When is efficiency too efficient? This is a question that many institutions and companies need to begin addressing as they look at their strategic planning function. I believe the Doppler Effect can come in handy as I explain this.

The Doppler Effect boils down to perceived differences in sound and/or light waves as they approach an object, from the standpoint of the object. The demonstration of this effect was first done with a train approaching a station. Doppler placed a band on a railroad car and had them play at a set volume with observers on the station platform recording their perceptions and a control group riding with the band to make sure that any variances were duly noted. The sound appeared to rise in pitch as the band's car approached the platform, and fall again as it passed by and traveled away from it.

What this has to do with the price of tannic acid-bearing beverages in the Orient is that our overall goal within the technology sector has been 'faster and faster' for as long as we can remember. We have gone from a standpoint of paper-based systems to a world where 'paper' is more of a presentation option than a requirement, and where 2400 baud has gone from bleeding edge to humorous aside.

The end result, though, is that the drive towards efficiency has driven us to the point of frustration. The faster we cause a process to go, the more work that appears for us to do. As we further streamline that work, amazingly, more work shows up. We reach a point where we find out that we can split hairs to fine points, without remembering that splitting hairs is sometimes not value-added at all.

We have gone from a world that asks, "Can we," to being a world that states, "we can." The problem is that we have been asking ourselves the wrong question. The question we need to ask is, "Should we?" Should we continue a sojourn to eliminate human contact in exchange for efficiency and cost savings, or are we on a Lamper curve where we reach a point of diminishing returns and should stop to focus on what is important (reference S. Covey's matrix)?

As an example, we are now seeing self-check out aisles in grocery stores, and we can monitor many aisles with one individual. These are convenient machines, and they leverage the very stable technology of bar coding to new heights of convenience, except that there is a lag between the efficiency of those systems and the system of currency we use, so that the new and efficient technology actually causes delays in our processes.

That lag is the newly-designed $20 bill. On a recent trip to the store, there were signs posted about the machines' inability to accept the new currency for purchases. A human cashier would be able to accept new and old currency, but the machines could only accept the old currency. If someone bought a pack of gum, they would have to use a credit or debit card if all they had was a perfectly good $20 bill (or they could get all the way up to the machine to read the small sign, then have to go get in line at one of the other aisles. It is tempting to say that is an isolated event, but if you take a close look, examples of similar substance are visible all over. Consider computer systems that don't 'play well' together, or prices entered incorrectly into a database.

In our march toward efficiency and good technology (and with apologies to Taylor and Galbraith) we need to pay due homage to the Holy Grail of truly functional systems - the flexibility of the human element. Our technological Doppler effect of lagging but related technologies means that the only link that can make sense of the lag is the human observer on the platform. According to the individual technology and the functional chimneys involved (represented by the railroad car and the band on the car), the efficiency is steady and wonderful, but according to the application, the overall effect can be confusing and seem out of sorts.

The bottom line is that we all need to be in pursuit of sanity within design, and to remember that Knowledge Management is more than data transfer and manipulation - it includes the 'mushy' art of nuance and intent, applied to competitive advantage and growth. We can do all manner of things with our technological innovation, but we should only do those things which further the overall goals of our professional efforts, favoring overall 'good' rather than point-by-point efficiency.