<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Organizing for &#8220;Efficiency&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jrothman.com/blog/mpd/2005/02/organizing-for-efficiency.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jrothman.com/blog/mpd/2005/02/organizing-for-efficiency.html</link>
	<description>Management, especially good management, is hard to do. This blog is for people who want to think about how they manage people, projects, and risk.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:25:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Bullock</title>
		<link>http://jrothman.com/blog/mpd/2005/02/organizing-for-efficiency.html/comment-page-1#comment-61</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Bullock</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Feb 2005 07:47:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jrothman.com/blog/mpd/?p=8184#comment-61</guid>
		<description>Hey JR.
I wonder. Perhaps talk of &quot;efficiency&quot; in this sense - when it doesn&#039;t work - ought to be called &quot;theoretical efficiency&quot;, or perhaps &quot;apparent efficiency&quot; or even &quot;ill-concieved efficiency.&quot;
Designing a process for &quot;efficiency&quot; in terms of a situation you don&#039;t have isn&#039;t efficiency at all. I wonder whether in addition to the guidance on what to do, a note about abuse of language might also help. &quot;Efficiency&quot; is the bang / buck you get, not the bang / buck you think you ought to get in some world that isn&#039;t the case.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey JR.<br />
I wonder. Perhaps talk of &#8220;efficiency&#8221; in this sense &#8211; when it doesn&#8217;t work &#8211; ought to be called &#8220;theoretical efficiency&#8221;, or perhaps &#8220;apparent efficiency&#8221; or even &#8220;ill-concieved efficiency.&#8221;<br />
Designing a process for &#8220;efficiency&#8221; in terms of a situation you don&#8217;t have isn&#8217;t efficiency at all. I wonder whether in addition to the guidance on what to do, a note about abuse of language might also help. &#8220;Efficiency&#8221; is the bang / buck you get, not the bang / buck you think you ought to get in some world that isn&#8217;t the case.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
