Related concept: you usually make a tradeoff when designing for a resource constraint. Once the resource constraint is removed, you’re still paying the cost but no longer get the benefit of the tradeoff.

I just want to make a comment about optimizing applications even though the article is about optimizing organizations:

The way to arrive at the optimal system is to continually optimize all individual components as the system develops. You have to walk the razor’s edge between “premature optimization is the root of all evil” and not optimizing anything until it’s too late and a bunch of bad design decisions have been baked in.

If you want to write the fastest program, profile its performance from the start and try different ways of doing things at each step of the process. There’s usually a way of doing things that maximizes simplicity and performance at the same time because maximum performance == doing as little work as possible to complete a task. Chances are that ‘littlest amount of work’ will be elegant.

> And the organization suffers even while improving results of components

One properly and three half-flat tires on a car is an obvious visual here.

The counter-argument is that one must begin somewhere; waiting until everything is "chef's kiss" might mean much waiting.

On the other hand, this might require an overhaul that the company can't afford. Retooling is not cheap. In many cases, you have to redesign in place, so that only progressive changes are possible.

Much has been written about failed overhauls. Even a great idea can fail because it's hard to run an old system and its replacement at the same time.

Next read "the goal" by Eli Goldrat

Solid analysis. Room for improvement?

> A company could put a top man at every position and be swallowed by a competitor with people only half as good, but who are working together.

I don't disagree, but I really hate that it's not wrong. It keeps me up at night, frankly.

The seemingly most successful companies I have worked for have had tons of the most incompetent people doing the most bureaucratic bullshit. I'm not sure it can be blamed on "synergy" though as much as bureaucracies liking to give money to other bureaucracies making the whole thing a self supporting bureaucratic ecosystem.

I'm not sure if it should be taken as something to reach for as the article implies or a cautionary principle.

Given the choice I'd certainly rather work for the first company.