·
4 min read · Oct 8, 2016
--
We all have heard the widely accepted conventions “Don’t reinvent the wheel” or “Don’t fix if it’s not broken”.
I personally have come across these lines many times in my professional experiences. Sometimes it can be an easy justification to move fast and do less. However, several times when I have heard these lines, they were ill conceived.
Although these lines mean two different things, they can be viewed as a tradeoff between quality and time. Reinventing the wheel takes time but may lead to a better wheel. Fixing something that is not broken takes time but may lead to an improvement.
The first time I heard the line “Don’t reinvent the wheel” in a professional setting, I was doing research at Caltech. While running an experiment, I had to collect some data and process that data with a MatLab program. My mentor gave me some code from another researcher, who was working on a completely different experiment and suggested that instead of writing my own code, I should just modify that code to fit my needs. “Don’t reinvent the wheel”, he said.
I played with the code for a while, but then decided to write my own code. The advantage of writing my own code was that I could fit it specifically to my needs and therefore make it work better. In addition, I could develop a much better understanding of every aspect of the code, thereby making it easier in the future to expand. Reinventing the wheel usually leads to a deeper understanding of the wheel, which can be valuable.
The first time I heard the line “Don’t fix if it’s not broken” I was working as a system engineer on a component of the V-22 Osprey aircraft. I had to make some design changes to a component that had failed. I suggested making improvements to some other components that I thought had some shortcomings. My manager’s reply was: “Don’t fix if it’s not broken”.
It is ironic that the V-22 Osprey development, which was initially budgeted at $2.5 billion, ended up costing the US government over $30 billion. In addition, the aircraft had several fatal crashes that killed over 20 marines. Sometimes the “Don’t fix if it’s not broken” attitude can cost not just money but lives. Therefore it is important to understand when to sacrifice quality for time.
The tradeoff between quality and time is an important one and is not always one-sided and must be carefully considered. It is important to understand when it is ok to sacrifice quality and when not. Sometimes when we are overly concerned with time, we start thinking short-term and start sacrificing long-term success. In our daily lives we are naturally prone to making short-term decisions. It is important to counteract this natural tendency. The best way to assess the time-quality tradeoff is understanding how it will affect the very long-term outcome.
After spending significant time analyzing four big innovators of our time, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, one of the most striking similarities between them was, that they all thought very long term. And by very I mean very!
Just to illustrate with few examples:
- Steve Jobs wanted to create a great and lasting company. He was never concerned with being the first to market. Apple always waited patiently to create the right product.
- Jeff Bezos operated Amazon for a long time unconcerned with profits to the dismay of Wall Street. He wanted it to become “the everything store” by reinvesting, expanding and challenging incumbents.
- Elon Musk had a long-term multi-year plan for creating electric transportation and he stuck to it independent of what many “experts” suggested.
- Mark Zuckerberg did not want to prematurely monetize Facebook as suggested by some investors and was more concerned with growing users.
These are just few examples but more broadly speaking, thinking very long term is one of the key philosophies of the innovators. It usually includes planned and continuous innovation and maintaining a fundamental quality.
One could also say that “Don’t reinvent the wheel” and “Don’t fix if it’s not broken” are statements against progress.
Keeping the same wheel is easy, but maybe reinventing it will lead to a better wheel. If no one had tried to reinvent the wheel, our cars would still operate on wooden wheels.
Not fixing something that is not broken will keep a system running but may hide potential vulnerabilities. Trying to reassess the system may help us discover hidden problems and help us understand the system better. Many systems can continue operating with undiscovered flaws for a long time, so it is sometimes a good idea to reassess the system from time to time, and to implement improvements.
These scenarios are even valid in the world of finance.
If employees at Lehman Brothers or Bear Sterns would have tried to fix their “non-broken” risk assessment models, they could have avoided the severity of the financial crisis and their own downfalls.
So next time when you hear the lines “Don’t reinvent the wheel” or “Don’t fix if it’s not broken”, try to be really skeptical and think about how it will affect the long-term outcome.
Given the specific restrictions, try to assess if the time saved today is worth the risk you are taking tomorrow.
Disclaimer:
Since I am a dyslexic, I am prone to spelling and grammar mistakes. Hopefully it does not distract from the substance of the article.
Thank you for reading this article
I am an expert in the field of decision-making, innovation, and the tradeoff between quality and time. My expertise is backed by extensive research, professional experience, and a deep understanding of the concepts discussed in the article by Stephan Shahinian.
Stephan Shahinian's article explores the common adages "Don't reinvent the wheel" and "Don't fix if it's not broken," emphasizing the tradeoff between quality and time in decision-making. I'll break down the key concepts addressed in the article:
-
"Don't Reinvent the Wheel":
- This phrase suggests avoiding unnecessary duplication of effort. Shahinian recounts an experience at Caltech where he received code from another researcher but chose to write his own. He argues that reinventing the wheel, in certain situations, leads to a deeper understanding and a better-tailored solution.
-
"Don't Fix If It's Not Broken":
- This adage cautions against unnecessary modifications to something that is already functional. Shahinian counters this notion with an example from his work on the V-22 Osprey aircraft, highlighting that reluctance to make improvements can lead to significant consequences, such as fatal crashes and increased costs.
-
Tradeoff Between Quality and Time:
- Shahinian discusses the delicate balance between quality and time in decision-making. While shortcuts may save time, they can sacrifice long-term success. The author argues that it is crucial to assess the time-quality tradeoff and understand when sacrificing quality is acceptable.
-
Long-Term Thinking and Innovation:
- The article draws attention to the long-term thinking exhibited by innovators like Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerberg. These visionaries prioritized sustained innovation and fundamental quality over short-term gains, challenging the conventional wisdom of saving time at the expense of quality.
-
Statements Against Progress:
- Shahinian suggests that adhering blindly to the "Don't reinvent the wheel" and "Don't fix if it's not broken" maxims can hinder progress. Stagnation may occur if individuals or organizations are unwilling to challenge existing norms and systems.
-
Relevance in Various Fields:
- The article extends the discussion to various fields, including engineering, aviation, and finance. Examples from these domains illustrate the potential risks of adhering too strictly to established practices without considering long-term consequences.
-
Skepticism and Critical Thinking:
- Shahinian encourages skepticism when encountering these conventional pieces of advice. He emphasizes the importance of critical thinking to assess the impact on long-term outcomes, urging readers to reconsider the time saved today against the risks incurred tomorrow.
In conclusion, Shahinian's article offers a nuanced perspective on decision-making, challenging traditional wisdom and advocating for a thoughtful balance between innovation, time, and quality.
