Relationships: A change for the better?

I have often used the term "sub-optimization" to explain why organizations or systems don't work as planned. It's really a simple concept:

This concept from systems theory refers to the extent to which attempts to improve the performance of a sub-system by its own criteria may act to the detriment of the total system which includes that sub-system, and even to the defeat of its objectives.

The word "system" refers broadly to anything that exists or functions as:

1 : a group of units so combined as to form a whole and to operate in unison 2 : the body as a functioning whole; also : a group of bodily organs (as the nervous system) that together carry on some vital function
(c)2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved

A human being, a tree, a city, a business, a university... disparate, but all systems... and all capable of being sub-optimized. The athlete who takes steroids to increase muscle bulk and damages his overall health, the tree that is bred from too much of the same stock and becomes vulnerable to pests and disease, the business that places too much emphasis on cost control and too little on product development, the university that focuses too much on research and too little on student education... all sub-optimized... all performing below design for the entire system.

One of my sons recently began work as a contract employee (temporary) for a large corporation. This corporation had spent years trying to instill a "process-based" culture so that all aspects of the business ran on a methodical and interactive approach. Projects were developed through a process. Ideas were screened through a process. Work was scheduled through a process. Money was appropriated through a process. And yet it seemed to my son that nothing was being accomplished. The most minute efforts required a "process review". And worst of all, after all of the process reviews, when the work was finally done, it was substandard.

Why? How could such a "process-driven" business fail to be anything but the best?

The answer was simple: so much emphasis was placed on the process aspect, that the people aspect was sub-optimized. It was believed that as long as the processes were sound, it wasn't necessary to have the best qualified people in charge of the operations or completing the actual work. Now, don't get me wrong, they believed that they have good people and they spend a lot of time and money "training" these people. But the truth of the matter is that they don't necessarily seek the best people.

The example I use is that the company would rather pay 5 somewhat qualified people $60,000 per year than 1 absolutely the best person $300,000 per year for purely "technical" work. They are content with a lot of mediocrity rather than a small amount of genius. That's a "process-based", "cost conscious" company. So computer system development takes months... for the smallest effort. Top engineers must either become managers or not advance... so they leave if they are really good and want to be "hands on". Product design now becomes the purview of suppliers... who want to sell the components they have already designed.

And so my son comes home and says he needs to find someplace where he can really use his talents. He talks about improvements that he could have completed in a week that would have been vastly superior to what exists now, but after two months nothing has been done because all of the "process review" hasn't been completed. He talks about how one area within the company will charge another $10,000 for a job that will take 3 months when he could contract out the same work for less than $100 and have it done in less than an hour... and he knows that because he has done that.

So what's the point?

Sub-optimization is the norm not the exception. Why? Because it is easier to sub-optimize than optimize. It is easier for a department to justify 5 engineers at $80,000 for a large project than one super engineer for $300,000 to the personnel department. It is easier to say that anyone can be trained in the processes, so you do not have to hire the best qualified person.

But the reason that sub-optimization is the norm is that systems are designed to allow for the root cause of sub-optimization... it is known as change. Change in goals, wants, needs, resources, purpose... whatever the cause... need to be addressed by existing systems... and it can't always be done in a way that maintains the system's optimization.

And most systems... most of us... do not know how to stay optimized during times of change. So we try things that may or may not be effective to react to the change. Sometimes we are able to re-optimize the system and sometimes we sub-optimize it permanently.

When the airplanes hit the World Trade Center towers, the U.S. was no longer insulated from enemies attacking within its boundaries. The system that is the U.S. and all of its subsystems are trying to come to a new optimization after that change. And for awhile, we will make mistakes. We will optimize sub-systems and sub-optimize the system. Eventually, if we are fortunate, we will bring the system closer to optimization.

Meanwhile, be concerned about those who claim they now can optimize the U.S. because they see sub-optimization. Our world is still changing.