I was reading this interesting account about the new Adidas ball they've been using for the 2010 World Cup. The Jabulani ball.
Not very well received so far. Many complaints. But for intents and purposes, a technologically superior ball compared to previous versions of the football.
I found it quite interesting.
So here's a question to ponder.... is everything better always...better?
I can think of the software upgrades we keep getting. Each versions gets better and more powerful ...but invariably bigger, messier and more difficult to use. In many ways they become less intuitive and we need more keystrokes to get to the same point. Is better, better?
Our work 'software' has the same problem. Office and management 'improvements' keep destabilizing the work process , and I often wonder if productivity is improved.... or actually degraded through these frequent changes.
Seems like there is a certain efficiency in familiarity, and a certain loss in efficiency when we operate on the learning curve. If changes occur frequently, even though they may ideologically be 'improvements', a certain inefficiency is introduced by moving workers from a position of familiarity (and its associated efficiency) to an unfamiliar uncomfortable position on the learning curve.
Not everything that is better, is actually better.
Closer to home....I think our health care system as well as medical education environment needs a period of stability so that we can all start mastering the processes rather than keep chasing endless series of changes.