F-22 Raptor and the Tyranny of Perfection

The Perils in the Pursuit of Perfection

How Good Got the Short End of the Stick

The 1981 brainchild, F-22 Raptor, was a soaring ambition - an Advanced Tactical Fighter poised to wear the crown of air supremacy against the then formidable Soviet Union. However, the designers decided to extend the deadline for completion in 1989 by "six months" - because they wanted the flight to be just perfect. The pursuit of perfection took its toll, stretching a 'six-month' extension into a ten-year marathon, with the Raptor taking its first leap into the skies in 1997 and finally entering service in 2005. By then, the Cold War was history and multi-role airplanes (with ability to handle ground attack missions) were the order of the day.

There is an inherent humor in this relentless pursuit of perfection, akin to a dog chasing its tail. The dog believes, with all its heart, that the tail is a separate entity that can be captured. And the tail is always just out of reach, and the chase ends in the dog exhausting itself, much like humans running after perfection.

Caught up in our obsession to achieve perfection, we often fail to appreciate the charm and convenience of 'good enough'. Good is attainable, fulfilling, and does not demand a follicle-count reduction due to stress. It enables progress, forward momentum, and most importantly, it allows us to maintain a semblance of sanity.

This is my third attempt with the muse of article writing. My first was in 2014 when, like a fresh-faced adventurer, I stepped into the uncharted realm of articles and managed to share a few stories with the world. You can take a peek at one of my fledgling attempts here. After spending days rereading, revising, and rethinking, I threw in the towel after only two pieces. Fast forward to 2018, I found myself standing at the article writing battlefield once more - armed with a different medium. I fared better this time, producing four articles before the siren song of perfection lured me into the abyss of overcommitment once more.

In both these bouts, I learned a hard truth. Spending too much time on a hobby project was not sustainable with my real priorities. While the process had its allure, the balance was off.

The Stretchy Universe of Parkinson's Law

In our magical world of time and productivity, there's a peculiar phenomenon known as Parkinson's Law. The law, coined by historian and author C. Northcote Parkinson in a 1955 Economist essay (you can still read the 1955 article here), asserts:

"Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion."

Essentially, tasks tend to balloon up like a mischievous pufferfish, filling the exact proportion of time allotted to them.

Quite an intriguing concept, don't you think?

Consider the curious case of Tom, who has a month to prepare for an exam. Tom starts by spending most of the month mastering the art of procrastination: binge-watching sitcoms, learning to play the ukulele, and exploring the intricacies of latte art. It's only when the exam looms dangerously close, say, two days away, that the actual studying begins. And miraculously, Tom manages to cram a month's worth of study into two caffeine-fueled, adrenaline-pumped nights.

Sound familiar? We've all had our 'Tom moments'.

Historically, Parkinson's Law was born out of the author's experiences in the British Civil Service. In a Monty Python-esque twist of events, an expanding bureaucracy led to more complications and inefficiencies. Instead of easing the workload, the growing number of staff seemed to inflate it. This humorous yet disconcerting observation led to Parkinson's Law, which has since been adopted in business, project management, and of course, the unofficial guidebook for procrastinators.

It’s not prioritization unless it hurts

The corporate world is riddled with stories where a dose of painful prioritization led to stunning success. Remember when Steve Jobs returned to a floundering Apple in 1997? With a product line sprawling over 350 items and bankruptcy looming, Jobs channeled his inner Thanos, slashing the product list down to a crisp 10. A bold and painful move that initially rattled the company but eventually led to the birth of iconic products like the iPod, iPhone, and iPad.

True prioritization is a tough pill to swallow. It demands sacrifice, and it's in this voluntary acceptance of discomfort that significant progress is carved.

Stephen Covey's "Four Quadrants" from his famed "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" is a testament to this approach. Covey's Quadrants, if you're not familiar, categorize tasks based on urgency and importance. This strategy echoes the wisdom of Dwight D. Eisenhower, 34th President of the United States, who famously said, "What is important is seldom urgent, and what is urgent is seldom important." Known for his incredible ability to organize and accomplish tasks, Eisenhower's approach to prioritization inspired the creation of the "Eisenhower Matrix," a time-management tool very similar to Covey's Quadrants.

But prioritization is not just a two -dimensional grid. The time allocated for a task is also an important part of the prioritization process, and should be connected to the importance of the outcome. Brushing your teeth is important - but does that need more than 3 minutes? Responding to certain emails may be Quadrant III and not be important, but you can, and should do it if you keep it under a few minutes.

The Pricey Pursuit of Marginal Benefits

In economics, the law of diminishing returns states that at some point, adding an additional factor of production results in smaller increases in output. In simpler terms, there's a point where doing 'more' doesn't yield 'more'. It’s like adding extra cheese to a pizza. At first, it’s great, and the pizza becomes cheesier. But after a certain point, your pizza is just a cheese blob with no crust to be found.

Consider Lucy, a dedicated office worker who consistently stays late to perfect her presentations, dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't’s ten times over. Lucy believes that every extra minute she spends will make a noticeable difference. However, after a certain point, the changes are so minor that nobody, apart from her, even notices them. The additional hours she pours in yield marginal benefits but at a significant cost: lost personal time, heightened stress, and diminishing work-life balance.

The law of diminishing returns and the cost of marginal benefits help us draw the line between thoroughness and overkill. It's a juggling act, recognizing when our time, effort, or resources are no longer producing substantial value.

When I returned to writing articles in February this year, I set some ground rules. Given that writing falls into Quadrant III (with a pinch of Quadrant II), I decided to cap the time I spent on any article at four hours. This strategy helped me churn out 12 articles in five months - thrice my previous attempts - without compromising on my Quadrant I and II tasks. Interestingly, writing more often has refined my writing style and content.

So, when has the pursuit of perfection tripped up your progress?

Thanks for reading and i appreciate your feedback. Share your thoughts in a comment. If it resonates, don't forget to like, share, recommend and subscribe.