It is not necessary to take an entrepreneur by surprise to provoke his reflection when we ask him what the first two words of this title mean to him. Nor is a light reading of the definitions provided by ISO 9000 sufficient to fully understand that meaning. The thing goes further because, from their harmless appearance, both words have a lot to tell us about excellence. And also of time.
Efficacy is the degree to which the planned activities are carried out and the planned results are achieved. Efficiency, the relationship between the result achieved and the resources used. Such are the respective explanations of that norm, in its 2005 version, the interpretation of which can be broken down in the multiple aspects that I summarize in the following lines.
To begin, effectiveness assumes a necessary contrast between reality and what is planned, that is, it assumes that we have previously drawn up a plan. Talking about efficiency when everything is subject to improvisation is not a mistake, but an unfortunate incongruity that many organizations we know incur. Because, in addition, efficiency is defined by degrees, that is, it can occur on a continuum that ranges from absolute zero (we achieve nothing) to totality (we reach 100% efficiency).
Therefore, it is not enough to plan, but this must be done in such a way that it is possible to quantitatively evaluate the progress achieved with respect to the final result that we wish to achieve. Which is to say that everything we do must be registered in terms of the same nature, which allow us to locate the level of concretion at a precise point on that scale. Plan, establish criteria and units, record, measure.
Once this is accomplished, it is time for efficiency. How much have we invested to achieve those results? One of the vital conditions for the survival of any undertaking -with or without profit motive- is to realize a material utility that allows it to continue developing its goals over time. The slogan is to obtain a positive difference between what has been achieved and what has been spent, which can be expanded as long as we are able to define the latter and expand the former.
These considerations add a couple of brushstrokes to the previous landscape. On the one hand, the record of what has been done must include, in addition to this, how much it cost and when it was done, because these data will allow us to continue evaluating its efficiency. On the other hand, as the definition of the norm clearly expresses, this efficiency involves a relationship between what is actually done and what is actually spent. Therefore, it is wrong to speak of "maximum efficiency". Instead, we could refer to an optimal relationship between costs and results or, to simplify, of optimal efficiency.
Let us also bear in mind that this relationship can only be defined based on a geographical location and a historical moment, since it is influenced by technology, work methods, people's skills and many other factors that, as we well know, They fluctuate day after day and from country to country. In this sense, it is possible to work to improve this relationship and consequently the productivity of the system.
When we achieve a result with fewer resources, we are more efficient - that is, the relative distance between the value produced and what it has cost us to obtain it increases. And these resources can consist of land, vehicles, machinery, facilities… or time, although in popular imagination the latter is the one that is most immediately perceived associated with the notion of efficiency. It is not strange that this happens, because there seems to be an intuitive perception about the importance of this resource, whose unique characteristics set it apart from any other that we could take into account.
Based on this reasoning, we could conclude that it is necessary to ensure efficiency before beginning to manage the minimization of the resources invested. Contributing to this theory is the fact that, undoubtedly, anything that is invested in something that should not be done is a total waste and constitutes infinite inefficiency: it served to achieve… zero. Only a required product, to whatever degree is obtained, can be considered in evaluating the efficiency of the responsible process.
However, planning includes a schedule - that is, the coupling of what is planned with a schedule that is part of the criteria for measuring effectiveness, but also integrates those for evaluating efficiency. Both parameters share this element indissolubly and directly suffer the consequences of our (in) competence to manage it. With no other resource does this happen.
Whoever wastes time is inefficient and also ineffective. Using more than what was planned to do something results in less efficiency (because less was achieved than expected in the planned time) and also in lower efficiency (because production consumed a greater amount of that resource).
Doing things unplanned reduces the amount available to do what we do plan to do - if we have. And if not, improvisation multiplies the time necessary to do anything, also taking it away from what we are given in identical doses, day after day and unconditionally. It is the only totally free and absolutely perishable resource that we enjoy. Why do we value it so little?
Time is not recovered, cannot be stored, and cannot be borrowed. There is no replay of time. It can only be managed in a responsible and disciplined manner, with a mature attitude from which we can finally aspire to manage the effectiveness and efficiency of our organizations with some success.
