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
I'm talking computer technology and all related things here. Probably the single biggest detriment to my quality of life is the need to constantly re-learn how do the *same things* under a different "paradigm" or through new user-interfaces because of a never-ending litany of software and hardware "upgrades". It's tiring and stressful, And the software/technology industry doesn't seem to care about the strain it puts on real human beings to always have to keep on top of the ever-changing technology curve.
It's like no one ever really spends time reflecting on their ideas, And asking "are these changes REALLY necessary, And WHY? " It's not even that changes and improvements aren't valuable - sometimes they aren't, Sometimes they are, And sometimes they are only marginally. But is their value ever weighed against the psychological cost to people having to constantly throw away their existing knowledge as "obsolete". But unfortunately, The mantra of today is that "change", "innovation", "disruption", "progress", Etc. Are blanket goods, And that everyone who disagrees is a dinosaur. But I will say that change and innovation are NOT valuable for their own sake, But only when they satisfy a real and significant (and ideally not artificially manufactured) need.
A counter argument I often hear is "would you like to go back in time to when <insert whatever undesirable past circumstance fits>? " Often my answer is: No, Because I have become accustomed to my life as it is today and I understand how to navigate it reasonably well, But the people of those times lived and managed within them, And if I had never lived with the "way things are now" because progress proceeded at a slower and more measured pace, I would probably be comfortable with my situation as it was. Turn it around, And ask a question like: "Would you rather live in a future time period where <insert objective technological/medical/etc. Improvements> have taken place, But society and culture are so alien to you and your values that everything you have spent years cultivating about yourself and your role within the world has to be discarded? " If you would hesitate to say "yes" to that question, Maybe you'll realize that not all "progress" and "change" should be uncritically lauded.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Simply being fine with a sufficient option and not trying to make it better isn't how humankind developed. We took many risks, often resulting in failure, for one huge success. For example, look at Eddison's cliche quote: "I've failed 1000 times, and succeeded once." Being afraid of failure and therefore, not fixing something, results in no innovation.
Basically, the problem is that it discourages innovation. In 2007, we were happy with how the original iPhone was. Imagine how different the world would be if we were all still using the original iPhone today? Some entire businesses wouldn't exist (I'm looking at you, smartphone software and hardware companies)!
We would still be living in the stone age had it been so. We would not advance in healthcare and technology, which people are using to type with right now. Let's be honest: in the history of change, did we every only get "marginal perceived gains?" No. We advanced in farming, healthcare, trade and we have globalization, the ultimate form of change in the world. What the people in the other side are saying is that we need something material to gain for us to call change as good, but this person does not realize that the technology this person is typing on for his opinion is a very result of change.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.