Amazon.com Widgets

Do you agree with the statement, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?

  • Generally speaking, yes!

    In general, I agree. If a tool or policy is working to achieve that which is desired to be achieved, then by definition it is not broken or in need of repair. I don’t even understand what the counterargument is. If there is a problem with something not, for example, working as efficiently or as rapidly as desired, then a new tool or policy can be investigated or an improvement on the existing one can be devised. It all comes down to whether or not if what is desired is being achieved which can sometimes be subjected. For example, if one has a low volume of postage, then buying stamps is probably the most time efficient and cost effective way to handle one’s postage needs. If the volume is grater, then a postage meter might well make sense. Where that line of demarcation is that justifies such a transition can be, as I said, subjective. Obviously, the advantages of, for example, trucks as delivery vehicles over horses and wagons are compelling. I say that unless something material can be achieved in the process, then leave in place that which is currently working. Don’t risk “fixing” something for marginal perceived gains.

  • Generally speaking, yes!

    In general, I agree. If a tool or policy is working to achieve that which is desired to be achieved, then by definition it is not broken or in need of repair. I don’t even understand what the counterargument is. If there is a problem with something not, for example, working as efficiently or as rapidly as desired, then a new tool or policy can be investigated or an improvement on the existing one can be devised. It all comes down to whether or not if what is desired is being achieved which can sometimes be subjected. For example, if one has a low volume of postage, then buying stamps is probably the most time efficient and cost effective way to handle one’s postage needs. If the volume is grater, then a postage meter might well make sense. Where that line of demarcation is that justifies such a transition can be, as I said, subjective. Obviously, the advantages of, for example, trucks as delivery vehicles over horses and wagons are compelling. I say that unless something material can be achieved in the process, then leave in place that which is currently working. Don’t risk “fixing” something for marginal perceived gains.

  • Generally speaking, yes!

    In general, I agree. If a tool or policy is working to achieve that which is desired to be achieved, then by definition it is not broken or in need of repair. I don’t even understand what the counterargument is. If there is a problem with something not, for example, working as efficiently or as rapidly as desired, then a new tool or policy can be investigated or an improvement on the existing one can be devised. It all comes down to whether or not if what is desired is being achieved which can sometimes be subjected. For example, if one has a low volume of postage, then buying stamps is probably the most time efficient and cost effective way to handle one’s postage needs. If the volume is grater, then a postage meter might well make sense. Where that line of demarcation is that justifies such a transition can be, as I said, subjective. Obviously, the advantages of, for example, trucks as delivery vehicles over horses and wagons are compelling. I say that unless something material can be achieved in the process, then leave in place that which is currently working. Don’t risk “fixing” something for marginal perceived gains.

  • I just none don't agree with it.

    If you still can I run down me to go and try to fix it because it ain't broke. Listen if your kitchen sink is working then you don't need to try to go messed everything down there the cousins working already. Try to speak something you can always trying to prove it you don't want to go do it too soon because it's just messed it up

  • If something is not functioning the way it should, then it's broken. Only then should you plan repairs or improvements.

    To apply anything to a functioning process will either complicated the matter, or even cause the failure. In rare cases, the functioning process may even be under stress. Changes on it before noticeable complaints will start a chain of paranoia and negative thinking, assuming the worse when nothing else needs to be done.

  • Why tweak something when it is not needed

    One of the most famous quotes is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". It is so true to follow this rule more then anything because it usually leads to problems when we don't follow it. I understand that some things are trying to be improved but like most things in this world it's perfect as is and no need to try and fix something that isn't needed.

  • We don't need redundencies.

    I agree with the statement. This is because an operation that is already working does not need tweaking. People in the corporate world try to do this to improve a process, but they often fail, realizing they should have left well-enough alone. If something doesn't need fixing, it is best used as a model to fix other things.

  • If it aint broke, don't fix it

    I do agree with the statement because why mess with something thats not broke because you can possibly make the situation worse with messing with it. Sometimes just leaving things alone is the best way to handle things. Now if you are going to improve it then that is different

  • Things can always be better

    People and trends change. You gotta adapt with the times. In this day and age (March 2016) you gotta keep up with the changes or be carried downstream like a leaf with the current and it will be too late before you know it. Be ahead of the curve and recognize change when needed.

  • Innovate or stagnate

    To assume that something is working at the best it ever will or something is done the best way it can, is arrogance. Everything can be improved.

    The worst statement in any organisation is "it was always done that way" and "if it aint broke don't fix it " comes a close second.

  • O I don't agree

    What if a bridge was becoming unsafe would they wait for it to collapse or fix it? Sometimes when one thing breaks it takes more with it. Preventative measures are needed in order to prevent the breaking before it happens and stop it being worse than it needs to be.

  • Somethings Always Need Fixing

    There is always a better way to do things, and not looking for those ways is an act of complacency. Sticking to old ways is a way to guarantee inefficiency. Should a company stick to old technology just because they are comfortable with it? If they do, they will lose their competitive edge.

  • No, "if it aint broke, don't fix it" isn't a term I agree with.

    If people never fixed things that weren't broken, we would never feel the need to make things better or innovate. I think that it is okay to always strive to better things that exist today whether they are products or an idea. I think that people just have the need to fix things that aren't always broken.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.