5 ms·

“ Ideally, the resource gets used at 100% of its capacity “ Really this is what people think? For me it’s always been the opposite, use as little as possible t

“ Ideally, the resource gets used at 100% of its capacity “ Really this is what people think? For me it’s always been the opposite, use as little as possible to leave a lot head room, as much as possible. That’s like saying a gas guzzling car is more efficient than one that uses much less fuel.

dirtball_ 5y ago
I think you and the author may be in agreement on this topic. Following your example of cars, having a large gas-guzzling full-size truck when you drive by yourself 5 miles to the supermarket once a week would indicate that the vehicle is being used at a low percentage of its capacity. If it were loaded up hauling heavy equipment and materials, to and from jobsites for example, then it would be near 100% capacity. For the weekly grocery run, it is wasteful to have this truck since it is used at low capacity. One would be better served with a much smaller vehicle, even perhaps one that is human-powered (such as a bicycle). "Ideally, the resource gets used at 100% of its capacity: we have enough capacity to serve our needs without generating queues, but not so much that we’re wasting money on idle resources." The large (expensive) truck only used on the grocery run would be wasting money on idle resources, since it is capable of doing much more work but is rarely used.
- rightbyte 5y ago
  Car decays by age but mainly by miles. Sooner or later the car will have reached 100% capacity even if just used once a week. Which I think is a good point against the "efficency" idiom. Taxis are on the other end of the spectrum.
Jtsummers 5y ago
Unfortunately yes, there are managers out there who act that way and seem to equate "efficiency" with time spent occupied doing work (whether useful or not, in the end). A widget making machine that's only producing 25% of its potential most of the time is waste, in their view, and so they want it to run at 100%. But that produces excess, potentially unconsumable if there is no demand, output. Or, if given many widget machines and noting that only one or a few are "necessary" (in theory), they retool or sell off the excess (probably not all at once, it's a little-by-little thing). Which leaves them unable to handle excess production when it's needed, or to handle when one of the machines is down for maintenance or repairs (which it will need more often, it's running at 100% so will breakdown faster and there's no time to turn it off for regular maintenance).
9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
I share a similar definition of efficiency with you. As my default sense of the word: minimal energy expenditure for maximal work. Seems like people are mixing up utilization and efficiency. High utilization can definitely lead to reduced efficiency.
js8 5y ago
This is a definition of (neoclassical) economic "efficiency", aka Pareto efficiency. Making sure that all resources available are all used up to maximum. That's what they mean when they say "markets are efficient". Side effects of this ideology are stressed out people and destroyed planet.
refurb 5y ago
Unless your unused resources cost you nothing, leaving a ton of "slack" or "head room" is inefficient because it's expensive. To use your car analogy, it's like buying a car when you need transportation 1 day a year. That's inefficient because that resource is unused 99% of the time. Far smarter to get an Uber for one that day.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
hef19898 5y ago
Unfortunately, yes. I encountered it with people, warehouses, machines... In all of those cases aiming for 100% is just a bad idea. People burn out or find creative ways to look busy, warehouses loose all flexibility and create a shit load of problems without breathing room, machines at 100% build an enormous maintenance backlog and mountains of WIP and inventory nobody needs (except for having the machine running close to 100%). No idea why people actually think 100% utilization of any resource would be a good idea... I guess it helps if your 100% are including pointless meetings as part of "productive" time.
- tertius 5y ago
  See hospitals...

dirtball_ 5y ago

I think you and the author may be in agreement on this topic. Following your example of cars, having a large gas-guzzling full-size truck when you drive by yourself 5 miles to the supermarket once a week would indicate that the vehicle is being used at a low percentage of its capacity. If it were loaded up hauling heavy equipment and materials, to and from jobsites for example, then it would be near 100% capacity. For the weekly grocery run, it is wasteful to have this truck since it is used at low capacity. One would be better served with a much smaller vehicle, even perhaps one that is human-powered (such as a bicycle). "Ideally, the resource gets used at 100% of its capacity: we have enough capacity to serve our needs without generating queues, but not so much that we’re wasting money on idle resources." The large (expensive) truck only used on the grocery run would be wasting money on idle resources, since it is capable of doing much more work but is rarely used.

rightbyte 5y ago
Car decays by age but mainly by miles. Sooner or later the car will have reached 100% capacity even if just used once a week. Which I think is a good point against the "efficency" idiom. Taxis are on the other end of the spectrum.

Jtsummers 5y ago

Unfortunately yes, there are managers out there who act that way and seem to equate "efficiency" with time spent occupied doing work (whether useful or not, in the end). A widget making machine that's only producing 25% of its potential most of the time is waste, in their view, and so they want it to run at 100%. But that produces excess, potentially unconsumable if there is no demand, output. Or, if given many widget machines and noting that only one or a few are "necessary" (in theory), they retool or sell off the excess (probably not all at once, it's a little-by-little thing). Which leaves them unable to handle excess production when it's needed, or to handle when one of the machines is down for maintenance or repairs (which it will need more often, it's running at 100% so will breakdown faster and there's no time to turn it off for regular maintenance).

9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago

I share a similar definition of efficiency with you. As my default sense of the word: minimal energy expenditure for maximal work. Seems like people are mixing up utilization and efficiency. High utilization can definitely lead to reduced efficiency.

js8 5y ago

This is a definition of (neoclassical) economic "efficiency", aka Pareto efficiency. Making sure that all resources available are all used up to maximum. That's what they mean when they say "markets are efficient". Side effects of this ideology are stressed out people and destroyed planet.

refurb 5y ago

Unless your unused resources cost you nothing, leaving a ton of "slack" or "head room" is inefficient because it's expensive. To use your car analogy, it's like buying a car when you need transportation 1 day a year. That's inefficient because that resource is unused 99% of the time. Far smarter to get an Uber for one that day.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

hef19898 5y ago

Unfortunately, yes. I encountered it with people, warehouses, machines... In all of those cases aiming for 100% is just a bad idea. People burn out or find creative ways to look busy, warehouses loose all flexibility and create a shit load of problems without breathing room, machines at 100% build an enormous maintenance backlog and mountains of WIP and inventory nobody needs (except for having the machine running close to 100%). No idea why people actually think 100% utilization of any resource would be a good idea... I guess it helps if your 100% are including pointless meetings as part of "productive" time.

tertius 5y ago
See hospitals...