Why Faster Is Often the Wrong First Goal

The speed trap

When operations feel slow, the natural instinct is to speed them up. Automate more. Parallelize tasks. Reduce cycle time.

It sounds logical. But speed without stability is dangerous.

In unstable workflows, going faster just means producing wrong outputs quicker.

What happens when you optimize unstable workflows for speed

Speed amplifies whatever already exists:

• If handoffs are unclear, faster handoffs mean faster confusion
• If exceptions aren't managed, more volume means more exceptions
• If decisions vary by person, faster decisions mean more inconsistency
• If data quality is poor, faster processing means more bad data downstream

Speed doesn't fix these problems. Speed exposes them at a rate the organization can't absorb.

The stability-first sequence

Reliable operations follow a sequence:

1. Correctness — Can we produce the right output consistently?
2. Reliability — Can we produce it without heroics or workarounds?
3. Efficiency — Can we reduce waste without breaking correctness?
4. Speed — Can we do it faster without compromising 1-3?

Speed is step 4, not step 1. Skipping steps creates the illusion of progress while building operational debt.

Signs you're optimizing for speed too early

• Teams celebrate throughput while error rates remain high
• Fast processes require frequent manual cleanup
• "Quick fixes" accumulate into a backlog no one addresses
• Speed gains in one area create bottlenecks immediately downstream
• Faster output creates faster customer complaints

These are symptoms of speed without stability.

What to do instead

Before optimizing for speed:

• Measure correctness first — What percentage of outputs require rework?
• Identify failure points — Where does work break or require intervention?
• Stabilize handoffs — Make sure work transfers reliably between steps
• Then accelerate — Speed up what's already working correctly

This sequence feels slower initially but compounds faster over time.

Why leadership asks for speed first

Speed is visible, measurable, and easy to report. "We reduced cycle time by 40%" sounds impressive in a quarterly review.

Stability is invisible when it's working. No one celebrates "zero rework this quarter" because no one notices.

This creates a perverse incentive: teams optimize for speed metrics while stability degrades quietly in the background.

The fix isn't to ignore speed—it's to sequence correctly: stability first, then speed on top of a reliable foundation.