Comments on: Time is Not Always Correlated to Value

By: Ian Selvarajah

Ian Selvarajah — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:22:00 +0000

gems – It took me a second to figure out how it is that you’re clocking 65-70 hours while still working 9-5. What you’re saying is that a system estimates your throughput in that time and it comes out to the equivalent of 65-70 hours right? Good stuff!!

At least you have a system that’s able to estimate that kind of thing, so it’s pretty obvious that you’re a top performer. As to your coworker, the perception might be there, but I would think that if the estimate is compared to the actual that it will show that you’re a much better (or at least more efficient) employee than she is!

Imagine what a hard time I have working in consulting when we’re expected to bill AT LEAST 40-45 hours/week!!

By: gems

gems — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 01:09:00 +0000

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a co-worker today. We have a master schedule that estimates your hours for the week. Mine currently, and usually, has about 65-70 hours listed, but I regularly work 9-5 and another hour or so after dinner. Meanwhile, my co-worker has only 45-50 hours, but regularly has to skip lunch and stay late every night to keep up.

It made me question if the bosses see her as a better employee than I am because she is always there....

Is being efficient valued in this type of environment?

By: Ian Selvarajah

Ian Selvarajah — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:15:00 +0000

Niroshinie – Great example; this [office stuff] is typically what I’m referring to.

I think we both agree on which method is better!!

By: niroshinie

niroshinie — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:42:00 +0000

i dont think ‘time’ is an absolute measurement at all – except in cases where quality increases with time. Such as wine i suppose. But those are specific cases.
A bad programmer may write hundreds and hundreds of perfectly unreadable code and take ages to do it. This same program could be written by a good programmer in simpler code and less time. Which method is better?

By: Ian Selvarajah

Ian Selvarajah — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:56:00 +0000

Sorry guys, the internet in my hotel has been down the last couple of days...

@L - You're right, years of experience means that you can probably do something faster. However, the question is: Does the value of the output change as a function of time?

In your example, is the painting worth more if an inexperienced artist produced it in 40 hours versus a highly skilled artist who produced the same thing in 10? Assuming of course that the paintings are identical.

@Darwin - Well, when dealing with things in nature that absolutely do require time to elapse for progress, yes, of course. However, this is independent of the person doing it. Unless of course someone finds a faster way to "grow" bacterial cultures? And in that case, are the ones that take longer to grow more valuable?

@RD - I absolutely agree that Blink was a fantastic book. I actually left it for my aunt H in Edinburgh when I went to visit.

"But that doesn't necessarily mean that the snare drums sound better than ones I could have made myself in half an hour out of old bits and pieces."

Yup, this is the point I'm making. The "value" is a question of perception and not necessarily reality. The "Master" snare drums in your case are on the assumption that this person takes a long time to build his high quality snares.

I'm sure you'd be shocked and disappointed if one day you found out that these were actually being manufactured in a factory in China! :)

But I also think that the gut feeling of a person with a vast amount of experience and skill is usually worth more than that of a person without the background knowledge.

I agree completely.

By: Rhythmic Diaspora

Rhythmic Diaspora — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:48:00 +0000

I think we often value something more highly when we know that a person has spent a lot of time and effort in creating it. For example I own a couple of snare drums that are worth quite a lot of money because they have been made by a master drum builder and they have been signed and certified by him.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that the snare drums sound better than ones I could have made myself in half an hour out of old bits and pieces.

In terms of decisions I am a firm believer in the power of gut feelings and instincts, and "Blink" was a very influential book for me. But I also think that the gut feeling of a person with a vast amount of experience and skill is usually worth more than that of a person without the background knowledge.

Thanks for the post Ian, thought provoking stuff.

By: Darwin

Darwin — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:20:00 +0000

We had a similar problem when the -80C freezer where we store all our bacterial cultures was going to be insured. We were asked to estimate the value of the contents and we didn’t quite know how to go about it. In one hand the contents were priceless as they were the stock cultures from which all the work was being done on, but to actually put a price on it? Do you factor in the # of days it took to clone up a certain gene and construct the plasmid that is now sitting inside the bacterial cell? Do you take into account the enzymes and other reagents that were used during the process? We ‘guesstimated’ the freezer at about £100K but it’s still very vague, most of the stuff CAN be made again were disaster to strike, but the time lost would be astronomical, so I think time is correlated to value in this particular case

By: L

Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:10:00 +0000

Just a thought.

The time spent may not be directly related to the particular task. It may also represent the time and resources spent on learning and perfecting skills to improve the efficiency of making the right decisions, actions etc. prior to executing the task on hand.

So for example a skilful artist may be able to produce a masterpiece in a short time due to a life time of practice.