I really enjoyed this article. It gets into the specifics of what we could mean by quality of Radiology reading.
I think it gets to the crux of the problem in any domain when quality is desired—a trade off is necessary. It may be cost, or it may be the experience of the user, but it will be somewhere.
Let’s use a similar evaluation in software development.
Coders that are fast are lauded as innovative and bright and creative, until their barely-tested and unscalable application fails in operations, or a security hole results in a data breach. These folks are often called “hackers” (but generally in a positive way).
The more thorough developer is criticized for taking too long and keeping the application in the lab (instead of the “real world”) for too long. They spend significantly more time in the design and testing and documentation areas, so to outsiders, they are slow. Their products take more time (missing some early opportunities seized by hackers), but the applications are much more reliable and supportable in operations. They are professional software developers.
As someone that has managed R&D teams before, you always want both behaviors (and results), but as the article posits, you often cannot have both. You certainly shouldn’t expect to get both.
I often say: Decisions are easy (I decide I want innovation and reliability, and I want it fast), but Choices are hard. I value people that can make choices, and live with them, much more than so called “decision makers”.