“IF IT AIN’T BROKE DON’T FIX IT”
By Er Taraprasad Mishra
Jajpur, Sept 26 : If it ain’t broke then don’t fix it is a simple yet widely used saying that is used as a warning to individuals. The essence of the saying is that if something is not really broken, or if a system is working alright, then there is no need to attempt to make any modifications in the attempt of improving it.
This adage is a warning to individuals who constantly attempt to improve or change the way certain systems are, simply because they are unsatisfied. In this case, the systems may not be experiencing any issues, but rather, the individuals are simply unsatisfied with how those systems are not operating. This brief argument supports the saying and makes a case for why individuals should not really attempt to resolve issues that do not exist.
Often times, individuals will attempt to improve on the way a certain system functions, not because the system is experiencing problems, but rather, because they are unsatisfied with the way the system is operating. In the process, these individuals may end up harming such a system or creating more problems for the system.
Within a business perspective, organizations may attempt to improve systems ostensibly to improve the customer care experience yet in the process, they would end up irreparably damaging users’ experience with such a system. This saying is perhaps non-better true or more applicable than in today’s era of software dominance and enhanced competition, where organisations constantly make improvements in a bid to enhance users’ experience. For instance, Whatsapp users have reported dissatisfaction with the applications latest updates (Chibber, 2017).
In this case, the developers of Whatsapp had introduced the new features as a competitive strategy, but had not factored in what users wanted. In a different scenario, Gawande (2015) reports on how unnecessary medical care is harming patients in the United States. This examples illustrate that unnecessary changes can be more harmful than beneficial.
It is worth noting that the adage “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is old, familiar, and well known. Importantly, there are several analogs to this statement, each of them supporting the single thought that a person should not try to correct or improve something that is already functioning. Such historical personalities as Shakespeare, Voltaire, Giovanni, and others have supported similar ideas referring to the fact that in the effort to make something perfect, a person might ruin what was already good.
The purpose of this paper is to provide arguments to justify the position supporting this adage. It should be stressed that many people have discussed this adage and it has provoked vigorous debate regarding its real-life applicability. Various arguments have been provided either supporting or refuting this saying. Its common understanding has an implication that the attempt to refine or enhance something might be perilous and result in negative consequences (Van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2016).
In applying this scrap of wisdom to the example of business organizations and companies, it can be seen that when giving up good prospects in the name of pursuing the best, management is drawn into spending money and resources yet fails to achieve the intended outcome.
Furthermore, it may be impossible to return to a well-established system or strategy that ensured generally positive results. Thus, an attempt to fix a system that already worked well can result in the loss of both the good and the best options. In this instance, there are two considerations: Despite an individual’s or organization’s best efforts, it is possible to fail to reach the best option, and added to that, there is always a chance of losing a good existing option.
In addition, it is possible to provide arguments to support this statement by referring to economic theory. Many neoclassical models suggest that agents (for instance, people) have enough resources to make the best choice among different options (Wolff & Resnick, 2012). However, the search for the best option is a costly procedure; therefore, choosing a satisfactory (good/functioning) option is a rational decision.
In other words, continuing the search for the best option leads to wasting resources, and worse, the agent (person) might be left with nothing—no resources and no options to choose from (Wolff & Resnick, 2012). Thus, the fact that an object is functioning implies that it is in satisfactory condition and does not require fixing; it also suggests the possibility that repairing the initially working object might finally lead to its malfunctioning or breaking.
If it ain’t broke then don’t fix it is a simple yet widely used saying that is used as a warning to individuals. The essence of the saying is that if something is not really broken, or if a system is working alright, then there is no need to attempt to make any modifications in the attempt of improving it.
This adage is a warning to individuals who constantly attempt to improve or change the way certain systems are, simply because they are unsatisfied. In this case, the systems may not be experiencing any issues, but rather, the individuals are simply unsatisfied with how those systems are not operating. This brief argument supports the saying and makes a case for why individuals should not really attempt to resolve issues that do not exist.
Often times, individuals will attempt to improve on the way a certain system functions, not because the system is experiencing problems, but rather, because they are unsatisfied with the way the system is operating. In the process, these individuals may end up harming such a system or creating more problems for the system.
Within a business perspective, organizations may attempt to improve systems ostensibly to improve the customer care experience yet in the process, they would end up irreparably damaging users’ experience with such a system. This saying is perhaps non-better true or more applicable than in today’s era of software dominance and enhanced competition, where organisations constantly make improvements in a bid to enhance users’ experience.
For instance, Whatsapp users have reported dissatisfaction with the applications latest updates (Chibber, 2017). In this case, the developers of Whatsapp had introduced the new features as a competitive strategy, but had not factored in what users wanted. In a different scenario, Gawande (2015) reports on how unnecessary medical care is harming patients in the United States. This examples illustrate that unnecessary changes can be more harmful than .
Therefore, it can be concluded that this adage leaves room for debate and argumentation on both sides. Nevertheless, the existence of risk is undebatable. The concept of continuous improvement implies that all actions should be targeted at enhancing performance.
At this point, it is crucial to determine whether the attempt to fix something that is already functioning is worth the risk. In the case where a company considers a potentially worthwhile change that is not expensive and will not result in the organization’s malfunctioning, the attempt will be worth a try. However, if the alteration requires drastic measures and might negatively affect quality or performance, the need for change is less certain. Thus, the main issue that should be considered when determining the real necessity for making a fix is whether the risk is justified—or not.
