The bicycle shed effect

Today I want to talk about the British naval historian and author, C. Northcote Parkinson.  During his career, Parkinson wrote over 60 books, but his most famous was the best-seller Parkinson's Law, which he wrote in 1957.  The book describes what has come to be called, Parkinson's Law which states simply, "Work expands to fill the time available for its completion."  The book was partially based upon an essay that he wrote for The Economist magazine in 1955 (see link here).    

Perhaps less well known is Parkinson's Law of Triviality, his argument that the people within an organization typically give disproportionate weight to trivial issues.  You know what I am talking about if you've ever sat in a meeting discussing critically important topics such as the kind of cake to order for one of the executive's upcoming retirement party.  

The law is also known as the "bicycle shed effect" or "bikeshedding."  Parkinson would explain his "Law of Triviality" with an apocryphal story of a financial committee meeting with a three-point agenda to discuss:

1. A proposal for a $10 million nuclear power plant

2. A proposal for a $350 bike shed

3. A proposal for a $21 annual coffee budget

The committee spends very little time discussing the nuclear power plant - most of the members really don't understand all of the nuances in what is necessary to safely build a nuclear power plant, so they simply accept the proposal at face value.  

The committee moves to the next item on the agenda - the bike shed.  They all know what a bike shed looks like, and perhaps the majority have a bike shed at their house.  Several members join in a very animated discussion on what material to use for the bike shed, what color they should paint it, and on what design the architects should use to build the shed.  The committee spends a longer amount of time discussing the bike shed compared to the nuclear power plant.

Finally, the committee moves on to the third item on the agenda.  By this time, they are all warmed up and ready to get down to serious business.  Now, everyone on the committee has their own opinion on coffee.  "21 dollars seems like too much," says one committee member.  "21 dollars will never be enough," says another.  Before they know it, the meeting runs slightly past its ending time, and the committee agrees to table the discussion for next week.  They end up spending more time on the coffee budget than the nuclear power plant and bike shed combined!

Bikeshedding occurs because the simple topic is often the one that everyone understands and has an opinion to share.  When something as complicated as a nuclear power plant is discussed, the vast majority of us are way out past our comfort zone and will defer to the experts in the room (which usually are the ones making the presentation).  

The problem is that we probably should take more time discussing whether or not to invest in a $10 million nuclear power plant!  It's the decisions around trivial items such as the coffee budget or the bicycle shed that probably should be left to frontline leaders (think the HRO principle of "deference to expertise").  Alternatively, information on these trivial matters can be shared ahead of the meeting as pre-work and discussed only briefly before a decision vote.  Here, the meeting moderator should limit discussion on these items, so that more important decisions can be given the time that they are due.

It's a great story.  And we all have experienced it.  The lesson here is that we shouldn't.