Time management: when is a deliverable good enough?
A briefing note can be accurate and usable yet remain in preparation for a long time. Should managers define acceptance criteria before work begins, rather than leave everyone to pursue the best possible version?
What the literature establishes
Barry Schwartz, Andrew Ward, John Monterosso, Sonja Lyubomirsky, Katherine White and Darrin R. Lehman (2002, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) distinguish seeking the best possible option from seeking an option that meets sufficient criteria. In their studies, a tendency to maximize is associated with greater regret and lower satisfaction, among other outcomes. These findings concern decision-making and subjective experience, not the time needed to complete a professional deliverable.
Better outcomes do not necessarily feel better
Sheena S. Iyengar, Rachael E. Wells and Barry Schwartz (2006, Psychological Science) followed students during their job search. Participants with a stronger maximizing orientation obtained higher starting salaries but reported less satisfaction with their outcomes. This divergence suggests that objective improvement and the feeling of having chosen well enough do not necessarily develop together.
The premature conclusion
Concluding that standards should always be lowered would be a mistake: the second study specifically shows that a more demanding search can also accompany an objective advantage. The useful distinction is therefore not between quality and speed, but between necessary requirements and improvements whose value remains to be established. Defining an acceptance threshold means neither removing mandatory checks nor equating every high standard with maximization. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What these findings cannot prescribe
These studies do not test the effect of acceptance criteria on document production time in companies. They therefore cannot quantify a time saving or establish a universal level of sufficient quality. In practice, a poorly defined threshold may simply shift work to the recipient through requests for corrections or explanations.
A practical check in Bâle
As part of SHR’s “Time Management & Prioritization” programme, a Basel team could test explicit acceptance criteria on a category of recurring internal deliverables: pharmaceutical or life sciences coordination notes, Rhine logistics summaries, or international R&D progress updates. Before drafting begins, the manager and recipient would agree on the intended use, essential information and required checks, without changing regulatory or safety requirements. During a pilot period, they would compare total recorded effort through acceptance, including corrections, and the proportion of deliverables returned for missing information against a baseline period. Less time spent without an increase in such returns would be an encouraging local signal, not causal proof. To go further: explore the Time Management & Prioritisation training in Basel in the canton of Basel-Stadt, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Time Management & Prioritisation in Basel
- time management & prioritisation
- Basel
- research
- training basel