse, and it also makes the outer routes a little bit worse. And we are back to the old situation in which it takes 17 min for everyone.

If all drivers could agree to not use the blue road, as if it wasn’t there, then we could keep it for people who need to travel locally. Unfortunately, humans don’t form hive minds. Except maybe one day, we will solve the problem with a hive mind. Like if self-driving cars take over the majority of driving and these self-driving cars can act cooperatively, then maybe one day we can experience this utopia of optimisation. It’s never going to happen, isn’t it? There is always going to be a human to override the system.

Luckily, these days, there is a solution: license plate recognition using cameras, which allows to cut the blue road for everyone except local traffic..

(More paradoxes & laws after the conclusion)

Conclusion

In which city would you prefer to live? One where decisions are made based on common sense alone? Or one where the leaders implement systems, like license plate recognition, to optimize the environment for everyone’s benefit? The latter reflects the acknowledgment that our challenges demand structures to navigate the complexities effectively. And we all benefit from that.

These examples illustrate the complexity inherent in the challenges we face in both our world and business. The intricacies extend beyond what our common sense may intuitively grasp. Intuition and gut feelings are very valuable, since they often indicate aspects missing from our rational thinking. It’s crucial to embrace both dimensions when making important decisions. A person stating that it is ‘just common sense’ underestimates the intricacies we encounter. On top of commons sense, we need structures & processes to help us to make the best out of such complex situation.

Consider how your organization approaches decision-making. Are there opportunities to implement structured processes that optimize outcomes? Let’s collectively strive for environments where leaders implement thoughtful systems and processes to enhance the well-being of everyone. Whether it’s in our personal or professional lives, each decision we make shapes the world around us.

Feel free to reach out to discuss specific challenges & opportunities.

Addendum

Based on feedback from readers, here are some more laws and paradoxes.

Parkinson’s law: Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion. Projects are a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hence, stretch targets are actually beneficial, especially in innovation.
Brooks’ Law: Adding more people to a late software project makes it later.
Hofstadter’s Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter’s Law.
80-20 principle (aka pareto): roughly 80% of effects come from 20% of causes. This applies to charging your e-car or e-bike: you it is the final percentages to get to a 100% that are the hardest. It can also be applied to managers in an organisation 🤭
90-90-rule: Cynical project management adage that states that the first 90% of the project takes 90% of the time, and the last 10% takes another 90% (!) of the time.”
Conway’s law: the architecture & structure of a (software) system reflects the organigram & communication patterns of the organisation that built it.
Goodhart’s Law: When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
Monty Hall Problem: You could win a price by choosing the right door out of 3 doors. After choosing one of the three doors, you are offered the chance to switch doors after the host reveals an empty door (from one of the 2 unchosen doors). The counterintuitive optimal strategy is to always switch the door for a higher probability of winning the desired prize.
Little’s Law: The more work you push into a system, the less will come out. Tell your manager 😊
Build Trap: The tendency of organisations and teams to build build products & features without a clear understanding of how those efforts contribute to overall business goals and customer value.
Survivorship Bias: Distorted analysis because only the ‘survivors’ are taken into account and those that did not ‘survive’ are overlooked. This bias is common when people are selling a coaching or self-help program. The fact that it did work for them or that there are so many success stories, does not imply it works for just anyone.
Consent decision making & artful participation: The most important elements that are (or should be) raised get lost in the clutter of non-value added talking. By creating a structure in which there is less talking, decisions are better and made faster.
Scarcity trap: When you’re busy and have limited bandwidth, you start making decisions less well. As you are overwhelmed with doing more and more, you have less time to think carefully about how to do each task.
Unique snowflake / Uniqueness fallacy: the tendency to perceive one’s challenges, issues, or circumstances as entirely unique or exceptional. This perspective can hinder collaboration and the sharing of solutions because of the assumption that the problem is so distinct that no one else can relate or offer relevant insights.

Blog Series: AHAg!le

Ain’t common sense enough?