Improvement Is Not a “Natural” Process

It’s tempting to believe that improvement happens organically, that progress is an inevitable byproduct of time, effort, or pressure. As Richard Rumelt argues in Good Strategy/Bad Strategy, many organizations fall into the trap of assuming that better results will emerge naturally—whether through incentives, sheer perseverance, or managerial pressure. But history tells a different story.

The Science of Laying Bricks

Frank Gilbreth, an industrial engineer and a pioneer of Scientific Management, shattered this illusion in 1909. Renowned for his groundbreaking work in motion study, Gilbreth sought to improve efficiency by systematically analyzing and optimizing human labor. Alongside his wife, Lillian Gilbreth, he developed methods to eliminate wasted motion in various trades, particularly in construction and manufacturing.?

Gilbreth’s work was rooted in the belief that progress does not happen by chance—it must be actively engineered. He demonstrated this principle through one of his most famous case studies: the inefficiencies in bricklaying, a trade that had remained virtually unchanged for millennia.

For thousands of years, bricklayers had been laying bricks with little change in technique. Yet, with careful observation and a willingness to challenge assumptions, Gilbreth more than doubled their productivity—without increasing their workload. His innovations were deceptively simple: placing pallets of bricks and mortar at chest height eliminated unnecessary bending, using movable scaffolding prevented wasted motion climbing ladders, and refining mortar consistency allowed masons to set bricks with a single press rather than multiple taps with a trowel.

The key takeaway? Improvement is not about working harder; it’s about working smarter. And working smarter doesn’t happen by default. It requires systematically questioning how things are done, stripping away inefficiencies, and refusing to accept that “this is just how it’s always been.”

In today’s world, this philosophy has been rebranded as “business process transformation” or “reengineering,” but the principle remains the same. Meaningful improvements come from a relentless examination of the details—the small yet crucial inefficiencies that, when corrected, drive exponential progress.

How Knowledge Drives Productivity

Gilbreth’s study of bricklaying revealed a fundamental truth about work: productivity is not merely a function of skill or effort but of how work is structured and executed. He demonstrated that efficiency was not about working harder or possessing more physical ability—it was about applying knowledge to organize and optimize even the simplest tasks. His innovations in bricklaying did not require stronger workers or greater endurance; they required a deeper understanding of the process—a systematic approach to eliminating wasted motion and streamlining tasks.

This insight extends beyond manual labor to knowledge work, which involves the cognitive effort required to bridge the gap between what is known and what needs to be known in order to complete a task effectively. The necessity of knowledge work arises whenever there is an imbalance between required knowledge and prior knowledge.

Understanding this concept is crucial because different professions demand varying proportions of manual work and knowledge work. Some roles embed much of the required knowledge within tools, procedures, or automated systems, minimizing the cognitive load on the worker. Others require continuous learning, problem-solving, and adaptation to close the gap between existing expertise and the demands of the task. This variability highlights a key insight: even within the same profession, different individuals may engage in vastly different amounts of knowledge work, depending on their level of prior knowledge and the complexity of their tasks.

Engineering Knowledge: The Core of Software Development

Just as Frank Gilbreth revolutionized bricklaying by applying knowledge to streamline and optimize manual labor, software development thrives on the intelligent structuring and application of knowledge. Unlike physical labor, where inefficiencies stem from wasted motion, software development inefficiencies arise from gaps in understanding—what a developer knows versus what they need to know to complete a task effectively.

We subscribe to the knowledge-centric perspective on software development, treating knowledge as the fuel that drives the software development engine. Central to this perspective is the concept of the 'knowledge gap' - the difference between what a developer knows and what they need to know to effectively complete tasks. This gap directly influences developer's' work experience, talent utilization and productivity.

Bridging this gap is not a straightforward, mechanical process; it is an ongoing, dynamic effort. We define this as the Knowledge Discovery Process—the transformation of invisible knowledge into visible, tangible output. Unlike Gilbreth’s bricklaying optimizations, which involved physical reorganization, software development requires cognitive effort—discovering, integrating, and refining knowledge to produce high-quality and valuable code.

In many ways, this process operates like a black box: while its inner workings may not always be fully transparent, the results it produces—functioning software, innovative solutions, and refined systems—are observable and measurable. The key to improving software development productivity, then, is not merely effort or experience but a structured approach to closing the knowledge gap, just as Gilbreth did with bricklayers.

Summary

Improvement is not a natural byproduct of effort or time—it requires the deliberate application of knowledge. Frank Gilbreth’s study of bricklaying revealed that productivity is not simply a matter of skill but of how work is structured and executed.

This insight extends beyond manual labor into knowledge work, where productivity hinges on closing the knowledge gap—the difference between what a worker knows and what they need to know to complete a task effectively. Whether in manufacturing, medicine, or software development, success depends not just on effort but on the ability to discover, structure, and apply knowledge efficiently.

Nowhere is this more evident than in software development. Just as Gilbreth optimized bricklaying through a systematic understanding of work, software engineers improve productivity by refining their approach to learning, problem-solving, and knowledge integration.

Ultimately, progress is not inevitable; it must be engineered. Whether laying bricks or writing code, true efficiency comes from rethinking processes, structuring knowledge, and actively closing the gaps that slow us down.