<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: SEMPER and SCORE</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.tetradianbooks.com/2008/07/semper/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tetradianbooks.com/2008/07/semper/</link>
	<description>For different readers - and different reading</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 16:33:16 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Cesar Mercado</title>
		<link>http://tetradianbooks.com/2008/07/semper/#comment-429</link>
		<dc:creator>Cesar Mercado</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:17:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tetradianbooks.com/?p=24#comment-429</guid>
		<description>First of all, I'd like to say that most of the ideas I have read in your books have resonated in me. Also, I find your insightful and bold approach quite refreshing.

Nevertheless, I have to say I disagree with your discussion of 'Effectiveness'. 

For starters, I don't think it should include 'Efficiency', which is more of a companion quality when it comes to performance. You can be effective without being efficient, and vice versa.

'Elegance' is another sub-quality that I tend to associate with efficency rather than effectiveness. Because nothing is more efficient that a hands-off approach if you can get away with it--zero sweat, full accomplishment.

From another perspective, I believe that 'Efficiency' and 'Effectiveness' are at the same level of abstraction, so I find it difficult to put efficiency within effectiveness.

Why not start with the standard dictionary definition and elaborate on it? Thus, effectiveness is the quality that enables you to 'hit the mark', 'achieve results', etc. It doesn't matter whether you do it efficiently or elegantly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First of all, I&#8217;d like to say that most of the ideas I have read in your books have resonated in me. Also, I find your insightful and bold approach quite refreshing.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, I have to say I disagree with your discussion of &#8216;Effectiveness&#8217;. </p>
<p>For starters, I don&#8217;t think it should include &#8216;Efficiency&#8217;, which is more of a companion quality when it comes to performance. You can be effective without being efficient, and vice versa.</p>
<p>&#8216;Elegance&#8217; is another sub-quality that I tend to associate with efficency rather than effectiveness. Because nothing is more efficient that a hands-off approach if you can get away with it&#8211;zero sweat, full accomplishment.</p>
<p>From another perspective, I believe that &#8216;Efficiency&#8217; and &#8216;Effectiveness&#8217; are at the same level of abstraction, so I find it difficult to put efficiency within effectiveness.</p>
<p>Why not start with the standard dictionary definition and elaborate on it? Thus, effectiveness is the quality that enables you to &#8216;hit the mark&#8217;, &#8216;achieve results&#8217;, etc. It doesn&#8217;t matter whether you do it efficiently or elegantly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

