|
Post by Cybermortis on Jun 13, 2013 15:17:52 GMT
The saying implies that attempting to hurry a task along can result in it taking longer to finish than being more methodical. But is this true? Could it be that being methodical might result in you wasting time by thinking or overthinking the problem?
Thoughts as to what and how this could be tested?
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jun 13, 2013 15:26:56 GMT
Many of us have already confirmed this "myth"
Speeding to get to your destination may (has) resulted in taking longer because of waiting for the officer to issue your Certificate of Speed.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jun 13, 2013 15:47:53 GMT
Give each volunteer a product or series of products to assemble.
Inform them that they will be timed in their assembly, with a prize (something small enough to be relatively cheap but big enough to be a motivator, such as a season box set of the show) going to the person who accrues the least time.
The control group will be timed, and then submit their item for final inspection... and if any flaws or defects are found, the crew will tell the volunteers that they must fix their mistake, with the time it takes to fix the mistake being added to their total time.
The variable group will be told in advance that their time will include time spent on fixing mistakes that are discovered during final assembly.
In this fashion, the variable group will not only have motivation to finish in a hurry, but also motivation to be thorough as they do so.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jun 13, 2013 16:02:53 GMT
Might be interesting to have some form of build off between Adam (who tends to follow the 'full speed ahead' approach to problem solving) and Jamie (who tends to be far more methodical) as well as bringing in volunteers to get statistical data.
I think the assembling path would be a good way to go, in fact if it was something simple like a shelf or small bookcase that could be the prize they get. (MB could buy flat packs for this, or probably create 'Mythbuster' shelving for the tests)
Maybe two sets of tests, the one above that is simply timed as the control (comparing how most people do the task and how long it takes when they are not under any pressure) with another set against a timer to add stress - which is in a way part of the saying as it is usually used when there is pressure to finish a task.
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Jun 13, 2013 16:05:36 GMT
When I was working at the food processing plant, I saw haste result in further down time very often.
A line goes down for a change over/wash out, the supervisor gets in everyone's a$$ to get it done and back up running and into production as soon as possible, hurry, hurry, hurry!
Then either the machine fails the sanitation inspection and has to be recleaned, taking up more time, or the machine was put back together too fast, with some adjustable parts not in the position they should have been in for the product changed to, thus causing excessive start up times to get the machine running properly.
It was proven through Time Studies performed by outside contractors, brought into the plant to study time saving methods, that "Haste made waste", in most cases.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jun 13, 2013 16:20:02 GMT
I think the assembling path would be a good way to go, in fact if it was something simple like a shelf or small bookcase that could be the prize they get. (MB could buy flat packs for this, or probably create 'Mythbuster' shelving for the tests) Bad idea. The prize has to be something external to what they're building or else it will skew the results; most of the volunteers would go out of their way to ensure that any item they are assembling for themselves is top-notch, meaning that even the control group would have incentive to take their time so as to minimize defects. And before anyone says anything, remember that I'm an MBA. "Haste vs. speed" is a big issue in the world of planning and operations management, and so this is something I went into during my studies. This includes one professor going to length to discuss a situation that took place at a company he once did work with. The situation? The minute that the compensation scheme for assembly-line workers shifted from "hourly" to "piece-rate", production soared... as did the rate of defective products coming off the lines. The company, IIRC, was ultimately forced to adopt a modified piece-rate scheme wherein workers were denied pay for defective items that came from their workstations.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jun 13, 2013 17:12:14 GMT
The armed forces have a similar saying when it comes to fighting in urban areas:
Slow is safe, safe is quick.
What's meant by that is that if you run around a chaotic and often cluttered scenery like a city in a war zone, you're likely to either trip over, fall from, get caught on or impaled by something, rendering you unable to fight and pinning down your buddies because they have to help you. Other than that, a city has far more angles of attack than an open or wooded area. You can litterally get shot from almost any angle imaginable, so while making good time between buildings can sound like a good idea, you're far more likely to draw attention to yourself and your unit and far more likely to overlook a threat that could have been dealt with.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jun 13, 2013 20:04:07 GMT
*Light Bulb moment*
Think on this, having a 'build' test may not be the best way forward. Some people are going to be naturally better than others, it is a 'problem' that has a fairly straightforward way to progress and the need for a control means that you are basically giving your test subjects a chance to practice.
What about picking a problem that doesn't have such a clear solution? I'm thinking about say cleaning up a room. Bring in the test subjects and tell them they will be cleaning a room and what specifically they need to do - for example putting dirty plates in the washer, dirty clothes in the washing machine and so on. One group gets told this then dumped into the room to get to work. The other group is told this when in the room so they can see where everything is and allowed to plan - in both cases they are given the same amount of time between being given the instructions and set to work.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jun 13, 2013 20:12:47 GMT
Thing is, "product assembly" is a bit more objective, in that there are instructions and diagrams that can be appealed to during the judging phase.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 14, 2013 7:44:29 GMT
Transport, secure your load, take time to check, and spend less time picking up the pieces at the side of the road.....
A full post on how important it is to check twice can be boiled down to that simple statement.... Even Screamers get treated with utmost care... dont care how far back yesterday it was supposed to be there, I am going to chain the thing down so it dont slide off when I go round a bend?...
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jun 14, 2013 13:39:58 GMT
Transport, secure your load, take time to check, and spend less time picking up the pieces at the side of the road..... A full post on how important it is to check twice can be boiled down to that simple statement.... Even Screamers get treated with utmost care... dont care how far back yesterday it was supposed to be there, I am going to chain the thing down so it dont slide off when I go round a bend?... I had an ancestor who was a mule driver; his route took him between Utah and California. He was a very religious man, such that each Sunday he would park it somewhere and spend the morning reading his scriptures. His fellow drivers used to make fun of him for doing this, as they would drive their mules on Sunday as well. They stopped making fun of him once they added things up. You see, as soon as my ancestor was done with his morning readings, he would perform preventative maintenance. First off, he would assess how well he himself happened to be doing. Secondly, he would inspect his mules to ensure that they were doing well. His wagon would be third on the inspection list, with his cargo coming at the end. If he noted any problems, he would do what he could to rectify the situation while out on the road. In the process, his mules would essentially have a full day of down time, while he would at least have the morning for down time. The end result was that he would run more loads of cargo faster by taking Sundays off than would his peers who ran all seven days a week. His peers, because they did not stop, frequently ran themselves, their wagons, and their mules into the ground (so to speak); if his peers weren't losing time due to their being sick or injured, they were either losing time due to their mules being sick / injured or their wagons & equipment failing / breaking. In contrast, my ancestor suffered far fewer instances of illness, injury, and equipment failure due to both his resting and his taking time to conduct inspections.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 14, 2013 15:49:06 GMT
actually, I think this gets pretty much done to death on any number of competition shows. one group rushes and gets done first - but not correctly, while another takes the time to get it right and gets the win.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jun 14, 2013 16:14:28 GMT
Looking at this from the viewpoint of the show, the first stage would be to test in in general terms. The second stage would be to see if if always holds true or if there are situations where it is better to just plough through.
Off the top of my head I think that when doing painful or distasteful tasks it is better to just 'jump in' rather than think too hard about what you are doing.
|
|