If you are involved in the high-performance world of modern sport today, 80 percent of your time is spent deciding what not to use, or investigating things you won’t use. Despite this, we all have access to multiple types of technology or measuring equipment and metrics.
Over the past 7 years, many teams have gathered store rooms of technologies and tools, some gathering dust. There often are periods where teams will reevaluate their approach.
The following are 3 simple questions I always use when I reevaluate or audit a team’s performance system or sports science approach—as I explain in Game Changer.
Does what they assess or what it provides fall into 3 simple categories:
Useful, Interesting or Useless?
The word kazien (Japanese word for “continual improvement”) is thrown around in business and manufacturing circles far too easily, but these are the 3 questions of the ruthless, cyclical self-improvement in sports science, or as I call it—winning science.
I have grown to dislike the term “sports science,” because of what it now means—the majority of which is simply activity for the sake of it.
We’re not in the business of sports science.
I’m the business of winning science. There’s a big difference.
Winning science focuses on the useful technologies and data that impact results and actions. It feeds agile and reactive programming of experiences. It does have things that are interesting and that helps form instinct (more on this later) and the decision-making cycle. There is no time wasted on useless things, because in the best programs there is no time. Life comes at you fast in pro sport.
Ask yourself, is what you’re investing time in useful, interesting or useless?
Be brutally honest. Eliminate the useless. Be cautious with things you find “interesting” or “entertaining.” Focus on the useful, and develop it. No one got fired for focusing on what matters.
What are you doing?