Our ice cube tray was cracked and leaking all over the freezer. I went to the store and it was $0.97 to buy a replacement; the hard plastic kind that you turn upside down, grab each end and twist in opposite directions to eject the cubes.

Then I saw the silicone trays. Not only did they come in really bright colors, but they felt really awesome in my hands. All pliable and twisty. So I spent nearly $3.00 and bought one.

Big mistake.

With the old tray, it took three seconds to eject the cubes into the bin. It took ten times longer with the new tray because the best I could do was eject one or two cubes at a time.

New is not necessarily better.

Old is not necessarily better, either.

Sometimes we hang onto things that we shouldn’t because we have so much invested, in terms of our emotions, time or resources. This is called the sunk cost fallacy. We think we have too much to lose by letting go of something that’s not really working. But what we have wrapped up in something should not impact future decisions. What’s done is done. So, if you need to let go, then let go.

Like the silicone ice cube tray.

It took me about three months before I gave up on it. It should have taken a week. I knew almost instantly that the old tray was better (do I sound like a church person?). But I kept trying to make it work, thinking that somehow it would get better. Deep down I knew better.

I finally went and spent the $0.97 and bought the old-style ice cube tray.

Newer is not necessarily better. Neither is older. Better is better.

So how do you evaluate when you need to try something new or keep the old? This is different than the standard cost-benefit analysis, which you may be familiar with. This is more about thinking through whether change is worth it.

Here are my thoughts.

Is the cost of the new worth it?

Costs come in a lot of forms besides money. Time and energy are often an overlooked factor. Two times in my nearly two decades at Pecometh we have switched database systems. Both times took a great amount of effort. The most recent time the learning curve was so hard that it took over a year for most of our staff to feel comfortable with it. The new database definitely has some benefits, but even after three years there are some on our staff who would say it wasn’t worth switching. Even some of those people would rather not consider switching back to the old system, since even without the learning curve, it takes a lot of time and energy just to make the conversion.

Another cost is grief over losing the old. This is certainly true in churches and institutions with long-standing practices. Where possible, I find it’s best to add something new, without taking away the old to increase its odds of acceptance. For example, if you’re thinking of doing a new worship service to reach a different demographic segment, it’s going to be much easier if you do it without replacing or cancelling an existing service. Otherwise, you’ll not only expend a lot of emotional effort on marshalling support for the new service, you’ll also be dealing with those who are grieving the loss of the old service.

As a leader, you are always thinking about how to improve. This is what leaders do. But this often means doing something new or doing it in a new way. Knowing how it will affect your ability to stay focused on what’s important will help you decide if it’s worth it.

What are the benefits?

If the new thing does not improve what you’re doing, then it’s just a new thing. Like the silicone ice cube tray, it might even make things worse. Here are some ways to think of benefits:

• Will it help you do an existing thing more effectively or efficiently?
• Will it help you broaden your impact in some way, i.e, reach more people or different people?
• Will it have a positive impact on the culture of your church or organization?

We’ve recently had a lot of discussion about what to do with a four-acre grass field. It used to be leased to a local farmer, along with about 80 other acres on the property. Over a decade ago we stopped leasing it, thinking we could use it for programming. We never did.

To make matters worse, the field was so bumpy that it was rough on our mowers. Our Director of Facilities suggested we give it back to the farmer. We would save several staff hours a week during the mowing season, not to mention the wear and tear on the mowers.

However, we also explored the possibility of a meadow restoration project. I felt that it fit our culture of teaching Creation care. Meadows help protect the watershed by reducing nutrient runoff. They also increase wildlife habitat. So, in addition to saving time and money, we could add a feature that fits with who we are.

The challenge is to do it without costing a lot of time, effort and resources to make it happen. Fortunately, we found that the Maryland Department of Natural Resources provides technical assistance for these types of projects. They have suggested some low cost, low effort ways to get started. They also suggested grant funding that is available for this type of project. So far, this project is not too costly in time, effort and money, plus it provides several benefits.

Can you limit the downside risk?

This is often overlooked by those who have an entrepreneurial spirit. No risk, no reward. But innovating and improving don’t have to be an all or nothing endeavor. Limiting downside risk is a proven business practice. This provides the opportunity for getting better, without putting too much at risk if it doesn’t work.

If possible, one way to limit the downside is to test the idea. You can do this through a pilot or a limited experiment that will help determine if you should commit more resources. Here’s my blog post that includes a section about experimentation. Even if your test doesn’t work the way you expect, you will learn valuable lessons that can help you do better the next time.

Another way is to manage the worst case scenario. When we develop new programs at Pecometh, we typically offer them during non-peak periods when we would likely be empty. This way, we are not using capacity that could otherwise generate income. If we don’t have a great turnout the first time, we are able to stick with it for longer, since the downside risk is low.

Regardless of how you do it, limiting downside risk to an acceptable level enables you to move forward with more confidence. If you can’t limit it, you might want to reconsider your options.

In summary, continuous improvement is a must for any church or organization. If you’re standing still, you’re getting behind. But doing it in a way that gives you the best possible chance is just good sense.

What do you think?