Accelerated Irrelevance

What a pungent phrase! A recent review of the "Big 3" automakers in the United States used the phrase "accelerated irrelevance" in describing how the industry had reached it's current poor state of affairs. I think it could aptly apply to how many of us move through our day, week and sometimes, our very lives.

The phrase brings to mind the idea of moving more quickly away from what is relevant or important. It means choices made that are not grounded in a person (or industry's) purpose or mission statement. It is shaky ground to say the least.

Think about the last choice you made that moved you quickly away from what was more important. Was it an unimportant task you took on at home? How about a management decision you made at work that not only took you away from what was relevant, but it also propelled the people on your team in the same direction as well? One poor choice led to another until you were on a fast track to nowhere-nowhere important to be more specific.

The antithesis of the phrase is even more interesting: "Accelerated relevance." What choices could you make today that would move you more quickly back to what is important? Remember, we are all working and living at a breakneck pace-but in what direction (and how quickly) are we moving?

One Easy Way to Fail

I enjoyed an article in Inc Magazine recently titled, "How Hard Could It Be?: Five Easy Ways to Fail" by Joel Spolsky. The article mentioned five reasons technology projects go wrong. In line with the message of Juggling Elephants was "Mistake No. 5: Work till midnight". Some highlights from the article are:

• "There's a whole body of literature establishing that working more hours doesn't produce software any faster. Edward Yourdon, the software entrepreneur and author, dubbed this kind of project the 'death march.'"


• "Software development takes immense intellectual effort. Even the best programmers can rarely sustain that level of effort for more than a few hours a day. Beyond that, they need to rest their brains a bit."


• "Compelling employees to spend even more hours sitting in front of a computer won't really translate into more output--or if it does, it will be the wrong kind of output."


• "Running a death march is not the only way to make a project late and a budget buster. But it is a surefire way to do so."

I think the same concepts apply to "non-programmers" as well. A lot of times we feel that if we work longer hours we will be more productive and get more done. The reality is that the law of diminishing returns applies. We need to take daily intermissions and "rest our brains a bit". We need to maintain a good performance in all the rings of our life. A good, focused, 8 hour day will deliver better results in the long run.