We spend considerable time trying to ensure we're right. We collect data, evaluate evidence, refine our methods, and develop recommendations grounded in the best information available. And rightfully so. Our decisions should be informed by sound reasoning and a critical understanding of the information in front of us.
But what happens when we're right and nothing changes?
Imagine identifying a problem, developing an appropriate solution, and clearly communicating your recommendation. Everyone agrees with your interpretation. Yet the recommendation is never implemented, or its implementation fails to produce the intended outcome.
The problem may not be the quality of the information or even how effectively it was communicated. It may be that we failed to consider the environment in which that information needed to be applied.
Every decision exists within a larger system of people, priorities, resources, and competing demands. Each stakeholder brings different expertise, responsibilities, and opportunities to act. Even the most compelling recommendation has limited value if the people responsible for implementing it lack the ability, resources, or processes to do so.
The cost of being right is the opportunity lost when our knowledge never translates into meaningful action.
The cost of being right
Being right matters. Whether we're interpreting performance data, developing a rehabilitation plan, or making organizational decisions, accuracy and sound reasoning provide the foundation for effective practice.
But we can become so focused on refining our analysis that we overlook what happens next.
We invest in better technology, more sophisticated methods, and increasingly detailed information. Yet the value of these investments ultimately depends on how that information influences decisions. A technically sound recommendation that cannot be implemented may offer little practical benefit.
Part of the challenge is understanding the environment in which we work.
Every stakeholder operates within a different set of responsibilities, priorities, and constraints. What appears to be an obvious decision from one perspective may create significant challenges from another. The information we provide must therefore be considered alongside the realities faced by the people expected to act on it.
This requires more than understanding our own area of expertise. It requires understanding the broader environment, the people within it, and how our recommendations interact with their objectives.
Otherwise, we risk developing solutions that are correct in isolation but impractical within the system they are intended to serve.
The cost of failing to act
Even when we understand the environment and communicate our recommendations effectively, agreement doesn't guarantee action.
An organization may recognize the value of a recommendation without having the processes, resources, or clearly defined responsibilities necessary to implement it.
This is where the absence of an effective system becomes costly.
Information must move between stakeholders who possess different levels of expertise, decision-making authority, and capacity to act. Without established processes for integrating that information, recommendations can become disconnected from the decisions they were intended to inform.
And the consequences extend beyond a single missed opportunity.
When valuable information repeatedly fails to influence practice, we lose opportunities to improve our processes, evaluate outcomes, and learn from previous decisions. We may continue investing in increasingly sophisticated information without addressing the barriers preventing us from using what we already know.
The solution isn't necessarily more data or better communication. Sometimes, it's developing the organizational capacity to act on the information already available.
The cost of making it happen
Of course, building that capacity comes at a cost of its own.
Being right doesn't mean the work is finished. In many ways, it's where the work begins.
Translating knowledge into action requires an investment. It takes time to understand the environment, develop relationships, coordinate competing priorities, and establish processes that allow people to act on the information available to them.
These investments involve trade-offs.
Time dedicated to one priority may reduce opportunities to address another. Resources are finite, and even well-supported recommendations must compete with other legitimate organizational needs.
This is why understanding the cost of implementation is just as important as understanding the potential benefits of a recommendation.
Not every technically correct recommendation can or should be implemented exactly as originally proposed. We must consider what implementation requires, whether the anticipated benefits justify those investments, and how our recommendations might be adapted to fit the broader system.
The objective isn't simply to convince others that we're right. It's to understand what it will take to translate that knowledge into meaningful action.
Thinking in systems
Consider the preseason in basketball.
From a physical preparation perspective, we recognize the importance of progressively building training volume and intensity toward the demands of competition. Athletes need sufficient exposure to prepare for the physical demands they'll encounter throughout the season.
But developing an effective preseason plan requires more than understanding those physical demands.
The coaching staff must install offensive and defensive systems, develop individual skills, establish rotations, and prepare the team to compete. The roster may look entirely different from the previous season, bringing new personnel, different physical capacities, varying levels of experience, and evolving tactical needs.
These aren't independent objectives competing for space on a calendar. They're interconnected components of preparing a basketball team.
A physical preparation plan that looks excellent on paper may be difficult to implement if it doesn't accommodate the team's technical and tactical development. Similarly, a practice schedule focused exclusively on tactical preparation may overlook the physical exposures athletes need to tolerate the demands of competition.
Even when everyone understands and agrees on the importance of both objectives, the organization needs processes that allow those priorities to be coordinated.
This is where systems thinking becomes essential.
Rather than prescribing a training plan and expecting everyone else to accommodate it, we must understand how physical preparation fits within the team's broader objectives. We can identify opportunities to develop physical capacity through basketball activities, recognize where additional exposures may be necessary, and adapt our approach to the individual and collective needs of the roster.
What worked last preseason may not work this year. The principles of physical preparation remain, but their application must evolve alongside the environment.
And none of this happens automatically. It requires communication, collaboration, clearly defined responsibilities, and a shared understanding of how different decisions influence one another.
The objective isn't to optimize every component independently. It's to develop a coordinated approach that prepares the team for competition.
The same principle extends well beyond basketball. Our expertise contributes to a larger system, and the value of our recommendations depends on how effectively they can be integrated within it.
Being right is necessary, but it isn't sufficient. We must understand the environment, recognize the costs of both action and inaction, and invest in the systems that allow knowledge to influence decisions.
Being right may get you a seat at the table.
Understanding the system lets you contribute once you're there.
TOMMY OTLEYPhysical therapist, sport scientist, educator, and researcher working at the intersection of rehabilitation and performance.
READ MORE
Returning to competition is an important milestone, but it does not mean performance has been restored. This edition of The Film Room explores the gap between return and performance, why performance requires an outcome, and how role, opportunity, and context complicate what “back” really means. If we say an athlete has returned to performance, we have to be able to show it.