« "Could a Blog Help My Client?" | Main | A case for the database »
February 19, 2005
Business & Physics
Momentum, in business, is things happening faster. It's not just growth, it's more growth than the same period last time. Momentum, in physics, is the product of the mass of an object multiplied by its velocity.
This means that to increase momentum you need to move more mass or you need to move it faster. Force, in physics, is the time rate of change of momentum.
To increase momentum you need force. So momentum is how fast a mass is moving and force is how fast a mass is accelerating.
I'm curious how, if at all, the physics way of looking at these things relates to the business way of looking at them. Let's say we are working for a client. Our job is to increase momentum. We can do that either by doing more, or doing the same amount faster. Faster, in this analogy, probably means more often. Either do more stuff, or do it more often, or both. But to do this we need force. What force do we apply to achieve this change in momentum? The force is that portion of the work we do that effects the outcome. Note the distinction. A lot of the work that we do in a given day is sort of like friction in a machine -- it steals energy from the system. Yet friction or other inefficiencies are an inherent part of all systems. So our total capability to change momentum, the total force, is proportional to our efficiency. If you push against a box and the box doesn't move, according to physics, you've done no work. The same might in some sense be true of business.
This is not to say that administration and such is a waste of time. Such activities are necessary for any business. If done correctly these activities should increase efficiency in some way and so ultimately contribute to the amount of force that can be applied.
Posted by Michael at February 19, 2005 05:17 PM
Comments
If I read you correctly, this is basically a VERY nerdy way of saying that process shouldn't get in the way of the work. I agree with you - process (and the administrative-type tasks that are inherent in and process) should enhance the capability of the group to move work through efficiently. That being said, process at times can seem to hinder work at first glance when in fact they prevent a lot of re-work later.
I'm not sure if that makes sense, but basically you can push through a lot of tasks quickly without a process but the likelihood that you'll have to go back and re-do things later - or that the team's overall time will be mis-managed because of stops and starts - is increased.
So, short run - process can feel like a slowdown. Long run - or big picture - I think it can increase the "total force" as you put it.
May the total force be with you.
Posted by: Meghan ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.techevangelists.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 21, 2005 11:42 AM
Also, it is important to remember that the only way to determine whether a "process" is contributing to business momentum involves accurate, repeatable measurements: metrics.
Paradoxically enough, one must have a process in order to determine if more or less admin. is needed. If the company is a rolling marble, I certainly support polishing it---even if that means some work with no immediate return.
Posted by: Matt at February 21, 2005 12:17 PM
Are you saying administration is really just lube?
Posted by: databl1p at February 21, 2005 03:12 PM
This post was really just an experiment. Originally my thought didn't extend past this statement: "Either do more stuff, or do it more often, or both." I stretched a bit on the "force" stuff and it may or may not make sense.
I agree completely that efficiency is measured in the long term, not the short term. I also agree that metrics are key to measuring efficiency. And yes, in a sense, adminstration is or at least should be "lube". If it doesn't ultimately make us more productive, something is wrong.
So while I think it is true that many companies spend too much effort on things that do not effect the outcome of their work product, that probably distracted from my real point, which is that p=mv and if we want p to grow we need more m, more v or both.
May the physics be with you.
Posted by: Michael at February 21, 2005 03:23 PM