
The "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" Mentality - martinrue
http://www.invalidcast.com/post/The-if-it-isnt-broken-dont-fix-it-mentality.aspx
======
hugh3
Article completely misses the actual _point_ of the old "If it ain't broke,
don't fix it" maxim: _if you try to fix it, you might screw it up_.

When you hear people saying "if it ain't broke..." it means they're concerned
about accidentally making matters worse, not that they're lazy or
insufficiently concerned with "continuous improvement".

~~~
daten
I agree. About a year ago we hired a new person at work and he immediately
started looking for ways to improve anything and everything. The problem is,
nearly everything we had that wasn't optimal, was still actually "good enough"
for our needs and usually included some complexity that wasn't obvious at
first glance. He ignored our "if it's not broken, don't fix it" advice and
every single time he tried to improve something he ended up breaking it or
making it worse.

Sometimes a simple but sub-optimal solution that gets the job done well enough
and reliably is better than an optimized solution that includes downtime and
requires extra maintenance. I don't think the person offering the advice to
leave things alone is always the naïve one.

~~~
ugh
If you back your case against change with real arguments (like “There will be
massive downtime.” and “Extra maintenance will be necessary.”) you certainly
aren’t naïve. But you are very naïve indeed if all you ever say to anyone
proposing any change to working systems is “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”

~~~
chris_j
Agreed. In reality, there's a balance to be made between the cost of
maintaining the status quo (in the event that the status quo sucks) and the
cost of making changes.

One thing that really frustrated me when I started my career is that the cost
of making changes turns out to be non-trivial. If you're shipping software to
customers then making changes to the software involves a lot of work planning
testing, packaging and so on. Maybe that's one of the reasons why hosting web
apps is so much easier than selling shrink-wrapped software in a box.

------
chegra
I think the phrase comes in handy when the way to improve something is not so
linear. For example selecction of team members on a startup.

Your startup is doing well but one guy aint pulling his weight. Do you sack
him? There is actually studies that one bad guy on a team makes the overall
team good.

Also, there was some stuff on here about basketball players who don't seem
contribute anything but the team winning rate decreases when they aren't
there. So, sometimes the maxim is good when you can't pinpoint where your
victory is coming from.

~~~
timwiseman
_There is actually studies that one bad guy on a team makes the overall team
good_

Can you cite one? This would be very counterintuitive if true.

 _Also, there was some stuff on here about basketball players who don't seem
contribute anything but the team winning rate decreases when they aren't
there._

That would imply either that they are contributing something or that their
replacement is even worse. If they are contributing something, identifying
what so it can be focused on and improved is of great value in a highly
competitive arena. If the replacement is even worse, then a better replacement
should be found.

 _So, sometimes the maxim is good when you can't pinpoint where your victory
is coming from._

In cases like that, there is often great value in spending the time and
thought to figure out. To Quote Sun Tzu, "If you do not know your enemies nor
yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle"

~~~
chegra
I can't find the exact paper that cites it(Anyone who have heard of this plz
chime in). But, I can cite you apollo syndrome which basically is putting the
best and the brightest on a team with the assumption they will do well.
[http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/med/research/hsri/emergencycar...](http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/med/research/hsri/emergencycare/research/sdo/csi2/education/education-
delivery/handouts/apollo_syndrome.pdf)

Also, other example of where if it ain't broken don't fix it is Founder CEO.
Founder CEO tend to perform better than Professional CEO even though they have
less experience and knowledge.
[http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/enabletech/2010/04/28/ugc-
foun...](http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/enabletech/2010/04/28/ugc-founding-vs-
professional-ceo-performance-analysis/)

Somethings are counter-intuitive. Although it is possible with some research
to get to heart of things, doing so might be prohibitive in terms of cost and
time.

~~~
timwiseman
_Founder CEO tend to perform better than Professional CEO even though they
have less experience and knowledge._

That is a very different situation. Founder/CEO's often have 2 major
advantages over Professional CEOs. The first is that the Founder is more
motivated. The second is that the Founder often knows their field very well,
whereas professional CEOs are often leadership experts holding MBAs.
Especially in the early stages, knowing the field and being able to do much of
the work personally can be more valuable than the skills that an MBA business
expert brings to bear.

~~~
chegra
But still there is a need by some VC to optimize this.

In Ben Horowitz blog he says:

"When my partner Marc wrote his post describing our firm, the most
controversial component of our investment strategy was our preference for
founding CEOs. The conventional wisdom says a startup CEO should make way for
a professional CEO once the company has achieved product-market fit. In this
post, I describe why we prefer to fund companies whose founder will run the
company as its CEO."

<http://bhorowitz.com/2010/04/28/why-we-prefer-founding-ceos/> Dated: 04/28/10

To you and me this is clear cut but for some VC the wisdom would say to get a
Professional. The first thing that came to my mind when I read it was why
change a good thing?

I didn't have any data for backing keeping the founding CEO but without data I
think the maxim serves as a good heuristic.

------
chris_j
You adopt two attitudes towards "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" in two
similar ways:

1) Don't try to fix it or you might break it! 2) If it ain't broke then you
can still try to improve it.

The reality is that there is a balancing act between the two. On the one hand,
a process or system might be so delicate that any attempt to improve it will
be difficult and dangerous.

On the other hand is the attitude that the author of the article takes: it's
dangerous to become satisfied with the current state of affairs just because
it's difficult to make changes. I like the fact that he mentions Toyota. The
concept of continuous improvement immediately makes me think of Japanese
companies and I'm sure we can think of many that became very successful by
employing the following ideas:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaizen>

------
mike463
Yes, the problem is that fixing stuff can (and does) create regressions.

So what REALLY HELPS is -- Fix ONE thing at a time.

Usually, when I'm writing code or fixing something, I put in a couple of
unrelated improvements. There's a pretty good chance the unrelated
improvements will break something.

Breaking the unrelated improvements into their own separate self-contained
step is usually all it takes.

------
sambeau
The biggest problem I've had with this maxim in the past is the definition of
"Broke".

It is too subjective.

There is a world of difference between "a bit broke" and "totally broke" even
for the simplest of systems.

------
poundy
even if it isn't fixed, don't break it!

