I’ve got a friend who loves to say “velocity is most important.” Every planning meeting, every board discussion, every time someone suggests we slow down and think something through: velocity is most important.

The idea makes intuitive sense. Don’t let perfection be the enemy of good. Ship it and fix it later. Paralysis by analysis kills more dreams than failure ever did.

But is it actually true? I decided to dig into the research. What I found surprised me.

The Science Says: It Depends

The speed-accuracy tradeoff is one of the most robust findings in cognitive science. Faster decisions mean less information gathered, period. That’s been documented for over a century.

But here’s where it gets interesting. Kathleen Eisenhardt’s landmark 1989 study of microcomputer firms found that executives making the fastest strategic decisions also gathered more real-time information, developed more alternatives simultaneously, and consulted more experienced advisors. Speed came from better processes, not from cutting corners.

The key word there is “processes.” Fast decision-makers weren’t winging it. They had systems that let them move quickly and wisely.

A later study of 318 CEOs confirmed that fast strategic decisions predict growth and profitability. But only in “high-velocity environments” with rapid change and incomplete information. In stable environments? Faster decisions showed no performance advantage.

That’s a big caveat for heritage rail organizations. We’re not exactly operating in Silicon Valley conditions.

When “Fail Fast” Works (And When It Doesn’t)

The “fail fast” philosophy has real research behind it. A randomized trial of 116 Italian startups found that founders trained in lean methodology pivoted more often, dropped failing ideas earlier, and reached revenue faster.

But pharmaceutical R&D research tells a different story. Learning from failure produced higher-quality outputs but fewerof them. And multiple studies found an uncomfortable truth: past failure mostly just predicts future failure unless organizations have explicit systems for capturing lessons.

Fail fast requires psychological safety, dedicated reflection time, and systems for learning. Without those? You’re just failing.

The Nonprofit Problem

Here’s where it gets personal for those of us running heritage organizations.

A peer-reviewed study of 562 nonprofits found that publicly disclosed mistakes resulted in an average 8% decline in donations. But the range was dramatic. Organizations with weak governance saw 23% drops. Those with strong governance? Only 2%.

Researchers call it “moral disillusionment theory.” Nonprofits are held to higher standards than for-profits because of our reputations for integrity. Trust violations hit harder. And recovery from integrity-based violations is significantly more difficult than recovering from simple competence errors.

In plain English: if donors think you made an honest mistake, they’ll often forgive you. If they think you have bad values or sloppy management? Only about 2% of organizations experience rapid trust restoration.

We can’t afford to “move fast and break things” when the things we’re breaking are donor relationships and public trust.

Events Are the Worst Place to Experiment

Here’s a truth every event planner knows in their bones: you can’t iterate on a live event. Once the doors open, you’re committed. There’s no “ship it and fix it later” when 500 families are expecting a magical train ride.

Research shows 57% of nonprofits generate over 20% of annual revenue from fundraising events. When events fail, organizations feel it.

The Fyre Festival case study provides the cautionary tale. Planned in 6-8 weeks when festivals typically require 12+ months. Result: $150 million in lawsuits, criminal conviction, 600 attendees stranded without food, water, or shelter.

That’s an extreme example. But how many of us have seen a rushed event damage an organization’s reputation in quieter ways? The excursion where the equipment wasn’t quite ready. The holiday train where volunteer coordination fell apart. The fundraiser where the venue wasn’t properly secured.

Those stories rarely make headlines. But they cost us volunteers, donors, and community goodwill.

The Framework That Actually Works

Jeff Bezos articulated something useful in his 2016 shareholder letter. He distinguished between two types of decisions:

Type 1 decisions are one-way doors. Irreversible or nearly so. These require careful, slow deliberation.

Type 2 decisions are two-way doors. Reversible. You can walk back through if you’re wrong. These can and should be made quickly.

Bezos recommends making most decisions with 70% of desired information rather than waiting for 90%. “If you’re good at course-correcting, being wrong may be less costly than you think, whereas being slow is going to be expensive for sure.”

But here’s the catch for heritage organizations: many of our decisions are actually Type 1.

Donor relationships damaged by sloppy execution don’t easily repair. Events that fail can’t be re-run. Historic equipment damaged by hasty maintenance decisions may be irreplaceable. Public trust violations create lasting reputational harm.

When your friend says “velocity is most important,” ask: is this a one-way door or a two-way door?

The Toyota Lesson

Toyota offers the real insight here. Their production system demonstrates that quality and speed aren’t inherent tradeoffs. They can reinforce each other.

The core principle: stop and fix problems immediately rather than letting defects propagate. Workers are empowered to halt production for quality issues. This enables faster system-wide completion, not slower.

The results speak for themselves. Toyota became the world’s largest automaker using this approach.

For heritage rail, the translation is clear. Build quality into your processes rather than inspecting for problems afterward. Empower volunteers closest to the work to flag issues immediately. Invest in capabilities that accelerate good decisions rather than simply moving faster on any decision.

What Does This Mean for Your Organization?

The research suggests different approaches for different contexts:

Move fast on: Internal communication improvements. Volunteer appreciation gestures. Social media engagement. Small programming tweaks. Equipment that can be easily adjusted.

Move carefully on: Event logistics and timelines. Major equipment decisions. Donor communications during problems. Safety protocols. Anything touching your public reputation.

Always prioritize quality on: Grant applications. Major fundraising asks. Public-facing events. Historic preservation decisions. Volunteer onboarding and training.

The fundamental question isn’t “speed or quality?” It’s: “What are the consequences of being wrong, and how easily can we correct course?”

When mistakes are cheap and reversible, move fast. When mistakes are costly and irreversible, invest in getting things right.

The Real Answer

So is velocity most important?

Sometimes. In the right contexts. With the right systems. For the right decisions.

But for heritage rail organizations serving the public, planning events that can’t be re-run, and depending on donor trust that takes years to build and moments to destroy?

The research is clear. We can’t afford to treat every decision like a software update that can be patched next week.

Speed matters. But so does the wisdom to know when to slow down.