3 ms·
I would argue "efficiency" is the wrong word for what we discuss. Efficiency means optimising resource usage while achieving goals. If we need flexibility to ac
by kqr 4y ago
I would argue "efficiency" is the wrong word for what we discuss. Efficiency means optimising resource usage while achieving goals. If we need flexibility to achieve our goals consistently (and you usually do) then flexibility is part of efficiency (and effectiveness and efficacy) rather than opposed to it.
Phrased differently: if you define "efficiency" to mean "optimise for a single proxy metric and not what you're actually interested in" then yes, of course efficiency and effectiveness will be opposed other than sometimes by chance. But that's a dumb definition of efficiency!
- phkx 4y agoTo me, efficiency means achieving a desired goal while consuming a minimum of resources (time, energy, space, …). If the goal is defined in a too narrow scope, i.e. your ‚dumb‘ definition of efficiency, the flexibility may be missing. Still, that particular goal may be reached efficiently. So it’s not an issue with the definition of efficiency, but rather with scoping the problem. As the article states, it may not always be possible to scope the problem in an easily measurable way, hence optimizing for proxy targets.
- kqr 4y agoIt seems to me you're making the same terminology mistake, only shifted one layer back! You're expressing yourself as if the "too narrow metrics" were the goal in and of themselves. I would argue the metrics are never the goal -- the fuzzy intention they're proxying for is always the goal.