A long-standing adage states that, "Time is money." If that is the case, do companies or governments evaluate decisions based on time or just based on money?
Certainly, there are instances where there is minimal time to make a decision; the only practical consideration of 'time' is that there is little available. Meanwhile, a number of useful calculations exist in finance and economics to consider number of years spent on projects and the time value of money. Accounting practices also consider concepts such as appreciation and depreciation.
Still, companies and governments must consider the results and consequences of their decisions. What may save time now may cost time later. Again, what may save time now may cost time later.
Let's consider the following example. Things are somewhat hectic for a company right now. The company has found several new clients and is scrambling to hire the personnel to meet the new work demands. With new employee training and new client training, less time is available in order to handle daily business. Company management meets and decides that training time must be cut and/or product/service/process evaluation and innovation must stop at this time. By taking on one or both of these measures, the company will save time and have more time to handle daily business.
Simple enough, right? Maybe not. Cutting back on training may save time now, but inadequate training will result in repetitive mistakes and additional time to correct these mistakes. Odds are, repeating processes over and over again to retry to complete the same assignment will take more time than getting the process right the first or second time. In work environments with growing numbers of employees, this will have a multiplied effect. The frustrations with repetitive mistakes and redone work may lead to increased employee turnover because of terminations due to poor performance or resignations due to ongoing frustrations. In turn, clients may become dissatisfied by the lack of quality and quantity of work. Adequate training takes time. Spending less time in and of itself does not make things better. What may save time now may cost time later.
Likewise, reducing efforts towards product/service/process improvements may save time upfront but also may cause problems in the future. Avoiding evaluations of current products, services, and processes for possible revisions and improvements assumes that whatever is in place is perfect, good, or good enough. As a result, redundancies in processes or services or defects in the quality of products or services remain in play until otherwise treated. This is bad practice in today's competitive environment--company management should anticipate that someone else in the industry is trying to produce better products or provide better services than they are. Failure to innovate weakens a company's competitiveness and can be detrimental to employee morale and retention. Time may be saved because no changes are made, but the changes that could have been made could have saved time...over and over and over again. Evaluation and innovation takes time. Limiting time to make improvements limits growth. What may save time now may cost time later.
Have you faced this type of situation before? Does this sound like your current employer or a past employer? Chances are, you have experienced this on the job--I know I have. Have you experienced this as a client or customer? I know I have.
When making business decisions in the future, consider the value of time. Consider the results and consequences of decisions. What may save time now may cost time later. Knowing this, consider that spending time upfront may: save time, reduce frustrations, build up strong relationships, improve processes, and lead to company or civic growth.
Certainly, there are instances where there is minimal time to make a decision; the only practical consideration of 'time' is that there is little available. Meanwhile, a number of useful calculations exist in finance and economics to consider number of years spent on projects and the time value of money. Accounting practices also consider concepts such as appreciation and depreciation.
Still, companies and governments must consider the results and consequences of their decisions. What may save time now may cost time later. Again, what may save time now may cost time later.
Let's consider the following example. Things are somewhat hectic for a company right now. The company has found several new clients and is scrambling to hire the personnel to meet the new work demands. With new employee training and new client training, less time is available in order to handle daily business. Company management meets and decides that training time must be cut and/or product/service/process evaluation and innovation must stop at this time. By taking on one or both of these measures, the company will save time and have more time to handle daily business.
Simple enough, right? Maybe not. Cutting back on training may save time now, but inadequate training will result in repetitive mistakes and additional time to correct these mistakes. Odds are, repeating processes over and over again to retry to complete the same assignment will take more time than getting the process right the first or second time. In work environments with growing numbers of employees, this will have a multiplied effect. The frustrations with repetitive mistakes and redone work may lead to increased employee turnover because of terminations due to poor performance or resignations due to ongoing frustrations. In turn, clients may become dissatisfied by the lack of quality and quantity of work. Adequate training takes time. Spending less time in and of itself does not make things better. What may save time now may cost time later.
Likewise, reducing efforts towards product/service/process improvements may save time upfront but also may cause problems in the future. Avoiding evaluations of current products, services, and processes for possible revisions and improvements assumes that whatever is in place is perfect, good, or good enough. As a result, redundancies in processes or services or defects in the quality of products or services remain in play until otherwise treated. This is bad practice in today's competitive environment--company management should anticipate that someone else in the industry is trying to produce better products or provide better services than they are. Failure to innovate weakens a company's competitiveness and can be detrimental to employee morale and retention. Time may be saved because no changes are made, but the changes that could have been made could have saved time...over and over and over again. Evaluation and innovation takes time. Limiting time to make improvements limits growth. What may save time now may cost time later.
Have you faced this type of situation before? Does this sound like your current employer or a past employer? Chances are, you have experienced this on the job--I know I have. Have you experienced this as a client or customer? I know I have.
When making business decisions in the future, consider the value of time. Consider the results and consequences of decisions. What may save time now may cost time later. Knowing this, consider that spending time upfront may: save time, reduce frustrations, build up strong relationships, improve processes, and lead to company or civic growth.