In response to a previous post explaining the phrase “Results are not the point“, commenter RenRen Gabás says:
Both approaches have their own place. It’s easy to see why Toyota/Lean works well with manufacturing and operations. Continuous service and operations needs continual improvements. However, there are times when you need to forget all about process and workflow in order to break new ground. I would place breakthroughs in research and product development right in the Danny category.
Unfortunately, history (and logic) shows that Jess (continuous improvement) is still going to out-innovate Danny (gets drunk and makes stuff) and come up with far more breakthroughs.
- Exhibit A: The Prius (first successful hybrid car) and Lexus (Toyota’s first luxury line) demonstrate that continuous improvement is not limited to operations. These were successes of product development and marketing.
- Exhibit B: Google, a company filled with innovation, research, products, and big ideas, is also a world leader in analytics and iteration! Who do you think their process most closely resembles?
Do not confuse the stifling bureaucracy of a large company to embody Jess, and the creative chaos of a startup to embody Danny. This is a fallacy. Large companies are more stifling, and startups are more creative. But this is due to intrinsic properties, not continuous improvement.
Another way of saying “results are not the point” is “do not trust your fortune to randomness.” I don’t know anyone who would disagree with that! Yet when we take the Danny approach, that is exactly what we are doing, no matter the nature of what we are working on.