12:20 p.m. on July 10, 2009 (EDT)
The basic idea of time and motion studies is a good one - by observation and experiment, figure out what combination and sequence of actions is most efficient in terms of energy expended, time required, etc. The application, however, is something different - trying to force everyone into a fixed, rigid mold. Trout is correct in his example that what works for the majority right-handers does not necessarily work for lefties. For example, if the process involves pushing a button, it is easier and faster to place the button on the right for a right-hander, but a leftie has to reach across his/her body to get the button. In bicycling (I am watching the Tour de France right now) and other athletic activities, some people genetically have more fast-twitch muscle cells (hence are good sprinters), while others have more slow-twitch muscle cells (hence tend to be better at endurance, such as time trials). Light-weight riders tend to be better at climbing the hills (Contador) or at sprints (Cavendish), though there are exceptions (Boonen, Hushovd). "All-around" riders are generally not very good at any one specialty.
Time and Motion studies generally produce good results for robotic and other machine processes, since machines can be very specialized.
My comment that T&M and other rigid prescriptions are contrary to efficient use of your personal human resources means that you have to adjust, in humans, for individual differences. In sports, you can do individual studies and improve the performance of a given individual. Hiking is a good example of this. Many people sort of stumble along the trail or cross-country, wasting a lot of their personal energy. Generally, for most, the best thing is, as the guides on Kilimanjaro say, "Polepole" (often written as if it is 2 words, but it is actually a single word - one of the few things about Swahili I know). The literal meaning is "slowly", but it really means keeping an even pace, not rushing too fast, picking up your feet to clear the rocks and other obstacles on the trail, the pace picked to keep your breathing and heart rate at a pretty even pace, rather than the "hare" practice of rushing fast, then stopping to gasp for breath, then rushing again. The rhythm of the hike is the even pace while moving, keeping your heart rate and breathing in an elevated, but not excessive range (technically, staying in your aerobic range), and stopping periodically to recover a bit, including hydrating and snacking. By following this, you can hike farther, in less time, with plenty of Kodak moments, and feel rested and comfortable at the hike's end. A good criterion for pace is that you should be able to carry on a normal conversation (hard to do when you are hiking solo, unless you are talking to yourself or on the cell phone).
An important part of this, to repeat, is that it is individual pace, individual rest intervals, individual rest duration, an overall rhythm that works best for the individual hiker. When you first start to develop your own pace and rhythm, it seems forced sometimes (because you never did it before). But as you find your own rhythm, it becomes natural and subconscious.
I have found that with some hiking companions, I have a hard time keeping up, while with others, I get bored and more tired from the overly slow pace. With the ones I have a hard time keeping up, I usually find that if I just go at my own pace, I am soon passing them at their rest stops and end up at the end of the hike first, and much less tired. But you have to develop your own individual rhythm.
more»
