Untapped Potential

In theory, having better tools should increase the probability of having better outcomes.

Because tools are designed to amplify human capabilities and efficiency, more or less decreasing the time and effort required to accomplish tasks.

Here, better tools simply means more advanced tech that can help people do their work efficiently/effectively.

For example, a smartphone could be considered a better tool compared to a basic feature phone or landline.

With tools, there can be two aspects to them. Either as a means for education or a means for work, or for both education and work. Usually, the logical path is first you learn, then you remove the L.

But from a broader perspective, most modern tools encompass the whole spectrum, from education, entertainment, work and everything in between.

The tool itself is both a knowledge base and a resource for creation and implementation.

This puts the onus on the individual using the tool, in that their background, skills, motivation, and understanding determine how effectively the tool's potential is realized.

In practice, there isn't necessarily a connection between having better tools leading to better outcomes when the individual using the tool is factored into the equation.

A good example is a school child not having a computer at home and then when the child gets a laptop or tablet, they start using it primarily for games rather than educational purposes.

Image Source

The Learning Curve Barrier

Personally, I think one significant obstacle is the learning curve associated with advanced tools.

When we provide someone with a sophisticated tool without adequate training or context, we're essentially setting them up for frustration before success, that's if they stick around long enough.

Having a good understanding for complex technology can be overwhelming and there's a rather giant leap from basic tools to advanced ones, and many people fall into the chasm between intention and mastery.

I experienced this firsthand when transitioning from basic video editing software to professional-grade tools.

The software was undoubtedly "better" in terms of capabilities, but I was stuck with watching tutorials, experimenting with features, and making countless mistakes before getting the hang of even the most fundamental functions.

Let's just say I'm genuinely curious and find a bit of satisfaction in overcoming technical challenges, even when they're frustrating.

But many people would have reasonably abandoned the more advanced tool and returned to what was familiar and immediately productive.

When Better Tools Actually Lead to Better Outcomes

Of course, there are cases where advanced tools genuinely transform outcomes for the better.

Provided the onboarding process typically includes comprehensive training programs and phased implementation periods. The adoption of 3D modeling software in architectural firms is an example.

The subjectivity of "better" complicates this discussion further. Are we measuring outcomes by:

• Efficiency (time saved)
• Quality of output
• User satisfaction
• Economic return
• Social impact
• Sustainability

In an objective sense, a net benefit should be measurable across multiple dimensions, not just speed or convenience, but also in the quality of what's produced and its alignment with the user's actual goals.

Untapped Potential Problem

For me, what's sometimes a bit interesting to realize is the gap between what advanced tools can do and what they're actually used for in practice.

Studies suggest that the average user typically accesses less than 20% of a software application's features.

I've seen this in professional settings where expensive design software is purchased primarily for simple tasks that could be accomplished with much more basic tools.

Interestingly, similar studies also suggest that we use a similar fraction of our brain compared to what our brains are theoretically capable of.


Thanks for reading!! Share your thoughts below on the comments.