Saturday, 7 March 2009


We came up with a very simple, understandable and working solution to a difficult problem. We looked at it from different perspectives and it was really simple - yet doing the job - i.e. solving the problem.

Then one in the group said: "We cannot present this. We need to complexify it. You know. Add a lot of powerpoint pictures, some charts, maybe some process models and workflows. And possibly describing all the roles. This is too simple. We need to add details. A simple thing like this will not gain acceptance. We need to complexify."

He was a bit cynical of course. But he was not far away from what showed to be reality. The simple solution was later accepted. But only after some complexifying activities.And quite a number of detailed descriptions.

Complexify. Maybe not a proper word. But scary.

Have we come so far that we sometimes cannot accept and use the simple solutions without adding details and making it look more complex?
Do all details and complex descriptions make the solution better?

Is an agreement with 100.000 words better than a handshake?

Me wonder.

1 comment:

  1. This idea in the corporate and business arena of the simple proof not being the effective one is in stark dichotomy of our intuitions. Much of our time in education and training make us believe that the complicated model (that we do not understand) is the best, becuase it is so complicated and we are so smart that we do not understand it.
    For a model to be simple (we understand it) it must not be effective why?
    Because if we understand the model and have not come up with it yet, becuase we are so smart, it cannot work! If our brilliant minds understand this model and it is simple then why did we not think of it and hire you to do it.
    Complexify this model so we don't look stupid for not coming up with it.