Given a choice, should you take the 80% solution you can do now or the 100% solution you have to wait for?
The bottom line here is, clearly, available time and effort. Assuming you have the resources to make either happen, it comes down to which one can you get done prior to any relevant deadlines and whether or not the difference in time and effort will impact negatively other projects (recall the 80/20 Rule).
The awful truth is we don't always get to do the best thing every time nor can we always put out our best effort on what we do. A simple example is this: you have two projects to get done, A and B. Project A is due in a week, Project B is due in 10 days (calendar days and weeks, not business days and weeks). Project A needs a week's worth to do really well, but three days to be a satisfactory result. Project B has the same setup. Late is very bad (like you don't get paid, lose a contract, or fail a class). What do you do?
I'd plan for eight days days of work (four days in on each) and have an extra "emergency" day for each and live with a better than minimal but less than optimal result on both. Should I get more done than I thought, that's great (but not likely). On the other hand, I have two days to help get all the requirements met to at least a satisfactory level.
How does this relate? 80% now versus 100% later is all about priorities and bottom lines. In the above case the point is get the job done, not get it done perfectly. It says, in short, take what you can get and move on to the next priority item. It is, in short, slash and burn project planning.
Sometimes its more important to get the job done than getting it done well.
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Bang Per Buck in Carbon Emission Reduction
In economics, there's a principle colloquially known as the "Bang Per Buck" principle. In short, at the equilibrium (also the maximum profit/utility), the cost per additional unit of every output is equal.
It turns out there is nothing special about this fact. The mathematics indicates it's true for any local maximum or minimum. So, if we want to get maximal carbon reduction, we need to adjust the mix of measures until the cost per unit of additional reductions is equal across all methods. In this way we can be confident we're getting the most reduction for our money.
In practice, the way to do it is to start with those approaches which cost least per unit of reduction until it's equal to the next cheapest and then use whichever one of those is cheapest and so on. If you're buying sponges on a budget, all the sponges are equally good, and you need more than any one store has, then you start at the cheapest store (ideally taking transportation and time costs into account), buy them all, and then move on to the next cheapest store. What works for sponges works for carbon.
So before you go out and buy yourself a $4 lightbulb, at least do this math:
It turns out there is nothing special about this fact. The mathematics indicates it's true for any local maximum or minimum. So, if we want to get maximal carbon reduction, we need to adjust the mix of measures until the cost per unit of additional reductions is equal across all methods. In this way we can be confident we're getting the most reduction for our money.
In practice, the way to do it is to start with those approaches which cost least per unit of reduction until it's equal to the next cheapest and then use whichever one of those is cheapest and so on. If you're buying sponges on a budget, all the sponges are equally good, and you need more than any one store has, then you start at the cheapest store (ideally taking transportation and time costs into account), buy them all, and then move on to the next cheapest store. What works for sponges works for carbon.
So before you go out and buy yourself a $4 lightbulb, at least do this math:
- Add up how much the old fashioned kind would cost over the expected life of the $4 bulb.
- Add up the energy cost of using those old bulbs.
- Add up the energy cost of the $4 bulb.
- Add lines one and two. Call this "A".
- Add $4 to line 3. Call this "B".
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Interconnectivity, Interstate Commerice, and the US Constitution
In the US Constitution, Congress is granted the power to regulate interstate commerce. Everyone, even those who follow the strictest versions of the enumerated powers and similar doctrines acknowledges this. Hard not to, as it's right there written on hemp paper (the irony of which should disturb all intelligent persons).
The question is this: what does it mean to participate in interstate commerce?
The "interstate" part is relatively easy: something which crosses state lines. It's the "commerce" part which is usually harder. But even accepting any relatively strict definition, it stands to reason that to regulate interstate commerce, one must regulate those who participate in it (as cows, grain, and iron ingots don't really care about statutes). So regulation of interstate commerce really amounts to regulating the action of people insofar as they participate in the system of interstate commerce.
So what does it mean to participate in interstate commerce? This is hard to answer, but what it means to NOT participate in interstate commerce should be pretty easy. From an economic point of view, not participating would mean the impact of some person's economic activity is localized, e.g. that they do not impact markets in any other state. The negate of this is that a person who does participate in interstate commerce engages in economic activity is one whose economic activity impacts other states.
This implies that the extent of the Federal Government's power to regulate economic activity would grow (and the states' would shrink) with the rise of the interconnectivity of the economic activity of different localities. In the days of the Founding Fathers, it is hard to imagine Upstate New York having a major impact on the South Carolina countryside and even that adjacent counties might suffer independent economic fates. This has, thanks largely to the increase in speed and efficacy of both communications and transportation largely ended. While some parts of the nation may seem like they are not even in the same national economy, if you went looking you would doubtless find that almost everyone has a product with a component from almost any state (and most nations).
In reality, though, a simple reading of the Constitution reveals an interesting fact: the Founding Fathers were well aware of the high levels of interconnectedness and interdependence. Take, for instance, the clause regulating the power to issue money. If the thirteen colonies were only incidentally connected, this would hardly be a major or even necessary provision. But it is there. Likewise in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers there was acute awareness of the interconnectedness of the colonies if for no other reason than by way of the acknowledgment of the efficacy of a strong central government if allowed to act. This leads me to believe that even in the time of the Founding Fathers the idea of a man who does not engage in some way with markets which have interstate impacts was a pleasant myth perpetuated to argue for limitation of Federal powers. If it was a myth then, it is even more of a myth now.
So it looks like the answer is simple. When in the 1940's the US Supreme Court reasoned it was well neigh impossible for one to avoid engaging in commerce lacking an impact across state lines, it wasn't so much judicial activism as a simple recognition of the fact we are all economically interconnected both within and across state lines.
The question is this: what does it mean to participate in interstate commerce?
The "interstate" part is relatively easy: something which crosses state lines. It's the "commerce" part which is usually harder. But even accepting any relatively strict definition, it stands to reason that to regulate interstate commerce, one must regulate those who participate in it (as cows, grain, and iron ingots don't really care about statutes). So regulation of interstate commerce really amounts to regulating the action of people insofar as they participate in the system of interstate commerce.
So what does it mean to participate in interstate commerce? This is hard to answer, but what it means to NOT participate in interstate commerce should be pretty easy. From an economic point of view, not participating would mean the impact of some person's economic activity is localized, e.g. that they do not impact markets in any other state. The negate of this is that a person who does participate in interstate commerce engages in economic activity is one whose economic activity impacts other states.
This implies that the extent of the Federal Government's power to regulate economic activity would grow (and the states' would shrink) with the rise of the interconnectivity of the economic activity of different localities. In the days of the Founding Fathers, it is hard to imagine Upstate New York having a major impact on the South Carolina countryside and even that adjacent counties might suffer independent economic fates. This has, thanks largely to the increase in speed and efficacy of both communications and transportation largely ended. While some parts of the nation may seem like they are not even in the same national economy, if you went looking you would doubtless find that almost everyone has a product with a component from almost any state (and most nations).
In reality, though, a simple reading of the Constitution reveals an interesting fact: the Founding Fathers were well aware of the high levels of interconnectedness and interdependence. Take, for instance, the clause regulating the power to issue money. If the thirteen colonies were only incidentally connected, this would hardly be a major or even necessary provision. But it is there. Likewise in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers there was acute awareness of the interconnectedness of the colonies if for no other reason than by way of the acknowledgment of the efficacy of a strong central government if allowed to act. This leads me to believe that even in the time of the Founding Fathers the idea of a man who does not engage in some way with markets which have interstate impacts was a pleasant myth perpetuated to argue for limitation of Federal powers. If it was a myth then, it is even more of a myth now.
So it looks like the answer is simple. When in the 1940's the US Supreme Court reasoned it was well neigh impossible for one to avoid engaging in commerce lacking an impact across state lines, it wasn't so much judicial activism as a simple recognition of the fact we are all economically interconnected both within and across state lines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
