Avoiding Additive Bias - Solving problems by Removing Instead of Adding
I have been guilty of this bias. We tend to choose the easy and incremental path of adding resources/things than looking at the whole and subtracting.
Often, the way to solve a problem is by removing things, not adding more.
Here are some examples
1. Fewer features/tasks, not more people
I have seen teams hiring more people to hit an elusive deadline. Adding more people adds a lot of overhead. Instead, narrowing the scope of what needs to be done is usually a better and cheaper approach.
2. Fewer priorities, not more goals
“If you have more than three priorities, you don't have any,” says Collins
Few important goals that are aligned with your priorities are better than many goals that are not congruent with your future self. Less is more in this context.
3. Removing inefficiencies, not printing more money
This is on both government level system levels.
Throwing more memory or computing resource would not solve the underlying issue of a badly designed system. Breaking down the system and removing inefficiencies is a better approach.
4. Braess's paradox
Adding one or more roads to a road network can slow overall traffic flow.
5. More regulations or restrictions brings more problems
I see this all the time. Adding more regulation or governance as a result of a failure or an outage.
More regulations, more overheads, slower release, slow feedback, and more risk of outage and failure.
6. KonMari
:)
No comments.