Efficiency Is Not Always Effectiveness

By Lisa K. Westerbuck, Department of Commerce

At the Bureau of Economic Analysis, we proposed to upgrade our desktop manager for e-mail, appointments and applications access to a new version of the software that would offer point-and-click technology, enhanced functionality and an integration of tools. For instance, in the upgraded version of the software, the user could schedule appointments from the e-mail system. My role was to ensure a successful roll-out of the new software, from both technical and process perspectives, because we had already seen many excellent systems fail due to poor introduction procedures.

Our first step was to weigh the benefits of the new software, both short and long term, against the costs of the upgrade, actual software costs, the time and resources needed to plan and implement the upgrade, and the training and learning time for end users.

Our way of introducing a new information technology product was to plan and implement a standard training package. This was the most efficient way of using our scarce resources. However, this efficient approach was not always the most effective. We had to plan a more effective approach. We met with our customers to explain the advantages of applying the new software to their jobs. After several meetings, we found that our customers differed greatly in their needs, attitudes and requirements and that the standard training approach would result in less-than-satisfactory acceptance.

I thought perhaps it would be worthwhile to sacrifice short-term efficiency for long-term effectiveness. Therefore, we divided our end users into three categories: the information technology geniuses-those who clamor for the opportunity to conquer new technical horizons; the technically adept-those who welcome technology advances and readily see new applications for the software as the means to achieve business goals; and the recalcitrant group, the technologically impaired-those who fear and hate technology of any kind, and are almost impossible to please, no matter what you do.

The software roll-out was a success. The new software provided welcome improvements: Users were functional immediately at a basic level, and within a short period of time at a higher level that took advantage of the new functionality. Business goals were also achieved more readily. Only one concern marred the otherwise successful implementation. Some of those in the truly recalcitrant category, though in the end accepting of and even approving of the new software, criticized the special attention they received. They did not like it at all. Surely, they thought, the resource costs for the individualized consultations must have been exorbitant to learn to use such simple software!

Lisa K. Westerbuck is the director of the Office of Information Planning and Review for the Commerce Department, administering information technology investment review, security, architecture and Y2K programs. She previously served as deputy chief information officer at the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Lessons

• Stable and predictable tasks that undergo minimal changes call for the best utilization of resources (i.e., efficiency). Dynamic and uncertain tasks that experience frequent changes call first for achieving the results (i.e., effectiveness). For these tasks, utilizing resources in the best way is a secondary goal if it is a goal at all. Introducing a change is always a task of the second type.
• An efficient outcome that proves ineffective is at best worthless, and at worst costly to repair. First do it right; then look for efficiencies.
• Consider the impact that short-term "efficient" decisions will have on long-term customer satisfaction. In the end, it's the customer that counts.
• Standardized answers for customers who have different needs will lead to unsatisfactory results. If you cannot tailor your approach for each customer, then classify customers into distinct segments and plan a strategy appropriate to each community.