Stop optimising what does not matter

Optimizing feels reassuring. Times are shortened, tools are changed, procedures are refined, more efficient formulas are sought. The problem arises when attention is invested in improving activities that no longer produce proportionate value. In that case efficiency does not resolve the dispersion: it makes it more orderly.

It happens in individual work, in teams and in editorial projects. A sheet of paper that no one uses is perfected, a communication that is of no interest is automated, the frequency of directionless content is increased, every detail of a service that no longer responds to the main need is measured. The time saved is immediately absorbed by another optimization, while the decisive question remains outside: does this activity still deserve to exist?

Stopping optimizing what doesn’t matter takes more courage than improving it. Optimization preserves the existing structure and delivers visible results. Selection, on the other hand, forces one to give up, explain a choice and accept that part of the work done does not have to be defended forever. It is a visioning exercise because it links activities to direction, not just their execution.

Efficiency can conceal a postponed decision

When an activity is tiring, the most common reaction is to look for a way to do it better. Sometimes this is correct: a necessary process can be simplified. Other times, however, fatigue signals that the process has grown for no clear reason. Before purchasing a new tool or designing an automation, it is worth asking yourself what result it should produce and who really uses it.

Imagine a small team preparing a thirty-page report every week. The document takes many hours and is sent to several people. To reduce the work, the team evaluates a more sophisticated platform. A simple check shows that recipients only consult three indicators and a comment note. The problem is not the speed with which the report is produced. It is the distance between the document and the decision it is supposed to support.

The same happens in professional life. A consultant can spend hours perfecting graphics for publications that do not reach the right audience. A manager can organise increasingly structured meetings without addressing the conflict that prevents the group from deciding. A professional can keep changing applications to manage activities they have not yet decided whether to retain.

We asked Alessandro Garau: optimization is useful after the function has been clarified. If it comes first, it risks becoming an elegant way to avoid a choice. Defining the function means formulating a testable sentence: This activity serves to achieve this result for these people within this context. When the sentence is not clear, improving the process is premature.

An important signal is the disproportion between treatment and consequence. If a detail requires close attention but does not change the quality of the experience, decision, or outcome, it may have become a ritual. Not everything needs to be economically measurable, but each activity should have an understandable relationship with the value the project wants to generate.

Three criteria for separating what is necessary from what is familiar

Eliminating activities just because they are inconvenient would be superficial. Some essential tasks are not pleasant and require rigor. To distinguish what matters from what is simply familiar, criteria are needed. The first concerns the impact: what changes if the activity is carried out well? If the answer is vague or only concerns compliance with an internal habit, it needs to be investigated further.

The second criterion is use. Who receives the result? How is it used? Research, a meeting, a page or a digital feature has value when it informs a decision or improves an experience. If no one can explain what happens next, the process may have become detached from its original purpose.

The third criterion is opportunity cost. Every activity prevents you from doing another. Two hours dedicated to improving a model is not available to talk to a customer, study a problem or regain attention. The question is not just how much the task costs, but what alternative is sacrificed to maintain it.

You can apply these criteria to a week of work. List repetitive tasks and assign three notes to each: impact on outcome, use by someone, alternative sacrificed. There is no need to build a complex system. Just look where the score is weak and the time demand is high. Those activities deserve a decision before any optimization.

A temporary check is often more useful than a permanent deletion. Suspend a report for two weeks, reduce the frequency of meetings, eliminate a non-mandatory phase, publish less but with a clearer thesis. Observe what happens. If no one perceives a loss or if the result improves, you have obtained valuable information.

This approach also protects against technological fads. A tool can be excellent and still useless in the specific context. The question isn’t how many features it offers, but how much real friction it removes. If it speeds up a worthless practice, it adds cost, learning, and dependency without improving direction.

Redirecting energy towards what creates value

Quitting is not enough. The freed space must be allocated, otherwise it will be filled by new subtasks. Before reducing a process, identify where you want to shift your time and attention. It could be a conversation with clients, training a critical skill, reviewing a proposal, or a period of deep work.

A rule of thumb is to link each major activity to one of the central results of the quarter. If there is no connection, the activity may be mandatory, maintenance or superfluous. Mandatory activities must be made essential. Maintenance ones must have a limit. Superfluous ones must be suspended or closed.

Choice can generate resistance because some activities support identity and status. A complex document can make people perceive competence. A continuous presence on social media can give the impression of being active. A crowded meeting may seem important. Giving up requires distinguishing real value from the representation of work.

For an editorial project, refocusing can mean publishing fewer piecemeal updates and building articles that remain useful over time. For a team it may mean reducing controls and better clarifying responsibilities and policies. For one person it may mean stopping refining the plan and starting a small but real test.

The review works best if it is made periodic. Once a month, choose three time-consuming activities and ask yourself if their function is still relevant. Don’t start with what bothers you the most, because you could eliminate necessary tasks. Start from the disproportion between commitment and consequence. If an activity requires preparation, coordination and control but produces a marginal effect, it deserves to be redesigned.

Involving those who use the result avoids self-referential decisions. Ask which part is consulted, which step really creates value and what would happen with a simpler version. Very different needs often emerge from those imagined by those producing the work. This conversation can free up space without lowering quality, because it eliminates unused features and protects the crucial ones.

The goal is not a waste-free professional life. It is a more mature ability to notice when efficiency is replacing direction. Optimizing is a skill. Deciding what is no longer worth optimizing is a form of leadership.

We asked Alessandro Garau, CEO of Vision to Value: “A useful direction does not require certainty about everything. It requires us to stop calling ‘chance’ the choices we keep postponing.” The point is not to find a perfect formula, but to begin using a clear and shareable criterion to understand the options in front of us.

For more information about Alessandro Garau and the perspectives developed by Vision to Value, explore the project pages and the articles devoted to vision, coaching and strategic marketing.

Subscribe to the Vision to Value Letter to receive new articles and a considered selection of tools, ideas and books for turning direction into practical choices.