The question at hand is whether the process of making or doing something is
ultimately more important than the final product. Process may not always be more
important than product, but it often is. A process may provide an opportunity for new
and important discoveries with ramifications far beyond the current product; moreover,
a process can often be an important end in and of itself for those engaged in it.
New discoveries are often unexpectedly made during routine processes. Such was
the case with Alexander Fleming in 1928, who while conducting an unremarkable study
of bacteria, discovered inadvertently that mold growing on one of his cultures was
killing the bacteria. His ordinary process led to an unexpected and remarkable end: the
development of penicillin.
Process also offers opportunities for refining old methods and inventing new ones.
For example, as the defense industry slowed down after the cold war, many methods
and technologies for weapons production proved useful in other areas from commercial
aviation to medical technology. The same has been true of technologies developed for
the space program, which now find broad application in many other fields.
Finally, in my observation and experience, people become caught up in processes
primarily for the challenge and enjoyment of the activity, not merely to produce some
product. Once the process has culminated in a final, product, the participants
immediately search for a new process to involve them with. From a psychological
standpoint, then, people have a need to busy themselves with meaningful activities―i.e.,
processes. So most processes can fittingly be characterized as ends in themselves
insofar as they fulfill this psychological need.
In sum, the process of making or doing something frequently has implications far
beyond the immediate product. For this reason, and because process fills a basic human
need, I strongly agree with the speakers assertion the process is ultimately more
important than product.