DEDICATION

TOKIM,BETHANY,ANDJENNA

EPIGRAPH

Menrushtowardcomplexity;buttheyyearnforsimplicity.—G.K.CHESTERTON

CONTENTS

DedicationEpigraphListofFiguresForewordbyDonNorman

CHAPTER1Soda,Swordsmen,andRoadMaps

CHAPTER2TheJourneyBegins

CHAPTER3TheJourneyContinues

CHAPTER4UsingtheSimplicityCycle

CHAPTER5OnHardWorkandDesign

CHAPTER6TheDoldrums,TheyHappen

CHAPTER7TraveloguesandArchetypes

FinalThoughts:OnMapsandJourneys

AcknowledgmentsGlossary

SelectedSources

AbouttheAuthorAlsobyDanWardCreditsCopyrightAboutthePublisher

LISTOFFIGURES

Fig.1TheSimplicityCycleFig.2TheRegionoftheSimplisticFig.3TheComplexitySlopeFig.4TheRegionoftheComplexFig.5TwoPathsandtheOff-LimitsAreaFig.6TheComplicationSlopeFig.7TheRegionoftheComplicatedFig.8TheSimplificationSlopeFig.9TrimmingFlowchartFig.10TheNegativeGoodnessSlopeFig.11TheSpecialPieceFig.12EggsandOmeletsFig.13InelegantPreparationZoneFig.14xkcd#1306:TheSigilCycleFig.15TheRegionoftheSimpleFig.16TheImpactofTimeFig.17CyclicalTransitionsFig.18Confusion,Ambiguity,andClarityFig.19WhereAmI?Fig.20TheClimaxofComplexityFig.21CriticalMassFig.22SleeponItFig.23Overengineered/HighlyEngineeredFig.24StuckonthePorchFig.25LuckyFig.26CourseCorrectionFig.27OvercorrectionFig.28ReturntoBasecamp

Fig.29ComplacencyFig.30LoopyFig.31WanderingFig.32GettingLostFig.33OptimalRangeFig.34ProfessionalProgressionFig.35IgnorancetoWisdomFig.36ReactionstoComplexityFig.37ModelTandVWBusFig.38DuctTapeFig.39TheSimplicityCycle

FOREWORDByDonNorman

Thisisasimplebookaboutacomplextopic,butdon’tbefooled.Beneaththesimplicityliesadeepandprofoundmessage.Complexityisoftennecessary,butunnecessary complexity complicates our lives. How can we strike the properbalance?Ah.Startwiththisdelightfulbook.

IfirstencounteredDanWardin2008whenwecorrespondedaboutanearlyeditionof this book. Iwasworkingonmyownbook about complexity and itsoonbecameclearthatwesharedsimilarviewpoints.AnofficerintheU.S.AirForce, Dan was working to streamline the way that complex projects aredeveloped within the military. In 2012 he wrote that “I was just offered apositioninD.C.TheywantmetohelpleadaninitiativetoimplementmyFIST[Fast, Inexpensive, Simple, Tiny] concept across the U.S. government. . . .”Neat.Thismeantthathedidn’tjusthaveabook,hehadamethod.Moreover,hewasbeinggivenanopportunitytoimplementtheplaninmajorprojects.

FIST,hisprocedurefordevelopingprojectsquicklyandefficiently,requiresthat things be less physically complex, less cognitively confusing, and lesscomplicated. In 2014, FIST was renamed F.I.R.E. (for Fast, Inexpensive,Restrained,andElegant)andpublishedasabookbyHarperCollins.Thisbookprovidesadeeperlookatthesimple/elegantportionofhisframework.

Naturally, the twobookssupportoneanother.F.I.R.E.offers lessonshighlyrelevanttoTheSimplicityCycle.Largeprojectsalltendtofail.Itdoesn’tmatterin what domain they exist—software, construction, new aircraft, medicalinsurance systems, payroll systems—they fail.Ward offers a simple solution:don’t do them. With the time and money allocated for one large project, donumerous small ones. Do them Fast and Inexpensive, with Restraint andElegance:F.I.R.E.

It’s awell-known principle, but it goes against the nature of organizationsthatwish to solveall theirproblemswithoneproject. Inconsumermarkets, itencouragesthediseaseIcallfeaturitis.Inindustry,it’sbloat.Themilitarycallsit

requirementscreep.What’sthealternative?F.I.R.E.Howdoweavoidunneededcomplexityandmanagetomaintainsimplicity?That’sthefocusofthisbook.

InTheSimplicityCycle,Wardexaminesthenormal trajectoryofthedesignofsystems.Considerhowgoodasystemmightbe,perhapswithsomemeasureof “goodness.” To increase goodness, complexity must be increased, becausezero complexity generally means zero goodness. At some point however, thecomplexity starts getting in the way, perhaps by making the system far toodifficulttodesign,ortoconstruct,ortomanage.Perhapsitisnowtoodifficulttocomprehend.Whatever the reason, once the design goes past a certain point,increasingcomplexitybeginstomakethingsworse.Butitisoftennecessarytoreachthepointofovercomplexityinordertogetthebalanceright.AsWardputsit:

Patience and diligence are keys to avoiding premature optimization.First, we need to gain the necessary tools, talents, pieces, parts, andcomponents . . . and only then can we apply them in the appropriatedegreeandtrimouttheextraneous.

Butsimplifyingtoosoonisjustasbadascomplexifyingfortoolong.

Wardsuggestsseveralwaysofreducingunneededcomplexity.Oneissimplytobegin removingcomponentsandseehowwell thesystemfunctionswithoutthem.Ifitstillfunctionswell,thosecomponentswereunnecessary.Keepdoingthisuntilasmuchaspossiblehasbeenremovedwhilestillyieldingacceptablegoodness. Does this sound too simple? Too obvious?Well, it is still resisted.Warddescribestheresultthisway:

Resistance to simplification is basedon thebelief that every additionalfeature, part, and function represents an improvement. It also assumesthattheaccumulatedadditionsmadethingsbetterfromanoverallsystemperspective.

Suchassertionsaremisguidedandmaybealittlearrogant.Why“arrogant”?Becausetheyassumeeverythingweeveraddedwas

a good idea.Why “maybe”?Because those additionsmay indeed havebeengood.Butgettingridofthemmightbeevenbetter.

A secondmethod is through restructuring. “A cube is less complex than acollectionofsquares,”hepointsout,because“itisoneobject,notsix.Itisalso‘moregood’becausewecandomorewitha3-Dobjectthana2-Dobject.”This

issimilartothetransformationofairlinecockpitsfrommanyseparate,physicaldisplaysintoasmallernumberofwell-integratedvisualdisplays—whatistodaycalled“theglasscockpit.”Itwasn’tjustamatterofcombiningthings;itrequiredrethinking them, reconceptualizing them.The resultwas that complexitywentdownwhilegoodnesswentup.Similarly, takingsixsquaresandusing themtoformacubereconceptualizesitasanewobject,wherewenolongerthinkofitashavingsixseparatepartsbutratherasasingle,integratedwhole.Complexitygoesdown,goodnessgoesup.

The twobooks,F.I.R.E. andTheSimplicityCycle, can each be read on itsown, but for people involved in the design and implementation of complexprojects,theyformapowerfulpair.Foranyonewantingtoembracethemantleofsimplicity,thisbook,TheSimplicityCycle,isessential.

Makingsomethingsimpleisdifficult.Simplicityisactuallyquitecomplex.

DonNormanSiliconValley,CaliforniaAuthorofLivingwithComplexityandTheDesignofEverydayThings,RevisedandExpanded

CHAPTER1

Soda,Swordsmen,andRoadMaps

Complexityisatwo-literbottleofsoda.Doledout inreasonablequantitiesandatappropriate times, it’snotbad. In

fact,itcanbepleasantasanoccasionalaccompanimenttoabalancedmealorasarefreshingtreatonahotday.Unfortunately,we’reguzzlinggallonsofthestuffeverydayandit’skillingus.

Thefactthathumanshaveatasteforsweetnessisneitherageneticflawnora psychological disorder. It’s a survival trait, passed down from our ancestorswhoneededtofindhighconcentrationsofcaloriesinordertostayaliveandthusdevelopedanaffinityforsugar.Thispreferencebecameaprobleminthemodernera, where we have easy access to unlimited quantities of cheap, industrial-strength concentrations of carbonated high-fructose corn syrup, packaged inattractively colored cans and bottles. Instead of survival, we ended up withobesityanddiabetes.

Similarly, humans gravitate toward complexity, in our technologies andreligions,ourlawsandrelationships,becausesimplicityissoofteninadequatetoour needs.We require a certain degree of complexity in our lives, just aswerequire a certain number of calories each day. Accordingly, we add layers,gizmos,features,functions,connections,andrulestothethingswecreateinanattempt tomake themmore exciting,more effective, or otherwise better. Thispreference,too,becomesaproblemwhenitspiralsoutofcontrolandproducesindustrial-strength concentrations of complexity that surpass our needs bymultiple orders ofmagnitude. Press 1 if you agree. Press 2 for a list of otheroptions. Press 3 to return to the main menu. Please note, the options havechanged.

Aswithusing fancified sugarwater to satisfya sweet tooth,ourotherwisehealthypredisposition towardcomplexitygoesawrywhenit ismanipulatedby

marketers or thoughtlessly indulged by designers and engineers who fail toforeseetheunproductiveconsequencesoftheiractions.

The ill-advisedubercomplexitywesooftenencounter ismore thana time-wasting nuisance. In some cases, it has life-and-death consequences. In themedical field unnecessary complexity leads to wasted resources, ballooningcosts, delayed treatments, and entirely avoidable complications (both medicaland procedural). As Dr. Atul Gawande explains in his book The ChecklistManifesto,“[T]hesourceofourgreatestdifficultiesandstressesinmedicine...isthecomplexitythatsciencehasdroppeduponusandtheenormousstrainsweare encountering inmaking good on its promise.”He goes on to observe that“defeatunderconditionsofcomplexityoccursfarmoreoftendespitegreateffortratherthanfromalackofit.”

The problem isn’t that we aren’t straining enough. It’s that even our besteffortscannotovercometheweightofcomplexity.Thesolutionmaynotrequirepushingharder.Instead,itmayrequirerethinkingourapproachtocomplexityinthefirstplace.

Comparable problems can be found in education, where the formalizedcomplexity of educational policies actively interferes with scholarship andmakes it harder for Johnny to learn how to read, while overengineered (andunderdesigned)technicaltoolsprovideteachersandstudentswithshinyobjectsthat distractmore than they help. The result is an expensive rush toward lesslearning,notmore. Incontrast, theentirelyunofficialKahnAcademyprovidesan online repository of free educational videos, powerfully simple resourcesusedby10millionstudentseachmonth(includingmykids!).

The same thing happens in fields as diverse as law, engineering, energyproduction,andsocial services.Timeand again, excessively complicated toolsreduce our aptitude, andwell-intentioned increases in complexitymake thingspredictably worse. Even when the consequences are not medically dire,complexity reduces transparency and makes it difficult to see what is reallygoingon.WheneffectivealternativesliketheKahnAcademyexist,theytendtobelessindustrialandmoreorganic.

What can be done about it? Banning complexity outright would be bothunwiseandimpossible.Frankly,we’dhaveaneasiertimeforbiddingthesaleofsixty-four-ouncesodasinNewYorkCity.ButwhilemostofuscannotdirectlysimplifythingslikethetaxcodeortheiTunesEndUserLicenseAgreement,wedonotneedtoresignourselvestotheconfusion,frustration,andwastethatcomefromovercomplexification.Therearethingswecandotoimproveourlivesand

thelivesofthosearoundus.Thisisparticularlytruewhenwedesignsomething,whetherthethingisas

ephemeralasanemailorasenduringasaskyscraper.Wecanrefuse toaccepthigh levels of complexity as inevitable and refuse to view these levels asdesirable.Butevenasconsumerswehaveanopportunitytomakethingsbetterby voting with our funds and purchasing simpler, more elegant alternativeswheneverpossible.Suchalternativessometimescostlesstopurchasebutalmostalwayscostlesstoown,becausetheyperformmorereliablyandeffectivelythanthemorecomplexoptions.Plus,thesesimpleralternativesmakeushappier,andthatcountsforsomething.

InTheBookofFiveRings, thegreatsixteenth-centuryJapaneseswordsmanMiyamotoMusashiwrote,“Fromonething,knowtenthousandthings.”Thereispowerfulsimplicityintheideathatonetruthcanilluminatetenthousandothertruths,andI’msureourroninfriendiscorrect.Thechallengeistoidentifyandexpressasinglefoundationalconceptuponwhich“tenthousandthings”rely.

In the spirit of Musashi I would like to offer one such truth for yourconsideration, a principle that provides a touchstone for subsequent decision-makinganddesignapproaches.Thegreat truth thatwillequipuswithwisdomforour journeyandhelpus findourway—or ten thousandways—through thelabyrinth of complexity can be expressed in five words: simplicity is not thepoint.

Yes, in aworld of ever-increasing complications, it is tempting to hold upsimplicityasacardinalvirtue,auniversallydesirableattribute foralldesignedthings.Thisperspective isunderstandableandexcusable,anditoftenproducesgood results in the short term. However, it’s also wrongheaded by about 90degreesandcontainstheseedsofmuchsubsequentfailure.

Simplicity is great and important, to be sure, but let me say it again:simplicityisnotthepoint.Whatisthepoint?Inaword,goodness.Whetherwearedesigningsoftwareorspacecraft,presentationsorpizzas,theobjectiveistocreatesomething“good.”Simplicitymattersbecause itaffectsgoodness,but itturnsoutthattherelationshipbetweensimplicityandgoodnessdoesnotfollowastraightline.Thismeansanincreaseinonedoesnotalwayscorrespondwithanincrease in the other. Sometimes making things simpler is indeed animprovement.Sometimesnot.Lifeistrickythatway.

Ultimately,itdoesnotmatterhowsimpleorcomplexsomethingis.Theonlyquestioniswhetherthethingisanygood.Forexample,myfavoritehomemadebreadrecipehasjustfouringredients—water,flour,salt,andyeast.It’syummy

andremarkablyeasytomake,andthereisnothingIcouldaddtothedoughthatwouldmakeitbetter.Initssimplicity,itisjustaboutperfect.

Havingsaidthat,Ialsoloveagoodmultigrainloaf,withfive,seven,oreventwelve different grains, plus a scattering of sunflower seeds and other tastyingredients.Thismorecomplexbreadisalsoyummy,althoughinsteadofbakingitmyself,Ibuyitfromashop.

WhenIeatthesetwotypesofbread,thoughtsofsimplicityandcomplexityarethelast thingonmymind.I justenjoythembecausetheyarebothsoverygood.The simplicityorcomplexitycontribute to thequality,but thequality istheappealingfactor.Again,simplicityisnotthepoint.Goodnessisthepoint.

Whogetstodefinegoodness?Thecustomer,ofcourse.Sure,theengineers,inventors,chefs,anddesignersallhaveasay,andtheirinformedopinionmattersgreatly. Same goes for the business leaders and visionaries responsible forguiding the effort. But the customer has the last word on whether or not thedesignisgood,andthatisanimportanttruthtokeepinmind.

So goodness matters more than simplicity, but the two attributes areconnectedinimportantways.Asweseektomakethings“moregooder,”ithelpstounderstandhowgoodnessandsimplicityare related.Specifically, ithelps torecognize a few critical pivot points where activities that previously droveimprovementsbegin to insteadmake thingsworse,wherecomplexitybecomescounterproductive, or where simplicity is inadequate. That’s where this bookcomesin.

Thepagesthatfollowaimtoidentifysomeofthesepoints,providingaroadmap that highlights the good paths and identifies the dead ends we mightencounteronajourneyofdesign.Thinkofitasanatlas,showingawideswathof geography from various perspectives and explaining that a left turn inAlbuquerquewilltakeustowardacertainplace,whilearightturnwilltakeussomewhereelse.

Which turn should you take?That depends onwhere you’re coming fromandwhereyouwanttogo.Anatlascanpointoutniceplacestovisitandidentifythefastestormostscenicwaytogetthere,butitcan’tpickyourdestinationforyou, nor can it dictate which route you should take. Such decisions rightlybelongtothetraveler.That’spartofthejob,andit’salsoabigpartofthefun.

Asyouread,keep inmind that themap isnot the territory,andstudyingamapisnosubstituteforanactualexpedition.Theonlywaytoreallyknowwhatisout there is togo see foryourself. Ifyouchoose to setouton somesortofdesign adventure, don’t be surprised when you encounter bumps in the road,

unexpected twists, andvarious landscape features that escaped theattentionofyour humble cartographer. But as you head out into unknown territory—anddesignisalwaysunknown—itmaybehelpfultobringamapalongandconsultitfromtimetotime.Itmayalsobewisetospendsometimewiththemapbeforethe journeybegins, toget an ideaofhow long the tripmightbe,whatgear topack,andwhattoexpectalongtheway.

Howweuseamapdependsonwhoweare,wherewearetryingtogo,andhowweplantogetthere.Thus,abiker,ahiker,andatruckdrivermightallusethesamemapbutinvastlydifferentways,payingattentiontodifferentfeaturesand arriving at different destinations. Those traveling by foot may pay moreattentiontothespacebetweenroads,lookingfordottedlinesthatindicatecasualtrails throughwoodedareas.Meanwhile, thepeoplewho relyon two-wheeled,self-poweredvehiclestotravelshortdistanceswouldbewisetoavoidthefour-lane interstates and instead stick to the smaller, slower byways. But for thepeoplewhodrive a big rigon eighteenwheels, thosemajorhighways are justaboutperfect.

Even people with a common transportationmodemay approach the samemapwith diverse interests, becausewhen you’re driving in a street race yourneeds and objectives are not the same aswhen it’s your turn to drive the carpool.OrmaybeI’mwrongaboutthat—Idon’tknowmuchaboutyourcar-poolarrangements.

If this book is a map, who is the map for? It is for anyone who designsthings,andthatisprettymuchallofus.AsHenryPetroskiexplainedinhisbookSmallThingsConsidered,“Wethink,thereforewedesign.Indeed,thereisbarelyanythingwedo,muchlessuse,thatdoesnothaveadesigncomponenttoit.”

Thus, this book is also for anyonewhobuys, consumes,orotherwiseusesthings,whichisalsoallofus.Petroskiarguesthatsimplyusingaproductofteninvolves a number of design decisions. So, if you’re interested in reducingconfusion, frustration, and waste—yours or someone else’s—whether as adesigner or a consumer, dealing with hardware or software, services, orprocesses,thenthismapisforyou.

The specifics of howyoumight use themapwill vary depending on yourneeds. Coders, engineers, and other technologists may find it useful to guidetechnical design decisions and to shape the framework of their systemarchitectures.Writersmaydiscoverthattheprocessofliterarycreationissubjecttomanyofthesamecomplexity-relatedpitfallsandopportunitiesasatechnicaldesign project and thus may find familiar territory in the map. So, too, with

peoplewhopreparefood,givepresentations,ormakeplans.If your business is business, you almost certainly face situations where

complexitythreatenstooverwhelmvalue,whereyoumustmakedecisionsabouta process, a customer, or an organizational structure that strike a balancebetweentoomuchandnotenough,betweenneedsandwantsanddo-not-wants.Thesedecisionsrequireanunderstandingofhowcomplexityaffectsqualityandperformance.Thisbookisforyou.

Andfinally,awordaboutleadership.Aleader’sjobisinsomesensetoseethefuture,tocastavisionofwhatcouldbe.Whilelookingaheadtotomorrow’schallenges and opportunities, leaders must simultaneously guide their teamsalongthepathtoday,towardafinishlinethatmaybeinvisibletomostothers.Agoodmapisindispensableinsuchasituation,bothtohelptheleadermakegooddecisionsabouthowtoproceedandalsotohelpdiscusstheplanwiththerestoftheteam.

“See,wearehere,” theleadermightsaytoherfollowersasshepointstoaspotonthemap.“Inordertogetoverthere,wecouldgothiswayorthatway.”A map provides context for her words and gestures, making it easier forfollowerstoengagewith,understand,andembracethevision.

Allofthisbegsthequestionofwhetheranyonereallyneedsamap.Can’twesolve the problem of complexity by following theKISS principle of “Keep itsimple, stupid”?What could be easier than that, right? And yet, maintainingsimplicityisnotonlydifficult,itisoftenill-advised.Invirtuallyanycontext—business planning, software development, pizza making—the immaturesimplicityassociatedwithfirstdrafts,earlyprototypes,andinitialversionstendstobeunsatisfyingly empty.Suchpartial solutions arenecessary startingpointsbutinadequateasfinalproductsbecausetheylacktheessentialqualitiesfoundinmoremature versions.Keeping things simple impedesprogress,which iswhyweaddthingstoourdesigns.Wemakethemmorecomplicatedinordertomakethembetter.Itisonlywhenwegotoofarthatanepiclevelofcomplexitymakesthefinalproductunusable.

Andthis iswhere thingscangeta little tricky.Justbecause there issuchathing as too simple and such a thing as too complex does not mean the bestsolutionsitsinamythicalsweetspotbetweensimplisticandcomplicated,asiftheterritoryinquestioncouldberepresentedbyasinglestraightline.Realityismore complicated than that, and straight lines seldom make for interestingjourneys.Therearebends in the roadweneed tobeawareof. Ifweoverlookthemwe’lleitherendupfollowingtheroadtoabadpartoftownorjumpingoff

thetracksentirely.Thus,themap.Iencounteredoneofthesebendsintheroadin2002,asIpitchedmylatest

project to the U.S. Navy. Before I launched into my demonstration, thelieutenant commander across the tableheldupherhandandmade a commentthatchangedmylife.

“Wait.Beforeyoubegin,Iwanttosaysomething.Idon’tcarehowgoodthisthingis.Ifitisn’teasytouse,Idon’twantit.”

IsatbackinmychairforamomentandthoughtaboutwhatIhadjustheard.Shedoesn’tcarehowgoodtheprojectis?Whataremarkablestatement!Allthecool features and functions in the world wouldn’t be interesting to her team,wouldnotqualify asdesirablequalities, unless theoverall systemwas simple.Shewassayingcomplexitytrumpsgoodness,asentimentthatresonatedwithmeasmuchasitchallenged,surprised,andconfusedme.*

Neitherofusknewitat the time,buthercomment ledme toembarkonalong investigation into the relationship between complexity and goodness inengineering and design. How do complexity and goodness really affect eachother?Issimplicitythepointafterall?MyNavyfriendcertainlyseemedtothinkso,butwasshecorrect?DidIevenunderstandhercomment?Whatdiditreallymean?Clearly,Ihadmoreresearchtodo.

Shortly after that meeting, a number of other things came together,converging into the ideas that eventually became the Simplicity Cycle. IencounteredtheworksofpoetCliffCrego,whichwe’lltakealookatshortly.Ihad some hallway conversations with engineers, and conference-roomdiscussions with senior managers. At some point it occurred to me thatsimplicityandeaseofusearen’tnecessarilythesamething.

Through it all, I felt Iwason thevergeof understanding something aboutdesign, complexity, and utility. I made a few attempts to represent the ideavisuallyandsketchedoutaseriesoflittlediagrams,noneofwhichlookedquiteright.Somethingwasstillmissing.

The journey continued long after that conversation. I talked with morepeople, readmore books, and experimentedwith different design approaches,and things began to fall into place. I learned things. I unlearned things. Igatherednewpiecesofinformation.Isetpiecesasideandputotherstogether.Ican’tpointtoasinglebreakthroughmomentwherethelightbulbcameon,butIeventually sketched out the diagram shown in Figure 1.As I reflected on thedrawing,Irealizeditnotonlydescribedtheprocessofdesigningsomething—anairplane,anoutfit,acomputerprogram,apresentation,abook;italsodescribed

theintellectualpathI’dtraveledinproducingthediagramitself.

FIGURE1:THESIMPLICITYCYCLE

Don’t worry if this figure doesn’t make sense yet. It’s not supposed to (yet).That’spartofthedeal.Inthepagesthatfollowwewillstepthrougheachpiece,thenfitthepiecestogether.It’llbecomecleareroncewedefinesometermsandintroducesomelabels.We’lldothatnow.

CHAPTER2

TheJourneyBegins

Likeamoviestarwhoneedsno introduction,complexity isacentralconceptthat feels familiar to us all.We’ve seen it often enough thatwe feel as ifweknow it.Butalso likeamoviestar,complexitycontains layers thatarehiddenbeneaththesurfaceandthatmostofusareunawareof.Uponcloserinspection,we discover that complexity is, well, more complex than it appears. In fact,complexityturnsouttobeoneofthosewordswithmanydefinitions,somemoreinvolvedandconvolutedthanothers.Ifwe’renotcareful,thatcangetconfusing.

Whenaconsumersayssomethingiscomplex,it’susuallynotacompliment.Butwhenconnoisseursusethewordcomplexitytodescribetheflavorattributesofthingslikecoffee,wine,orchocolate,theyalmostalwaysmeanitinapositivesense andplace a premiumon the product’s depth and character.This typeofcomplexity is regarded by experts as an essential element of excellence . . .exceptforwhenitisn’t.

Too much complexity in our comestibles devolves into complicatedness,leading critics to complain that the flavors are aggressive, messy, and off-putting.Wine seller and blogger JoeAppel explains: “Complicatedwines . . .don’tarctowardharmonythewaygreat,complexwinesdo.Complicatedwinesaremoreunsettled....Noteverythingresolves;themechanicsareclunkier.”Hiscommentscouldjustaseasilybeaboutsoftwareorconsumerelectronicsratherthanfermentedfruitjuice.Butdespitehiscritiquethatcomplicatedwinesdonotpairwellwithanyparticularfoodandusuallytriggeranurgetorunscreamingfromtheroom,hegoesontoadmitthat“everyonceinawhile,whatyoudespiseabout something becomes a reason to love it.” Yes, a difficult, confusing,jumbledwinecanoccasionallybeexactlywhatthedoctorordered.Clearly,ourrelationshipwithcomplexityiscomplicated.

Physicistsandmathematicians,meanwhile,usethewordwithgreatprecision

but without passing judgment—the mathematical complexity of the physicalworldisneithergoodnorbad;itissimplyobserved,measured,anddocumented.Someacademics find ituseful todrawadistinctionbetweendetailcomplexityand dynamic complexity, while others talk about things like Kolmogorovcomplexity and thermodynamic depth. Don’t worry—we won’t need thoseconceptshere.

The elaborate, specialized, and overlapping definitions used by differentgroupsarenodoubtusefulandnecessaryintheirowncontexts,buttheyarenotparticularly useful for the discussion in this book. Instead, we’ll use adeliberately simple definition of the word, based on its general, nonscientificusage.Thedefinitiongoeslikethis:

Complexity:Consistingofinterconnectedparts

Lotsofinterconnectedpartsequalahighdegreeofcomplexity—thinkoftheworldeconomyand the interplaybetweennations,companies, technology,andeven the weather. For that matter, just think of weather itself, which is theproductofinteractionsbetweensuchabewilderinglydiversesetofcomponents(geography,solaractivity,humanactivity,air,water,etc.)thatwecanbarelygetanaccurateforecastfornextweekend,letaloneapredictionofwhichdaysnextmonthwillberainy.

In contrast, few interconnected parts equal a low degree of complexity.Consider a stapleholding several piecesof paper together.Their interaction isstable and unambiguous, easily described and understood. With me so far?Great. But here’s the bad news: this approach to defining complexity isn’t assimpleasitappears.

Theproblemhastodowiththewordlots.That’saverysubjectiveword.Forbetterorworse,thereisnoabsolutescalewecanusetorigorouslydefinelots,asifanynumberofpartslargerthanXconstitutesalot.

Even though consisting of interconnected parts is a simple definition,applying that definition and establishing a qualitative assessment ofwhether adesignhasalotoralittleis—well—notsoeasy.

Forexample,inanabsolutesense,thenumber100isneitherlargenorsmall.For a mechanical pencil sharpener, 100 interconnected parts would be a lot.Absurdlyso.Forajetaircraft,itwouldbeshockinglyfew.Similarly,ifyouhavea dozen pennies, that’s not a lot. But a dozen kids? Wow! Clearly, contextmatters.

Onewaytodealwiththeambiguityof“alot”istointroducetheconceptofefficiency.Aperfectlyefficientdesignhasnogratuitouselements.Instead,ithasjust the right number of interconnected parts, each of which carries its ownweight and contributes positively to the overall operation of the system. Itoperateswithminimalfriction,effort,andwaste.Whethercomposedof10partsor10million,anefficientdesigndoesnothave“alot”ofinterconnectedpieces.It has just enough. This is not exactly the same thing as minimalism, whichcarries connotations of extreme sparseness, but it does share a commonpreferenceforthe“minimaleffectivedose”ratherthanoverdoingit.

Consider a well-designed vehicle dashboard that conveys only the mostimportant information to thedriverat anygiven time.Vehicle speed is alwaysdisplayedbecausethatinformationisalwaysneeded,whilethetemperaturelightonlyilluminateswhentheengineisparticularlycoldorindangerofoverheating.Mostofthetime,thefuelgaugeprovidesageneralindicationofhowmuchgasremains,butiftheleveldropsbelowacertainpoint,anewindicatorlightsuptoalertthedriveroftheneedtogetgas.Thisfostersanefficientuseofthedriver’smentalresources,onlyaskingustopayattentiontothingsthatactuallyrequireattention.

Using the words simple, complex, efficient, and a lot in this way is aphilosophicalandliteraryposition,notascientificone.Thereareotherwaystouse these words, and other reasons, so we should be clear about what we’redoinghere:adoptingarelativelysimpledefinitionofcomplexityandconnectingitwiththeconceptofefficiency.

Nowwe turn to theotherword in thediagram, the label on thehorizontalaxis.ThewordisGoodnessandwehaveusedthatwordseveral timesalready,butwhatdoesitreallymean?

For a technical system, it might mean operational functionality,effectiveness, or fitness-for-use. For a book, presentation, or other attempt atcommunication,goodnessprobablyincludeselementsofclarityandaccuracy,aswellassomemeasureofinterestingness.Makingameal?Goodnessisablendofdelicious and nutritious, although convenience and cost could certainly comeintoplayaswell.Forbusiness,goodnessistightlylinkedtoprofit,whilesociallyminded companieswhopursue a so-called triplebottom line also consider theimpactonpeopleandtheplanet.

It is worth noting that goodness does not mean perfection. It just meansgoodness, anda thingwith flawsmight still bequitegood.For thatmatter, inTheReflectivePractitioner,DonaldSchönpointsoutthat“descriptionsthatare

notverygoodmaybegoodenough,”while thecostanddelayassociatedwithimprovements beyond a certain “good enough” point may be not onlyunnecessarybutalsounwise.

Usingageneraltermlikegoodnessallowsus toapply theconceptacrossawide range of specific situations. Readers are invited to create their owndefinition of the word, based on whatever particular measures of merit arerelevant for their situation. It isworth noting that goodness is a relative termwhosedefinitionvariesover time.AsHenryPetroskiexplains inSmallThingsConsidered,“Weevaluatedesignsnotagainstabsolutesbutagainstoneanother.”Thusourevaluationofa thing’sgoodnesswillnot remainstaticso longas thealternativescontinuetochange.

With the outline established and the terms defined, we can now beginmovingaround.Butwheretostart?Well,sometimeswearefortunateenoughtobegin a design effortwith a blank sheet of paper (metaphorically or literally).Thisisnotalwaysthecase,butwhenithappens,wefindourselvesatthebottomleft corner, in theRegion of the Simplistic, as shown in Figure 2. The singlesquareinthatcornerisametaphoricalrepresentationofourfirstdesignelement.We’lladdtoitasweproceed.

FIGURE2:THEREGIONOFTHESIMPLISTIC

Inthisregioncomplexityislow,andsoisgoodness.Wehaven’tcreated,added,or done verymuch yet, so our design is neither very complex nor very good.That’sallright.Everyonehastostartsomewhere,andthisiswherewebegintolayafoundationforall theprogressandworkthatwillfollow.But it isboring

here,sowedon’tstaylong.Infact,it’salmostimpossibletostayherebecauseofournaturaltendencytomakeadditiveenhancements.

We leave this area by adding pieces, parts, and functions to the design.Books gain words, sentences, paragraphs, and chapters. Pizzas accumulatesauces,seasonings,andtoppings.Softwareincorporateslinesofcode,modules,anddynamic-link libraries.Processesexpand to includenewsteps,procedures,reviews,anddecisionpoints.

We add these things for a fundamental, benign reason—they make ourdesigns better. Pizzawithout toppings is just flat bread, but sauce and cheesemakeitdelicious.Abookwithoutinkisjustblankpaper,butwordsandpicturesadd meaning. We want to improve our bread and paper, to increase theirgoodness,soweputthingsonthem.

But these additions do not only increase goodness. They also increasecomplexity.Morewordsinourbook,moremodulesinoursoftware,morestepsinourprocess,moreingredientsonourpizzaallcontributetoamorecomplexproduct.

Wecandepictthischangewithalinethatmovesupandtotheright,inthedirectionofincreasedcomplexityandgoodness,asshowninFigure3.IcallthistheComplexitySlope.

FIGURE3:THECOMPLEXITYSLOPE

PositiveprogressalongtheComplexitySlopecanbedescribedaslearningandcreating. In aword, the slope is about genesis, theproduction and additionofnewparts.Sometimes theslope issteep,whencomplexityrisesatafaster rate

than goodness because the benefit of each addition is small. Other times theslope isgentler, as small increases incomplexityproduce significant boosts invalue. But regardless of the angle, things are becoming simultaneously betterandmorecomplex.

As an example of how this might happen, consider the automobile. Onceupona time,carsdidn’thaveseatbelts.Theydidn’thaveairbags.Theydidn’thave any number of safety features that are now standard on even the leastexpensive models. These added safety components make today’s cars morecomplex than the cars our parents and grandparents drove, but there is littledisagreementthattheincreaseddegreeofsafetyalsomeanstheyarebetter.

Mostseatbeltsare themselvesquitesimple.True,somerestraintsaremoreelaborate than others, with pads and sensors and such, but even the fanciestversionisessentiallyastrap,aratchet,andalatch.Inthebigschemeofthings,aseatbeltrepresentsaminorincreaseincomplexityforthevehicle.

As for goodness, the value this safety device conveys to the drivingexperience far exceeds the complexity it adds. The National Highway TrafficSafetyAdministrationsaysifyou’reinacrash,wearingyourseatbeltcutstheriskofinjuriesby50percent.That’sagoodthing.

Thisshowsthatincreasesincomplexitycanmakethedesignbetter.Nobigsurprise there.However, the relationship between complexity and goodness isnotconstant.Theyarenotalwaysdirectlyproportional,andmakingsomethingmorecomplexonlyimprovesittoapoint,whichbringsustothecenterofourmap.

Inthecenterof themapwefindacriticalmassofcomplexity.Thisareaisnotexactlytheproverbialsweetspotwheregoodnessisoptimized—thatcomeslater.Rather,thisisaninflectionpoint,aphaseshiftwheretherulesofprogressbegintochange.IcallittheRegionoftheComplex,anditisshowninFigure4.

At this point, the number of elements involved has substantially increasedbeyondtheoriginalsimplisticdesign,andwehaveachievedameaningfuldegreeof functionality and maturity (aka goodness). We have now amassed manydesignelements,shownhereasacollectionofsquares.Wemightevensaywehave...alotofthem.

FIGURE4:THEREGIONOFTHECOMPLEX

Thereisnothingwrongwithspendingasignificantamountoftimeinthisarea.The designswe find here are demonstrably better than their predecessors andarriving here indicates an admirable degree of progress. We are no longerdealingwith early prototypes and first drafts, but neither arewe talking aboutfinished, polished end products, either. Instead, designs in this area areintermediate versions thatmay be sufficient to put into the hands of our betatestersandearlyadopters,butareunsuitedtobefullyreleasedintothewild.

In the early 1900s, theWright brothers landed their first plane squarely inthis area.TheWrightFlyerwas a rather complexmachine and required a fairamountofeffortandmaintenancetokeepitaloft.Itwasnolongerascalemodelorapaperairplane,anditwasabletoactuallycarryapersonintothewildblueyonder.Butitwasnotquitereadyforsaletothegeneralpublicjustyet.

The Wright Flyer was simple by today’s standards in that it lacked suchnicetiesasacockpit,a radio,and retractable landinggear,but itscreationwasprimarily the product of genesis and learning. Orville and Wilbur busilyproduced new information and new functions and added to earlier designs.Arriving at this point required some simplification and integration, to be sure,butmuchmoreofthatwasstillwaitinginthefuture.

Forexample,thedoublewingsandexposedstrutstheyusedrepresentalevelof complexity not found in later improvements. Interestingly, some ofOrvilleand Wilbur’s antecedents used as many as five sets of wings, but modernaeronautsagreeasimpler,singlewingdesignispreferable.

As the concept of an airplane matured and engineers came to a more

completeunderstandingofwhatflighttrulyrequires,severalaspectsofitsdesignwere simplified and removed.Other aspects gotmore complex.We’ll addressthisapparentparadoxshortly.

Whileitisperfectlyfinetolingerhereinthecenterofthechart,learningandexploringandmodifyingourdesign,atsomepointwe’llneedtomakethetypesof changes that transfer us to a new region.Maybe a competitor’s arrivalwillinspireustorevampourdesign,ormaybewejustgetboredandwanttoexploresomethingnew.Regardlessofourmotivationforpackingupandmovingout,wenowhaveachoice tomake.Thereare twopathsoutof thiscentral regionandneither follows the earlier trajectory of increases to both complexity andgoodness.We have to make some changes in our approach, and as the GrailKnight said to Indiana Jones in The Last Crusade, it is important to choosewisely.

Note that it is not possible to continue moving up and to the rightindefinitely, increasing both complexity and goodness in order to producesomethingthat issimultaneouslysupergoodandsupercomplex.Thatmeanstheupper right corner of the diagram is Strictly Off-Limits. Like certain parts ofMaine,youtrulycannotgettherefromhere...orfromanywhere.

Instead,thetwodeparturepathsrunperpendiculartothepaththatbroughtusto themiddleof thechart.Oneheadsupand to the left; theotherheadsdownandtotheright.Figure5showswhatthatlookslike.

FIGURE5:TWOPATHSANDTHEOFF-LIMITSAREA

Let’sfirstexaminethepathwewant toavoid—theupperpath—beforeturning

ourattentiontothedesirablelowerpath.Thisupperpathistheonewe’llfollowif we continue exhibiting the same design behaviors that brought us to themiddleofthechart—adding,creating,andexpanding.

As we pile on more and more layers of complexity beyond this centralinflection point, our design getsworse.Goodness decreases. Even though ourincreases in complexity are done in the name of improvement, the result is adeteriorationofperformance,reliability,andquality.

You have probably heard of the Law ofDiminishingReturns,where eachnewadditionor change conveys less benefit than thepreviousone.Yes, it’s abummerwhentherateofimprovementslowsdown,butwhat’sgoingonatthispoint is even worse than that. Instead of diminishing returns, this upper pathdepictsnegativereturns.Alongthisslope,newadditionsdonotmerelyprovidelessvaluethantheonesbefore.Theyactuallyweighdownthedesignandmakeit worse. The rate of improvement hasn’t slowed—it has reversed directionentirely.

TheGermanshaveawonderfullylongwordforthistypeof“improvement”that makes things worse: verschlimmbesserung. That’s precisely what’shappeninghere.Themorewe tinkerand tweak, themoreweaddandexpand,theworsethingsget.Addingtoourfrustrationandconfusionisthedisconcertingknowledgethatouradditivebehaviorsusedtobeproductive.

Whatchanged?Our locationon themapchanged.We foundabend in thetrailandinsteadofheadingeastarenowgoingnorth.Itmayfeellikewe’reonthesametrailasever,andwemaybewearingthesamewell-wornhikingboots,butnowthepathisovergrown,thesunissetting,andit’sstartingtosnow.Plus,we’re being chasedby amountain lion.And a grizzlybear.Andwe’re out ofcoffee.

Oursituationhaschangedenoughthatwecangivethisrouteitsownname:theComplicationSlope.YoucanseeitinFigure6.Movementalongthisslopeistheresultofoverlearningandsmugness,wherewefallinlovewithcomplexityfor its own sake rather than using complexity as a means to an end. Wemistakenlyseeincreasestocomplexityassignsofprogress,andcontinuecertaindesignbehaviorsevenaftertheyhaveceasedtobeproductive.

FIGURE6:THECOMPLICATIONSLOPE

Thereareseveralreasonswemightmoveadesignalongthisunfortunatepath.Sometimes it’s just a matter of intellectual inertia, where we get so used toaddingtothedesignthatwekeepdoingitevenaftersuchadditionsceasetobeuseful.Othertimeswedoitbecausewe’requantifyingandrewardingthewrongthing,treatingcomplexityasameasureofmeritoradesirabledesignattribute,asifcustomerspreferbuyingthingstheycan’tunderstand.

In a 2006BusinessWeek article titled “HowDoYouTurnOn the #@!&%Air?”DavidWelch bemoaned the complicated dashboards of luxury cars thatrequire navigating through multiple menus to perform simple tasks such asadjusting the temperature. He poignantly asks, “Whatever happened to thebuttonwith the snowflake on it?”Digital control panelsmay look fancy, feelposh, and help justify large price tags, but they don’t necessarily improve thedrivingexperience.Infact,theyjustmightmakethingsworse.

AcommentatorfortheInnovation-TRIZnewslettershedfurtherlightonthedashboardproblem,writing,“Isn’titfuntoaddthings?Don’tweengineerslovetodesignsomething,toaddtosomething,tocontrolsomething?Inhundredsof...workshopsusingsimpleintroductoryproblems,whenagroupofengineersisasked tocreateasolution toaproblem,99%of the time they invariablyADDsomethingtothesystemtofixtheproblem.”

It’sunlikelyallthoseadditionsrepresentimprovements.It’sevenlesslikelythat 99 percent of design challenges require something to be added.And yet,addition is the default mode for engineers (like myself). A more thoughtfulapproach reveals that design problems are sometimes rooted in what is

unnecessarily present rather than what is missing. In such cases, the solutioninvolvesaremoval,areduction,asubtraction,adecrease...andifitweren’tsobusyservingasabadexample,Ithinktheprevioussentencewouldbebetterifitwaslessredundant.

The underlying dynamic is rooted in the fact that while complexity has avalue, it alsohasacost.AsDarrellMannexplained inanarticle for theTRIZJournal, eventually “the problems that come with the increased complexityoutweighthebenefits.”

Poet Cliff Crego illuminates this situation brilliantly when he writes,“complication leads to contradiction.” He verbally paints images of gearsgrindingagainsteachother,andhechallengeshisreaderstofaceuptothecostsinvolvedwithavoidablecomplexity:

Theway of thinkingwhich is themost inappropriate of all is the onewhichdoesnotsee,orworse,simplytolerates,unnecessarydifficulty.

From there, it is only a small step to the degeneration of cults ofcollusion which not only condone, but actually cultivatecomplicatedness.

Membershipintheseridiculouscultsiseasytocomeby,andsometimeseventhewisestofus join themovementwithoutdeliberatelydeciding tosignup. Itstartswhenweviewcomplexityasunavoidableandinevitable,creatingmentalinertiathatmightevenleadustoseecomplexityasdesirable.Whatfollowsisapatternofbehaviorinwhichwemakethingsmorecomplicatedinthehopethatsuchcomplexitieswillmakethingsbetter,ignoringthemountainofevidencetothecontrary.

Examplesofsuchbehaviorabound,but let’sconsiderone thathasahappyending.In1893,WhitcombJudsonwasgrantedapatentforadevicehecalled“aclasplocker.”Itwasemphaticallyignoredbythepublicwhenhedemonstrateditatthe1893World’sFairinChicago,buteventuallyhisideacaughtonandtodayweknowclasplockersaszippers.AccordingtotheaccountinHenryPetroski’sEvolutionofUsefulThings,Judson’sfriendColonelLewisWalkerobservedthat“Judson’swayofmeetingadifficultywastoaddinventionafterinventiontohisalready large supply. . . . Judson’s activities were expensive. They tended tocreatemoreproblemsthantheysolved.”

The negative impact of Judson’s tendency toward complexity, in terms ofboth dollars and headaches, was obvious to Walker. For that matter, Judson

himself was surely aware of it, too, even without Walker’s critique, but hepersistedneverthelessinhisadditiveapproachtoproblemsolvingforquitesometime. He eventually broke out of that pattern, removed some of thecomplexifyingsnagsfromhisdesign,andchangedthefaceoffastenersforever.

Judson’s story is hardly unique. When all the complexity we add to ourdesignfailstobringthehoped-forimprovementsandinsteadintroducesahostofnewproblems,manyofushaveatendencytoresolutelyattackthoseproblemsbyaddingevenmorelayersofcomplexity.Wemayevengosofarastocriticizeour benighted customers for lacking sufficient sophistication to appreciate thegeniusofourdesign.Ifdriverswouldonlyreadthethree-hundred-pagemanualand thenattendourconvenient four-hour introductoryclass, theywouldeasilylearntheseventeen-stepprocessforturningontheair-conditioning.Andiftheysignupforthetwo-weekIntermediateTraining,theycanalsolearnhowtoturntheairconditioneroff.Don’tblamethedesignerifourcustomersaretoolazytoputintheeffort,right?

Thisisnotaparticularlyeffectivedesignstrategy,norawiseone.ThebestIcan say about it is that it does not require much imagination or skill. And Ishould admit I’m just as prone to going down that path as anyone, as thefollowingstoryshows.

MyfellowgraduatestudentsandIwereexcitedwhentheprofessorhandedoutLegoMindstormskits.Theassignment:buildanautonomousrobotvehiclecapableofnavigatingashortmaze.We’dbeenlookingforwardtothisprojectallsemester.

Allwe had to dowaswrite a short list of functions required tomaneuverfromStarttoFinish,thenassemblethesmallcollectionofsensors,wheels,andblocksintoacoherentvehiclecapableofperformingthosefunctions.

Thatispreciselywhatmostofmyclassmatesdid.Unfortunately,mypartnersandItookadifferentapproach.Aswemadeourlist,wedidn’tpassupasingleopportunitytomakethingscomplicated.Ifafunctioncouldbeperformedwithonesteporonepiece,weusedeight.

Our resulting monstrosity was more than twice as large as most othercontenders,anditworkedevenworsethanyoumightexpect.OnDemonstrationDay,wefailedtocompletethemazeonourfirstrun.Andoursecondrun.Andthird. After watching our more successful classmates, we did a last-minuteredesign,strippedoutalotofunnecessaryjunk,andfinallymadeittothefinishline.Notexactlymyfinestmoment.

Theteamthatgotthroughthemazefastest(ontheirfirstattempt,naturally)

hadthesimplestandsmallestdeviceofall.Itusedjusttwowheelsandasinglesensor.Theirsoftwareprogramwasafewlineslong.

Thatteammayhavereceivedabettergrade,butI’dliketothinkmypartnersandIlearnedmore.

Stayonthecomplicationslopelongenough,continuallyaddingunnecessarypiecesandvershlimbesserung-ingalong,andwewillarriveattheRegionoftheComplicated, in theupper left cornerof themap, shown inFigure7.Hic suntdracones. Instead of more squares, we now have meaningless squiggles andpiecesthatdonot(andcannot)fitwithotherpieces.It’samessuphere.

WhenIfindmyselfflounderingaroundhere,Iamremindedoftheimmortalwords of Arrested Development character Gob Bluth: “I’ve made a terriblemistake.” Somewhere along the way I managed to confuse complexity withvalueandendedupmakingthingsworseinsteadofbetter.

FIGURE7:THEREGIONOFTHECOMPLICATED

This area ismarkedly different than theRegion of theComplex, found in thecenter of the map. There’s nothing wrong with hanging out there. There iseverythingwrongwithspendingtimeintheComplicatedarea.

Complex and complicated may sound similar, but they are in fact verydifferent beasts. Complexity is often both essential and unavoidable. AssimplicityguruJohnMaeda famouslywrote,“Some thingscanneverbemadesimple.”Certaintopics,issues,activities,andmissionsareinherentlycomplex—and that is okay. Complicatedness, on the other hand is less admirable.Complications arise from unnecessary complexity, from the addition of non-

value-addedparts,ofgearsthatturnwithoutreasonorgrindagainstothergears.Complexitymaybeessential,butcomplicatednessisnot.

Whatdoesunproductivecomplexitylooklike?Well,afewyearsago,severalmediaoutletsexcitedlyreportedabreakingnewsstorythattheU.S.militaryhadunexpectedlypublishedanunnecessarilycomplicatedsetofspecificationsforapiece of gear. Students of military history know this was not an entirelyunprecedentedsituation,but theexampleinquestionwasinterestingenoughtomeritaheadlineortwo.

Was the story about a high-tech stealth fighter? A particularly massiveaircraft carrier? An amphibious rocket-submarine? Nope, nope, and heck no.Thereportswereaboutabakedgood.

TurnsouttheArmyhadcreatedatwenty-six-pagemanualonhowtobakeamilitary brownie for inclusion in anMRE (meal, ready-to-eat). To be fair, themanual also addressed oatmeal cookies, and several pages dealt with thepackagingrequirements,buteveryoneseemed toagree twenty-sixpageswasabitmuch.

Ofcourse,wearen’ttalkingaboutordinarybrownies.Thesecombat-trainedtreats have a shelf life of three years and are regularly subjected to hostileenvironmentsthatwouldbefataltotheirmoredelicateciviliancounterparts.Butas someone who has been on the receiving end of this confection’s sweetattentions, I can confirm it has almost nothing in common with the yummy,chocolatydessertweallknowandlove.Ontheotherhand,Ishouldn’tcomplaintoomuchaboutthem.Therehavebeentimeswheneatingonewasthebestpartofmyday,andIknowI’mnotaloneinthatexperience.

WhileMREbrowniesoftenserveasbrightspotsinotherwisedarkplaces,itis not unreasonable to ask whether the recipe’s complexity was necessary,productive,andgood.Mostlikelyitwasnot.Surelytheinstructionscouldhavebeendonemoresimply,andthesimplicitymighthaveimprovedtheoutcome,ifnotthetaste.

As an alternative data point,my grandmother put her brownie recipe on athree-by-five card.Then again, unlike themilitary version her brownies neverlastedmuchpastdinnertime.

Howdoweendupwithatwenty-six-pagebrownierecipe?Moregenerally,how does complexity become complication? What triggers the tipping point,where positive additions become negative, where design strategies that werepreviously sound become downright destructive? It starts when we overvaluecomplexity,equatingitwithsophisticationandimplicitlyassumingthatifalittle

bitofcomplexityisgood,thenalotisevenbetter.Butitalsohappensbecausechanges in quantity can indeed change quality. Our friends in the field ofsoftware development can shed some light on this phenomenon, which theysometimescalltheStateExplosionProblem.

TheStateExplosionProblemgoeslikethis:asthenumberofvariablesinacomputer program increases, the number of possible states the program canassumeincreasesexponentially.Innoncomputerterms,themorepieceswehave,the more possible interactions there are between those pieces. Lots of piecesmeansamega-lotofinteractions.

Why is that a problem? For starters, we may want to test the program’sperformance before sending it out into the world, to see if it does what it’ssupposed to do. If the number of possible states has exploded exponentially,theresimplyisn’tenoughtimeleftinadozenlifetimestotesteachscenario.Ifwecan’ttestthedesign,wecan’tknowhowitwillperforminreallife.Thatcanleadtoallsortsofnastysurprises.

Excessivecomplexitynotonlymakestestingdifficult,italsomakesdesignsmore fragileby increasing thenumberofpossible failuremodes.That is,eachpiece we add introduces new opportunities for breakage. Accumulate enoughpotentialbreakpointsandoneofthemisboundtogiveway.That’snotgood.

Alongwith increased fragility, there seems tobea correlationbetween theupper left quadrant,with its confusingandupsettingcomplexity, anda certaindegreeofmentaldistress. Iwonder:Doescomplexitydriveus crazy?Ordoescausalityflowtheotherway?Perhapsinsanitydrivesustowardcomplexity.

Inmuchthesameway,theprofoundandcomfortingsimplicityfoundinthelowerrightcornergoesalongwiththatmostdesirableelementofmentalhealth,serenity.Isinnerpeacearootoraresponse?DoweenterastateofZenwhenwefocusoncreatingelegantsimplicityinourdesigns?Ordoweproducesimplicitybecausewefirstpossessinternalserenity?

I suspect our mental state is both a cause and an effect. The relationshipbetween (in)sanity and (un)clarity works in both directions. Thus, beingunfocusedand franticallyconfuseddegradesourworkand fostersunnecessarycomplexity inourdesigns,asweflailaroundandaddcomponents in theblindhope that someof themwillmake thedesignbetter.This reflectsbackonourinnerlivesandcausesmoreconfusion,anunfortunateviciouscircle.

Likewise,whenweareinternallycenteredandfocused,wecanmoreeasilyavoid getting our design wrapped up in entangling complexities because ourvision is clearer. We see and embrace alternatives that get overlooked or

dismissedwhenweareinamoreharried,hurriedstate.Thisflowsbackintoourcore,asthepresenceofsimplicityintheexternalsofone’slifecontributestoasenseofserenewell-beinginone’sinner,mentallife.

That’swhyIranouttothestorelastweekandboughtoneofthoseminiZenrockgardens,plusatabletopwaterfallfountain(withsoothingLEDlightsbuiltrightin),adozencandlesinvarioussizes/colors/scents,awhite-noisegenerator,and an aromatherapy diffuser. The only problem is I now need a larger desk,becausemycurrentdeskdoesnothaveenoughspaceforall thatstuffplusmylaptop.Holdon,I’llberightback.

Themostfamousdocumentarianofthisrelationshipbetweencomplexityandinsanity was Rube Goldberg. His famously convoluted drawings shone ahumorous light on humanity’s tendency to overvalue complexity far beyondreason.He described his creations as “symbols ofman’s capacity for exertingmaximumefforttoaccomplishminimalresults.”

Goldberg’s devices clearly reside in the upper left corner of the map anddemonstrate the irrationalityof that area.Unlikemost residentsof that region,these endedup there onpurpose.Theydeliberately accomplish in five steps ataskthatshouldonlytakeone,andtheydoit tomakeapoint.It’sfunnywhentheydoitonpurpose.It’slessfunnywhenwedoitinadvertently.

Despite the long-standing popularity and widespread awareness of RubeGoldberg’s pointed commentary on complexity, some people still manage tobelievecomplexityisalwaysvirtuous.Thementalgyrationsnecessarytosustainthis position look positively exhausting, but I’ve got to admire theircommitment.

One such attempt to defend the importance of high levels of complexityoccurredina2013articlepublishedinalearnedacademicjournalwhosenameIwouldrathernotshare.Theauthorsofthisparticularpieceassertedwithoutanyhint of irony that program managers and engineers never “add unnecessarycomplexitytotheirsystemsandprocesseswithoutreason.”

UnlikeGoldberg’swork, I suspect the humor and the truth in that journalarticlewerebothunintentional,but I foundmyself laughingandagreeingwiththe sentiment all at the same time. Yes, people always have reasons for theunnecessary complexity they add to their work. Rationalizations abound.However,unnecessarycomplexityis,bydefinition,unnecessaryandthereasonsprovided are entirely unreasonable. The result is confusion, complicatedness,and expansive bureaucracy that aims to copewith unnecessary complexity byadding more complexity, on the grounds that the only way to address an

unreasonablyhighlevelofcomplexityisbyaddingtoit.Surelynot.It perhaps bears repeating that a certain amount of complexity is valuable

and necessary, but at some point complexity devolves into unreasonablecomplication, which makes things worse. Interestingly, the dynamic ofcomplexitybecomingcomplicationoccursevenwhenthethingwe’redesigningisn’tathing.

Throughout his book Ambient Findability, information architect PeterMorville discusses the problem of information overload. He argues that inadditiontobeingpainfulanddistracting,toomuchinformationactuallyleadstoworsedecisions.

We could depict the relationship Morville describes between informationquantityanddecisionqualityasabellcurve,withdecisionquality rising, thenfalling,aswegathermoreandmore information.At first,gatheringadditionalfacts leads to better decisions. But at a certain point, learning more actuallyreducesdecisionquality.Thispattern should sound familiarbynow: facts anddetailsincreasecomplexityandhelpusmakebetterdecisions,untilwegotoofarandtheoverwhelmingcomplexitymakesthingsworse.

Morville’sobservationsuggeststhatfactsanddetailsaregoodandimportant,buttheycanbedifficulttomanageinlargequantities.Onewaytomanagethemisbytransformingfactsintometaphorandstory.Thisallowsustointegratethemintoasimplerblockofknowledgethatiseasiertounderstand,remember,apply,andshare.

Metaphors give us a handle with which to grasp the essential facts.Metaphors alsomake it easier to pass along the facts to a fellow traveler. Forexample,attheriskofbeingtooself-referential,wemighttalkaboutdesignasajourney and designers as travelers. This creates a framework for additionaldiscussion,whichmayincludethingslike“startingout,”or“abendintheroad,”or even “a map of complexity-related pitfalls.” Without some sort ofmetaphoricalstructure,ourconversationwouldquicklybeoverwhelmedbytheweightofprecise,literaldescriptorsthataremuchhardertograspandapply.

Fortunately,usingmetaphorscomesnaturallytous.Whetherwearetryingtobe metaphorical or not, our minds default toward metaphor automatically,sometimes without us even realizing it. In fact, George Lakoff and MarkJohnson’sbookMetaphorsWeLiveByargues thatmetaphor isa“fundamentalmechanism of mind,” and that we can scarcely think of anything innonmetaphoricalterms.

In a similar vein, Marshall McLuhan wrote, “When you give people too

much information, they instantly resort to pattern recognition to structure theexperience.”Thisisnotexactlyachoice.It’sjustthewayhumansarewired.It’showwemake sense of theworld around us—by replacing complex literalismwith simpler, metaphorical descriptions. We describe one thing in terms ofsomethingelse,ametaphororapattern,tomakeiteasiertohandle.

Not all metaphors are created equal, and some are more useful orenlighteningthanothers.Sincewe’regoingtousemetaphorsanyway,weshouldmake an effort to construct our metaphors thoughtfully and ensure theyilluminatethekeyfacetsinquestionanddon’tobscureanycriticalelements.Indoing so, we will avoid the overwhelming weight of information Morvillewarnedusabout.

Whetherthetopicisinformationorhardware,excessivecomplexityisoftenrootedinalackofpriorities.Whenwecan’ttellwhichpiecesofinformationorwhich aspects of our design matter, we try to include everything for fear ofmissingsomethingimportant.Theresult—wemissalmosteverything.

Thefearofmissingoutisnotunfounded.Yes,inthenameofsimplicity,wemight miss something. So choose priorities carefully. Thoughtfully. Evenperhapsprayerfully,orattheveryleastmeditativelyandreflectively.

Butchoose.Thisdoesnotmeanweshouldpostacloyinglyvapidmissionstatementon

thewall,helpfullyinformingeveryonethatprofit/quality/safety/excellenceisJobNo. 1. That superficial approach to prioritization fosters cynicism.What I’mtalkingaboutismorepracticalthanthat,asthefollowingstoryshows.

SoftwaredeveloperJoelSpolskywroteafantasticessayonthefoolishnessofunnecessary complexity, titled “Choices=Headaches.”* He describeddiscovering fifteen ways to shut down a laptop running Microsoft Vista,including sleep, hibernate, Switch User, four different function keycombinations,closingthelid,and,ofcourse,theon-offbutton.

Therewasprobablyasoundreasonforaddingeachmethod,butthereisnosenseinhavingallfifteen.

Somemightobjectthatextrafeaturesareharmlessanddon’tgetintheway,butthatisuntrue.It’salsoansweringthewrongquestion.See,it’snotenoughforeachfunctiontobemerelyharmless.Weshouldinsteadensureeverycomponentmakes an actual contribution and improves the design. Every piece should beuseful, and as Spolsky pointed out, too many “harmless” additions causeheadaches.

Designersthereforeshouldruthlesslyscruboutunnecessaryredundancyand

mediocrity, no matter how well-intentioned. That may sound obvious, butMicrosoft’sVistaPowerDownCommitteeapparentlyskippedthatstep.

Fortunately for us all, Microsoft learned its lesson and took a differentapproach toWindows 7. Instead of blithely adding a dozen different ways toachieve the same effect, they focused their design effort, rewarded coders forstreamliningthesoftware,andproducedasimpler,smaller,lessbuggyproduct.

Removingtheheadache-inducingcomponentsfromourdesignmeanswearemoving along the Simplification Slope. As Figure 8 shows, this means ourdesignnowmovesdownandtotherightratherthanupandtotheleft.Inordertomove along this slopewehave to learn to use somenew tools . . . and setaside someoldones, at least for now. Inplaceof learning andgenesis,whichserveduswellalongthefirstpartofthetrip,wemustnowadoptatoolsetthatincludesthingslikeunlearning,synthesis,andreduction.

FIGURE8:THESIMPLIFICATIONSLOPE

Along this slope, the most productive tasks do not involve creating newelements.Instead,wemustintegratetheexistingelementsandcreativelydiscardtheunnecessaryparts.Theideaistopruneandparedownthedesign,reducingittotheessentialcomponents,eachofwhichisabletofreelyoperatewithminimalfrictionandmaximumcontribution.

This 90-degree shift in behavior is harder than it sounds, in large partbecause it demands we overcome a great deal of design momentum. Whenwe’ve spent a lot of time adding things to the design, the transition to asubtractive approach can feel uncomfortable, awkward, or evenwrong. It also

requires a certain amount of humility as we remove things we’d previouslycreated.Despitethedifficulty,itisworththeeffort.

Speakingofdifficulty,havingatasteforsimplicityisnotthesameashavinga talent for it, and our preferences inevitably precede proficiency. That is,wewant simplicity long beforewe are able to achieve it, and our early efforts tocreate elegant simplicity seldom live up to our expectations. This leadsmanybeginnerstothrowinthetowelprematurely.

MichaelCaine’sconmancharacterinthe1988filmDirtyRottenScoundrelsblamed the disparity between skill and ideals for his wayward lifestyle. Heexplained it toSteveMartin’s character in thesewords: “Freddy, as ayoungerman,Iwasasculptor,apainter,andamusician.Therewasjustoneproblem:Iwasn’t very good. As a matter of fact, I was dreadful. I finally came to thefrustratingconclusionthatIhadtasteandstyle,butnottalent.”Abandoningtheefforttocreate,heinsteadusedhisexquisitetastetoliberatelargequantitiesofmoneyandtreasurefromthewealthy.Hilarityensued.

Public radio host Ira Glass tells much the same story, minus the criminalelement:“Yourtasteiswhyyourworkdisappointsyou.Alotofpeoplenevergetpastthisphase,theyquit....”Glassgoesontoexplainthekeytoovercomingthis talentdeficit:“It isonlybygoing throughavolumeofwork thatyouwillclose that gap, and your work will be as good as your ambitions.” In otherwords,practiceandpersistenceturnpreferenceintoproficiency.

Yes,thetransitiontowardsimplifyingacomplicateddesigncanbedifficult.Oneof the bestways to start down this newpath is to take a pause fromourpreviouspath.Stopadding.Stopcreating.Stopeverything.

Juststop.Bearinmind,thissuspensionofactivityisatemporaryhalt,notapermanent

one.Theideaistopause,notquit.Thereisstillplentyofworktobedone.Andtheremainingwork ispreciselywhyweneed to takeabreather.As leadershipguruKevinCashmanwroteinThePausePrinciple,apauseis“exactlywhatisneededtosortthroughcomplexityandthendriveperformancetothenextlevel.”

Inthispause,godosomethingelse.Walkoutside.Visitafriend.Singasong.Paint apicture.Doodle.Exercise.Meditate.Feed the soul.Whether it’s for anhour or a year, there ismuchwisdom in taking a sabbatical at this particularpoint in thedesignprocess,as itbreaksupourmomentumbefore itcarriesussomewherewedon’twanttogo.Thereisalsoscientificsupportforthispractice,particularlyifthethingyoudecidetodoistakeawalk.

Stanford researchersMarily Oppezzo and Daniel L. Schwartz published a

paperintheJournalofExperimentalPsychologyin2014exploringtheeffectsofwalking on creativity. They performed several experiments that “demonstratethatwalkingboostscreativeideation,”andtheyobservedthat“[w]alkingopensupthefreeflowof ideas,andit isasimpleandrobustsolutionto thegoalsofincreasingcreativityandincreasingphysicalactivity.”

Walkingisgreat,butwhenIneedapause,Iprefertojuggle.Jugglingcanbeinvigoratingly athletic or quietly meditative, depending on my mood andwhetherIneedtogetthebloodpumpingortocentermybreathing.Regardlessofthepace,jugglinghasaphysicaleffect,asImovemyarmsandfocusmyeyesinanewway.Italsohasamentaleffectandallowstheproblem-solving,design-oriented,Type-Apartofmymindtoslipintothebackgroundwhiletheyounger,more playful part takes center stage. This engages the creative subconsciousmind,whichcomesupwith ideas,approaches,andsolutionsmymore rationalconsciousmindfailedtoconsider.

Ikeepasetofjugglingballsonabookshelfinmyofficeforthisveryreason,andI’vefoundthatevenfiveminutescanprovideaneffectivereset,breakingtheadditivemomentumandsettingthestageforanew,simplifyingapproach.Sure,it attracts some funny looks frommycolleagues sometimes,but that’s a smallpricetopay.Forthatmatter,Ikindoflikegettingthosefunnylooks.

Speakingofcolleagues,I’vealsofoundthatlearningtojuggleiseasierthanit looks. I can usually teach someone how to juggle in less than half an hour.Mastering the skill takes a bit longer, but the basics are easy enough to graspoverashortlunchbreak,withplentyoftimeforasandwichafterward.

Some people prefer a more sedentary type of pause. Winston Churchill’shabit of taking daily naps iswell known andwidely documented. In his ownwritings,Churchillexplainedhowanaphelped“renewallthevitalforces”andenabledhimtomaintainaprodigiousoutputasaleaderandstatesman.Nappersthusareingoodcompany,andalthoughI’veneverdevelopedatastefordaytimesleepingmyself,Iunreservedlyrecommendnapsasawisethingtodowhenyouneedapause.

Sleeping in the middle of the afternoon was not the only type of pauseChurchillpracticed.Attheageofforty,hebegantopaintforthefirsttime,goingon towinseveralawards forhisartwork. Inabriefessay titled“PaintingasaPastime,” Churchill explained the importance of cultivating a hobby likepaintingas away to renewand refreshone’smental faculties, to experience apausethatgenuinelyrefreshes.Hewrote,“Paintingiscompleteasadistraction.Iknowofnothingwhich,withoutexhaustingthebody,moreentirelyabsorbsthe

mind.”The specific medium does not matter all that much, although Churchill

stronglypreferredoils towatercolors (Iprefer sketching inpencil, incaseyouwerewondering).Theall-absorbingaspectoftheactivityiswhatmattersmost.Withabrushinhishandandalandscapebeforehim,Churchillwasbrieflyfreefrom the unrelenting demands of statesmanship. These sessions rested his“mental muscles,” to use his phrase, and he returned to his duties with newvigor.

TheheartofChurchill’s“Pastime”essayiscapturedinthefollowingadvice:“To be really happy and really safe, one ought to have at least two or threehobbies, and they must all be real.” Whether we decide to adopt painting,juggling,napping,orsomethingelse,thereisgreatvalueinhavingahandfulofhobbieswecanturntowhenweneedapause.

A pause is an opportunity to reorient. To become reacquainted with ourobjectives, our priorities, our desires, and our obstacles. To become moremindfulandlessfrantic,tointerruptthecreativemomentumbeforeitcarriesusaway.Andtoprepareforthereturn.

Whenwe resume the work, we bring new clarity with us.We comewithfresh eyes and new questions, as we reapproach a design that now seemsstrangelyalienandunfamiliar.Ithasnotchanged.Wehave.

“Whatdoesthispiecedo?Whyisithere?DoIneedit?”Need a pause now? Go ahead and take one. Go for a walk, do a little

juggling, or grab a nap. You may even want to grab a pencil and fill in themargins and blank spaces of this book with doodles. I don’t mind—it’s yourbook, after all. So let yourmindwander as you draw.When you’re ready toreturnfromyourpause,turnthepage.

CHAPTER3

TheJourneyContinues

Welcomeback. Ihopeyourpausewasagoodone, and Ihope it becomesaregular part of your creative practice. Speaking of regular contributions tocreativity, we begin this chapter by introducing a gentleman named GenrichAltshuller.

Altshullerwasaninventor,engineer,andwriterlivingintheSovietUnion.In1950,JosephStalinthrewhimintothegulagduringapoliticalpurge,alongwitha bunch of other “dangerous” intellectuals. Fortunately, he survived and wasreleased four years later. His exposure to somany brilliantminds during thisincarceration helped him create theTheory of Inventive Problem Solving (akaTRIZ, the theory’s Russian acronym), which is now used by engineers,inventors,anddesignersaroundtheworld.

TRIZ offers practitioners a remarkably powerful toolbox, full of usefulpractices andprinciplesof invention.The flowchart inFigure9 illustrates oneparticular TRIZ practice called “trimming.” In a nutshell, trimming involvesremovingapartfromthedesign,thenusingtheremainingpartstoperformthenecessaryfunctions.Selectingtheparttotrimoutcanbearbitraryordeliberate.Wemaystartby removingapart that isobviouslyextraneous.Then, fora funchallenge,tryremovingapartthatlooksessential.

Trimmingcanbeusedinawidevarietyofsituations,fromwritingcodetocraftingapresentationoranorganizationalstructure.InSimplicityCycleterms,it helps us move down and to the right, along the Simplification Slope. Theobjectiveof trimming is to remove the contradictions, smoothout the friction,and erase unnecessary redundancy. How do we know when we’re done? AsAntoinedeSaint-ExupéryexplainedinL’Avion:

Perfectionisachievednotwhenthereisnothingmoretoadd,butrather

whenthereisnothingmoretotakeaway.

FIGURE9:TRIMMINGFLOWCHART

Asanexampleofwhattrimminglookslikeinpractice,let’slookatoneofthelast research and development projects I led. The Dismount Detection Radarsystem, affectionately knownby the catchy nameDDR, is a cigar-shaped podcontainingaradarantennaandassortedsupportingcomponents.Itisdesignedtobeattachedtotheundersideofamilitaryaircraftandflownoverhostileterritorytohuntforbadguystravelingonfoot(thatis,“dismounts”).Itisaprettycool-lookingpieceofhardware,eventhoughmyrepeatedrequeststopaintsharkteethor a handlebarmustache on the front kept getting denied.Nobody appreciatesgoodnoseartanymore.ButIdigress.

The electronic components inside the DDR pod are sensitive to extendedexposuretoheatandthusmustbecooledtopreventdamage,particularlywhenoperatinginahotenvironment.Duringourflighttests,astheaircraftsatonthedeserttarmacpriortotakeoff,weconnectedthepodtoalargetubethatpumpedcoldairintothesystemandkepttheinsideniceandfrosty.Thecoolingunitwas

larger than the pod itself and therewas nowaywe could haul it up to thirtythousandfeet.Fortunately,wedidn’thaveto.

Despitewhat themyth of Icarus tells us, flying closer to the sun does notexpose us to hotter temperatures. In fact, as we head off into the wild blueyonder the ambient air temperature drops precipitously, so the wax holdingIcarus’s feathers in place is more likely to freeze than melt. This means thatwhile thegroundcrew isenjoyingablisteringsummerdayon the runway, thefliers aredealingwith temperatures approachingminus30degreesFahrenheit.That’sgreatnewsforDDR’sheat-sensitivehardware.It’salsogreatnewsforthesystem’soverallsize,weight,andcomplexity.

Instead of permanently installing a big gas-powered air conditioner onmystreamlined little radarpod,whichwouldhavemade the systemheavier,moreexpensive,andmorecomplicated,allwehad todowasget toaltitudequicklyandallow theair intakes tocarrydeliciouslycoldair throughout thepod.Yes,thecoolingtrailerwasessentialpriortotakeoff,butoncewegotclearancefromthe tower we trimmed it away and used a simple scoop and duct system toprovidethesamefunction.

Trimming comes in many flavors, and DDR illustrates a specific type oftime-shiftedtrimmingwherethemechanisminquestionisincludedduringsomeportionsof thesystem’soperation,but removedduringotherportions. Inotherapplications, the trimmed component might be permanently replaced with asimplermechanismorevendiscardedaltogether.

Alongwithcleverideasliketrimming,TRIZpractitionerstalkabouttheLawof Ideality. This law states that as designsmature, they tend to becomemorereliable,simpler,andmoreeffective—moreideal.

TheLawofIdealityexplainsthattheamountofcomplexityinadesignisameasureofhowfarawayitisfromitsidealstate.Infact,uponreachingperfectideality,themechanismitselfnolongerexists.Onlythefunctionremains.Sortoflikedoingawaywiththecoolingtrailerandusingtheatmosphereinstead.

When themechanismno longer exists, it has no parts.No parts equals nocomplexity.Justpure,simplefunction.Zerocomplexity,optimalgoodness.

IgetallZenjustthinkingaboutit.Unfortunately, some people believe less complexity automatically equals a

worsedesign.TheyresisttrimminginordertoavoidthenegativeslopeshowninFigure10.

FIGURE10:THENEGATIVEGOODNESSSLOPE

Resistancetosimplificationisbasedonthebeliefthateveryadditionalfeature,part, and function represents an improvement. It also assumes that theaccumulatedadditionsmadethingsbetterfromanoverallsystemperspective.

Suchassertionsaremisguidedandmaybealittlearrogant.Why“arrogant”?Becausetheyassumeeverythingweeveraddedwasagood

idea.Why“maybe”?Becausethoseadditionsmayindeedhavebeengoodideasatthetime.Butgettingridofthemmightbeevenbetter.

Evenwhenanew featuremakesourdesignbetter, some features are “lessbetter” thanothers.Weaddsomething, thenanothersomething, thenstillmoresomethings. The design improves, but just barely. Our rapid increase incomplexitycreatesaminorincreaseingoodness.Thiscanbedeeplyfrustrating,as each new addition fails to deliver the degree of advancementwe seek.Wemaytakesomecomfortinthefactthatouradditionsaren’tmakingthingsworse,butthatdoesn’thelpmuchifwearetryingtoaimhighandchangetheworld.

Andthen,sometimes,somethingmagicalhappens.ApiecearrivesthatIcalltheSpecialPiece.It’s thepiecewe’vebeenlookingforallalongwithoutquiteknowingwhat it looked like or evenwhether it existed at all. It introduces agame-changing improvement, making things far better than any previousaddition did and bending our Complexity Slope almost perpendicular to theoriginal trajectory. This final addition single-handedly takes our design to awholenewlevelofexcellence.Whatarelief!

Butourworkisnotyetdone.WiththeSpecialPieceinplace,wejustmightdiscover that many of the earlier pieces—these complexifying additions we

sweatedandgruntedandlaboredunder,withsuchunderwhelmingresults—arenowdeadweight.Theirwhole purposewas to get us to theSpecialPiece, andnowtheirpurposehasbeenfulfilled,makingthemprimecandidatesforremoval.Andsowebeginto—carefully—extricateourselvesfromthejumble.Figure11showswhatthatpathmightlooklike.

FIGURE11:THESPECIALPIECE

In latemedieval architecture, aSpecialPiece called a flyingbuttress providedgreatload-bearingcapacitywithalighter,cheaperstructurethanearlierdesigns.Outerwallshadpreviouslybeenthickandmassivetostanduptolateralstrain,but thanks to this brilliant innovation thewalls couldnowaccommodate largestained-glasswindows, adding to the beauty and function of countlessGothicchurches.

Morerecently,theSpecialPieceplayedaprominentroleinthedevelopmentofafunnylittleboatnamedHoneyBadger,whichisdesignedtosailaroundtheworldwithoutacrewonboard,amongothermissions.I’venevertriedtodothatmyselfsoIdon’tknowforsure,butIimagineit’sevenharderthanitsounds.

Wiredmagazinerananarticleabouttheshipanditscreators,RichardJenkinsandDylanOwens, providing a behind-the-scenes look at their design process.Their progress through a series of versions anddesign challengesmakes for afascinatingstory,andalsoshowsexactlywhataSpecialPiececando.

Insteadofafabricsail,HoneyBadgerispropelledbythesametypeofrigidwingsailfoundonracingyachtslikeAmerica’sCupwinnerUSA17.However,theSpecialPiece isnot thewingsail itself. It’s the tail that sticksout from the

backofthesail.Thethingthatissospecialaboutthislittleadditionisthewayitallowedaradicalsimplificationoftherestoftheboat.

Whileatsea,theboat’sautopilotcontrolsasmalltabonthebackofthetail,automaticallyorientingthevesseltotakebestadvantageofthewind.Becauseofthe tail,HoneyBadgerdoesnotneed the ropes,winches,andcrew thatwouldnormally be required to adjust and maintain the sail’s orientation. TheWiredwriterexplains,“Byseveringalltheropesthatrunbetweentheboatandthesailonanormalyacht,alotofthecomplexityofsailinggoesaway,”andgoesontoobserve, “Its tail simplified the process of sailing so much that even a robotcouldhandleit.”

AccordingtotheWiredarticle,“ThetailwasthebreakthroughideathatgotJenkins in the record books, it’s what got Saildrone [Honey Badger’s othername]toHawaii,andit’swhathasthepotentialtodisruptamulti-trillion-dollarsliceoftheglobalGDP.”

This is classicSpecialPiecebehavior.Adding the singlecomponentwasasignificant improvement in thecraft’sperformanceandallowed thedeletionofother pieces that had previously seemed essential. The net effect is a drasticreduction in complexity and a huge boost to goodness, quickly moving thedesigndownandtotheright,alongtheSimplificationSlope.

Ourdesigneffortsdon’talwaysfollowthispath,ofcourse.Sometimesthereis no Special Piece and our progress looks nothing like Figure 13. Instead ofmajor improvements accompanying an addition or subtraction, sometimes thebigshifthappenswhenweputtheexistingpiecestogetherinanewandcreativeway.

Thewordforembeddingonethinginsideanotherorconsolidatingmultipleelements into a single component is integration. As an example, consider theCAPSLOCKbuttononakeyboard.On itsown, itprovidesauseful function.But many keyboards do not show whether or not they are in CAPS mode,occasionallyresultingintheinadveRTENTUSEOFCAPSwhenaclumsytypistaccidentallyhitsthewrongkey.

Toremedythis,somekeyboarddesignsincludealightonthekeyboardthatilluminateswhentheCAPSLOCKkeyisengaged.Thisincreaseincomplexityaimstoimprovethedesignbyprovidingavisualsignalofthekeyboard’sstate.Unfortunately,thelightisoftenfarremovedfromthekeyitself.

A more enlightened designer might embed the indicator directly into theinterface, creating a key that lights up when pressed. This integration is bothbetter and simpler, providing useful information with a minimal number of

components.The lateColonelJohnBoyd loved topresentaudienceswithan integration

challengethatwentsomethinglikethis:

Imaginethefollowingsituations:cruisingacrossalakeinaboat,ridingabicycle on a sunny day,movingmounds of earthwith a bulldozer andtakingavacationintheRockyMountains.

Now, throw away everything from the boat except the outboardmotor. Next, throw away everything from the bicycle except thehandlebars. From the bulldozer, keep only the treads. And from thatlovelyvacation,keeponlytheskis.

What does that leave youwith?What can youmakewith amotor,skis,handlebarsandtreads?

Atfirstglance,Boyd’sstackofcomponentsappearstobeajumbledpileofunrelatedpieces.Andyet,withalittleimaginationtheycanbeassembledintoacoherentwhole.Boyd’sanswer?Thesepartscanformasnowmobile.

This little thought experiment is precisely the sort of thing necessary toproduce streamlined, simple solutions. Throw away the unnecessarycomponents. Put the remaining pieces together in interesting ways. Make asnowmobile.

The kitchen illustrates another side of integration. Specifically, the untidyside. Breaking eggs is messy work, turning what used to be a smooth, self-containedpackageintoajumbleofshardsandapuddleofgoo.Itdoesnotlooklikeprogress.

Don’tstopthere.Addmorepieces—someham,somepeppers,someonion,maybealittlecheese.Thenaddheat.

The jumbled mess begins to cohere and a delicious breakfast emerges,greaterthanthesumofitsparts.SeeFigure12.

FIGURE12:EGGSANDOMELETS

SubtractionandintegrationhelpmoveusalongtheSimplificationSlope.Butinordertouseeitherstrategy,wemustfirstaccumulateaquantityofpieces,parts,andfunctionstothenbesorted,discarded,andintegrated.Ifwetrytoavoidtheinitial complexification activities and begin trimming or putting the piecestogether too soon, we risk encountering what software programmers callpremature optimization. The end result is less good than it might have been,becausewe overlooked important opportunities and approaches in our rush tosimplify.Simplifyingtoosoonisjustasbadascomplexifyingfortoolong.

Edward de Bono puts it this way in his book Simplicity: “Sometimes asystem starts off simple and then becomes more complex and then becomessimple again. This can be a normal process of evolution and adaptation tochange.Ifthe‘complex’phaseisdisallowed,thenthatsystemmaybeunabletoevolve or adapt.” Temporarily increasing complexity is therefore an importantphase in theevolutionofadesign,because it increasesouropportunity tofindandidentifythetrulyimportantdesignelements.

That is where the well-known KISS principle breaks down. It’s the K inKISSthatcausesproblems,becausewhenweinsiston“keeping”thingssimpleandrefusetotolerateatemporaryincreaseincomplexity,wearefocusedonthewrongthing.Wehaveplacedsimplicityaheadofgoodnessandarelikelytoendupwithsomethingthatissimplebutnotverygood.Perhapsabetterguidewouldbeto“MakeItSimpleStupid,”butthatproducestheunfortunateacronymMISSand I’msurepeoplewould ratherhit themark thanmiss it.Maybewe shouldstickwithKISSafterall.

Whether we are KISS’ing or MISS’ing, the key to avoiding prematureoptimization is patience and diligence. It is important to first gather thenecessarytools,talents,pieces,parts,andcomponents...andonlythencanweapplythemintheappropriatedegreeandtrimouttheextraneous.

BloggerNeilMixmadearelatedobservationabouttheimpactofsimplicity.HecallsittheEleganceParadox:

The design process is about whittling away distractions, making theobscure feel obvious, making the obvious feel implicit, and doing itwithoutanyonenoticing.

Totheuntrainedeye,yourbestworklookslikeyou’vedonenoworkat all. If you’ve done a stellar job, then your design will feel utterlyobvious.

The Elegance Paradox is this: to create elegance requires entirelyinelegantpreparation,butnobodyshouldbeabletoseethat.

Gooddesignershumblymovetheproductitselfintothelimelight,whiletheireffortrecedesintothebackground.Thisrequiresustoplacetheuser’sinterestsaheadofourown.Easiersaidthandone,tobesure.Weallwantourefforttoberecognized and appreciated.Unfortunately, the simplicity of an elegant designcan obscure the blood, sweat, and tears thatwent into it, hiding the inelegantpreparation phase shown in the shaded section of Figure 13. This is preciselywhysomanyproductsareexcessivelycomplex—tomake thedesigner’seffortmore visible—but such conspicuous complexity seldom serves the customer’sinterests.Keepinmind,mostusersdonotcaremuchhowhardweworked.Theyarefarmoreinterestedinhowgoodtheproductis.

FIGURE13:INELEGANTPREPARATIONZONE

When Iwas in college and the ideaof adesktop computerwas still relativelynew, my classmates and I were given a homegrown word processer calledGalahad.Thisprogramusedabewilderingsetofin-linecodesandcommandstoproducesuper-high-techeffectslikeboldoritalics.

ThankstothewondersoftheInternet,IwasabletotrackdownacopyoftheGalahadUsersGuide.Chapter2(Papers,Letters,andRésumés)beginswiththefollowingcodes:

.alp=12js=ybo=51te=12to=90pn=1nm=1

.st3,14,1&dChapter%Two:%%Papers,%Letters,%Resumes.jc&d[%Chapter%Two%].hc.t362—.zl

The restof theguidecontinues in similar fashion.Lookingback, I suspectthe software was actually produced under a grant from whatever companyprovidedtheschool’scomputerlabwithprinterpaper,becauseonemisplaced.acommandwould result in printing an illegible paper that had to be debugged,corrected,andreprinted.I’msayingIwastedalotofpaperbackthen.Andthefunnythingis,aproperlyformattedpaperhidallthosecommandsandgavenoindicationofhowmuchworkreallywentintoit.Inelegantpreparationindeed.

Naturally,somestudentsbecameGalahadexperts.Theirskillswereingreatdemand when it came time to write term papers, and debugging term papersbecamesomethingofasport,albeitnotafunone.

Galahadcoulddoalotofthings,butnothingaboutitwaseasyorintuitive.You prettymuch had to be an engineering student to use it.As I recall, eventhoseofuswhomasteredGalahadweren’tfondofit.

In contrast,modernwordprocessors are intended forusebyeveryone,notjustbuddingengineers.Thisisagoodthing.Theabilitytoturnawordboldattheclickofabuttonmakesthingsbetterforallusers,includingthoseofuswhowere previously willing and able to memorize complex formatting codes.Michael Dertouzos explained this phenomenon in his book The UnfinishedRevolution, where he writes, “Whenever designers build utility for the least-skilleduser,theyenhanceutilityforallusers.”Providingforthe“least-skilled”involvessimplifyingboththefunctionandtheinterface,whichfreesuppeople’sbraincells toperformhigher functionsnow thatwe’renot trying to rememberwhetherjsequalsyandboequals51ortheotherwayaround.

RandallMunroedrawsthebrilliantlysimpleWebcomicxkcd,whichisabout“romance,sarcasm,math,andlanguage.”Comic#1306,titledSigilCycle,showsa repeating pattern of new computer languages that rely heavily on “weirdsymbols,”followedbynewlanguagesthatusemorenaturalsyntax.Theformerare intended for highly skilled users,while the latter aremore accessible to awideraudience.

FIGURE14:XKCD#1306:THESIGILCYCLE

Theaccompanyingmouse-overtextexplainsthecyclefurther:

Thecycleseemstobe“weneed thesesymbols toclarifywhat typesofthingswe’rereferringto!”followedby“wait,itturnsoutwordsalreadydothat.”

Thiscyclepersistsbecauseeachnewprogramminglanguageaimstoaddresstheshortcomingsoftheonethatcamebefore.Whenthepreviouslanguagewassimpleandtext-based,themostobviouswaytoaddnewfeaturesandfunctionswas by introducing complex new symbols. But once we start using acomplicated, weird syntax, the obvious improvement involves simplification.Andsothecyclecontinues.

Ultimately, the design result we’re aiming for is an elegant, graceful,streamlined solution.Such solutions are found in the bottom right quadrant ofourgraph, theRegionof theSimpleshowninFigure15.In thisarea,wehaveintegrated thosemetaphorical squares together into a single object, a cube. Acubeislesscomplexthanacollectionofsquares(itisoneobject,notsix).Itisalso“moregood”becausewecandomorewitha3-Dobjectthana2-Dobject.Thesecret is toput thepieces together insuchawayas toproducesomethinggreaterthanthesumoftheparts.

FIGURE15:THEREGIONOFTHESIMPLE

Note that simple thinking can be found in both the lower right and lower leftcorners.Becauseofthis,profoundsimplicitiesmaybemistakenforlessvaluableinsightsiftheonlythingweassessisthecomplexityoftheirexpression.

Sothechallengeistoseekthesimplicityontheothersideofcomplexity,theelegancethatresultsfromexperienceandwisdomandisfoundinthelowerrightcorner.Werightfullydistrustthesimplicityborneofnaïvetéandignorancefoundinthelowerleft.Butwedowelltorecognizethatitisnottheonlyplacewheresimplicitycanbefound.

Whathappensnext?Oncewearriveatthelowerrightcornerofthemap,arewedone?Isthejourneyover?Notexactly.Ourdesigndoesnotgettostayinthebottomrightquadrant indefinitely,because the irresistiblearrowof timeexertspressuretotheleft,inthedirectionofdecreasedgoodness.

Theobjectinquestiondoesnotbecomemorecomplex.Itsimplyceasestobeas good as it was, because the goalposts have moved. The market changes.Technology changes. Needs and wants change. Yesterday’s breakthroughbecomestomorrow’scommodity.

AsDavidPye explained in his bookTheNature andArt ofWorkmanship,“all designs for devices are in some degree failures,” necessitating furtherdevelopmentandimprovementovertime.Theinevitabilityoffailureisactuallyagoodthing,becauselifewouldbeprettyboringifgoodnessneverdecreased,iftherewasneveraneedoranopportunitytomakesomethingnewandbetter.

Itisimportanttounderstandthatthetimearrowisalwayspresent,pushinginthe direction of decreased goodness.We feel the effectsmostwhenwe try tostandstillinthefaceofrapidchange.

FIGURE16:THEIMPACTOFTIME

In theworld of consumer electronics, the arrow of time is very large indeed.ChangehappensfastandtheiPodyougotforChristmasbeginstolooklikeoldnewsbyApril,asnewandbetterproductscomeonthemarket.Theolddevice’sgoodnessdiminishesasthecompetitiongetsbetter.

Thishappensbecauseanobject’sgoodnessisnotentirelyaninherentquality.Toa largedegree it isdeterminedbycomparisonwithalternatives.Lastyear’s

MP3playermaybegoodenoughforourpurposes,butitlookslessgoodwhenplaced alongside a device with better sound, larger memory, or a slickerinterface.

It is worth noting that goodness is also subjective and personal. Certainretrophile hipsters have been known to happily listen to cassette tapes on aWalkman long into the twenty-first century even though iPods exist. But itwouldbedifficult tomake thecase thataWalkmanissignificantlybetter thanmodern alternatives in any dimension other than a narrow definition of ironicfashionandapeculiartasteforold-fashionedapproachestomusicalrecordings.

Because thearrowof time slidesourdesign to the left,weeventually findourselvesonceagainneedingtoincreasecomplexitytomakethesystembetter.RecallthattheearliertransitionfromtheComplexitySlopetotheSimplificationSlopemeantwehad to abandonbehaviorswhen they ceased to be productiveandhelpful.We’lladoptamirroredstrategyhere,aswereturntopracticeswe’dpreviouslyabandonedandbeginonceagaintoaddpieces,parts,andfunctionstoourdesign.

Figure 17 depicts the cyclical transitions between addition and reduction,between making things more complex and less complex. It shows our initialprogressalongtheComplexitySlope,whichcarriedustoapeakinthecenterofthechart.At thatpointwebegan tosimplifyandmove toward the lower rightcorner. The changing nature of needs and wants (as depicted in theaforementioned arrow of time) causes us to slide back toward the lower leftcorner,wherethecyclebeginsagain.

FIGURE17:CYCLICALTRANSITIONS

Let’stalkaboutthewordcycleforamoment.Acycleisarecurringsequenceofevents, and theSimplicityCycle is indeed a series of activities thatwe repeatwhencreatingsomething.Thebedrockconceptbehindthecycleissimplythatitis a cycle. As designers, technologists, writers, or chefs, we begin our workusingonesetoftoolsandpointingoureffortsinaparticulardirection,thenweswitch to a different set of tools and head in a new direction. Eventually, wereturntotheoriginaltoolsandtrajectory.

Of course, the idea isn’t to exactly repeat the specific additions andcomplexificationswe used the first time through, replacing pieces identical tothosewejustremoved.Weshouldbeusingthesamestrategieswithnewpieces.

DescribingtheSimplicityCycleasbothacycleandamapproducesacertainamountofintellectualtension.WeexpectamaptogetusfromPointAtoPointB and to prevent us from driving around in a circle. Indeed, many of theillustrations and examples throughout this book describe singular journeys, orportionsofjourneys,wherewehaveastartingpointandafinishlineandthatistheendofthestory.Thispiece-wiseapproachallowsustobreakdownthecycleintocomponentsthatareeasytograsp.Andyet,theSimplicityCycleiscircularand repetitive rather than singular. Ifwe are not careful the individual storiesmightcauseustomissthebiggerpicture.Sobearinmindthateachstep,eachphase,eachpauseispartofalargercycle.

Time is the engine that drives this cycle.Without it,we could contentedlyremain in the lower right corner, enjoying a perfect blend of simplicity andgoodness. But the fact that time pushes our design toward the left, in thedirectionofdecreasedgoodness,tellsussomethingimportantaboutthevalueofsimplicity.Namely, thatsimplicity isnotstaticandallsimplicity isnotcreatedequal.

DesignmasterDonNormanexplainsinhisbookLivingwithComplexitythat“simplicitybyitselfisnotnecessarilyvirtuous.”Heisquiteright,andaswe’vealready seen, there are many phases within the Simplicity Cycle in which adesignmightdemonstrate such“unvirtuous” simplicity. In the initial stage,weencounter immature simplicity as the first parts of the design come together.Furtheralong,wemusttakecaretoavoidprematureoptimization,whichmakesthe design simpler without making it better. And finally, the elegant anddesirablesimplicityofamaturedesigncaneasilybecomeunvirtuousifwefailtonoticetheinexorableeffectoftime.

Let’s take a look at an example of technical simplicity that is practicallyvirtue-free,notbecausetimemadeitsobutbecauseofanerrorintroducedbyadifferentsource.

My first day working in a new building was over. I was waiting for anelevator to takemedownstairswhen a ding sounded and a light indicated thecar’sarrival.Asthedoorsopened,Ipaused,unsurewhethertoenter.

Muchtomysurprise,thepairofindicatorlightslocatedabovetheopendoorgave me no help at all in determining whether I should enter the elevator,becauseinsteadofthetypicaltop/bottomalignment,theyweresidetoside.Andinsteadofhavingarrowsorpointsorlabels,theywereunadornedcircles.

MyfellowridersandIwerelefttoguesswhethertheilluminatedroundredlightontherightsidemeantthecarwasgoinguporgoingdown.Thealternativewasayellowishcircleoflightontheleft,whichhelpednotatall.IamofcoursefamiliarwiththeuseofredandyellowtoindicateStopandYield,butIamnotawareofthosecolorseverbeingassociatedwithanyUp/Downconventions.

Thiswas not a huge building and so itwas not a huge deal, but awrongguessmeant I now had the opportunity to spend a little extra time getting toknowtheotherpeopleontheelevatoraswewentupinsteadofdown.

Thiselevatorsignalwassimple,butnotvirtuouslyso.In a situation like this it is not hard to provide claritywithout complexity.

The lightscouldhavebeenorientedoneon topof theother insteadof sidebyside. Problem solved. They could have been shaped like arrows or trianglesinsteadofcircles.Problemsolvedagain,withnoincreaseincomplexity.

Can’tchangetheorientationortheshape?Okay.Justpaintarrows,triangles,orthelettersUandDonthecircles.Can’tpaintonthecirclesthemselves?Fine—putanindicatornexttoeachcircle.Can’tdothat?Aw,comeonnow...

Thepointis,theelevatorpeoplehadoptions.Theypickedtheworstone.An indicator that doesn’t indicate anything is pointless. In fact, it’s worse

than pointless, because it creates the impression of communicating somethingeventhoughthesignalisactuallycontent-free.

Wasthatindicatorsimple?Yes.Butthat’snothingtobragabout.Theelevatorstoryistrueandreallyhappenedtome,butonepartmightbe

misleading,namelythesubtleimplicationthatsomeonedesignedthelightsthisway.IamquitesurenobodywouldeverdesignsuchathingandIdon’twanttogive the impression that these lights were the result of anyone’s consciouschoice.Mostlikelywhatwehavehereisafailuretocoordinate.

Here’swhat I think happened: Somebody designed a top/bottom light set.

Someoneelsebuiltaceilingtoolowtoaccommodatethatorientation.Someoneelsepurchasedthelightsetforuseinthathallway.Someoneelseinstalledthesetsideways. Someone else signed off on the job. Then I showed up and feltconfused.

That’salotofsomeoneelses—andIprobablyoverlookedafew.Recallthat“alot”ofsomethingindicatesahighlevelofcomplexity.

Isthelightbadlydesigned?Maybe.Ormaybeitissimplythewronglightforthis hallway, selected by someone far removed in space and time from thelocation’s physical reality and unaware of its limitations and specificrequirements, and installed by someonewho did not actually have to ride theelevator.Thismeansthatlightisalmostcertainlyanexampleofhowagroup’scomplexitymakes coordination and communication difficult. It is a failure oforganizationaldesignratherthanphysicaldesign.

Simpler, smaller, more coordinated teams don’t usually have that kind ofproblem,but if theydo, theyarecloseenough to the thing to recognize it andremedy it.Members of a small team aremore likely to proactively add somekind of label to the lights.Members of a big team, in contrast, either expectsomeoneelsetodoitordonotfeelempoweredtomakethecorrection.

Ofcourse,complexitydirectlyaffectsourtechnologies,too.Softwarelocksupwhen it receives conflicting inputs, can’t quite decidewhat todo, andgetsstuckinaloop.Thisismorelikelytobedesignererrorthanusererror.Elegantlysimplecomputerprogramsdon’thavethisproblem.

But as the elevator indicator showed, ambiguous simplicity can be just asproblematicasambiguouscomplexity.Removinginformation-richindicatorsinthenameofsimplicitydoesnotmakethethingbetter.Itmakesthethingworse.Trueclarityistheresultofthoughtfulsimplicity,notunnecessarycomplexityorsuperficialsimplisticness.

FIGURE18:CONFUSION,AMBIGUITY,ANDCLARITY

If at any time in the previous chapter you felt that things were getting toocomplicated, takeheart!Youare correct that thingsgot abit complicated, andthat’snotanaccident.It’sallpartoftheprocess.Fortunately,thosemomentarycomplexifications arebehindus andwecannowmove into a simpler, cleanerdescription.

Giving each arrow and area a name helped present the concepts and talkaboutthearrowsandareasthemselves.Thecomplexityofall thosevocabularywordsandspecializedjargonwasnecessaryanduseful...andtemporary.Nowthefoundationisinplaceandwearereadytousethediagram,sothelabelsarelargely unneeded.We can strip them away and instead focus on the conceptsthemselves,simplifyingthingsconsiderably.

Laying out the Simplicity Cycle diagram is a starting point, aimed tofamiliarizeuswithatoolforfutureactions.Wearedoneassemblingthepieces,whichmeanswe’rereadyforthenextphase,whereweactuallyputthemaptouse.Nodoubtyouhavesomeideasaboutwhatyou’lldowiththediagramandwhereyou’dliketogo.Inthenextchapterwe’lltakealookatseveralwaystodojustthat.

CHAPTER4

UsingtheSimplicityCycle

Likeanybook,thisoneowesitsexistencetoalargegroupofpeople.Engineersand professors, agents and editors, family and friends all contributed to bringthesepages to life,not tomention the legionofspeakers, thinkers,andwriterswhoshapedmyunderstandingofengineering,design,andlifeingeneral.ButasIreflectonhowthisbookcametolife,thepersonwhoreallysolditjustmightbethedentist.

I’dbeendoingpresentationsandseminarsbasedontheSimplicityCycleforseveral years when I met her. My audience members are usually technologytypes—aircraft designers, computer programmers, engineers of all stripes. OnthelistofoccupationsIdidnothaveinmindwhenIcameupwiththisconcept,dentistry is certainly in the top ten. Not that I have anything against dentists(okay,maybealittle),Ijustneverimaginedmyworkwouldhaveanyrelevanceforthem.

Nevertheless, after I shared theCyclewith agroupof youngprofessionalsone afternoon, there she stood, with her perfectly brushed and flossed teeth,tellingmehowcloselyherexperienceatadentalcliniclinedupwiththepatternI’djustdescribed.Theclinic’sproceduresandpolicies,aswellastheirtoolsandtechnologies, all too oftenwere unnecessarily complicated in ways thatmadethings harder, slower, less effective, and more expensive. She shared severalideasforspecificsimplifyingimprovementsshewantedtotry,nowthatshewasthinking in terms of goodness and not expecting complexity to automaticallymakethingsbetter.

MynewfriendthedentistwasnotthefirstpersontoconnecttheCyclewithanapplicationoutsidetherealmofhigh-tech.Thatwouldbeme.Ialreadyknewfromfirsthandexperiencethat itdescribes thewritingprocessprettywell.AndintheveryearlydaysasIwashashingouttheconcept,anartistwhoseworkI

greatly admire said, “Dan, you just described my art-making process.” Thenagain,thatguyisafairlytechnicalartistandwhathedoesisnotallthatdifferentthanwhatsomeoftheaeronauticalengineersI’veconsultedwithdo.So,thefactthatthisidearesonatedwithwritersandartistswasnotsurprising.Butadentist?Man,Ididnotseethatcoming.

HerresponsemotivatedmetoseekoutwideropportunitiesfortheSimplicityCycle, beyond the technical realm. Her response also points to an importantquestion, perhaps the crux of thewhole book: how canwe use theSimplicityCycle?Thedentistusedit to identifyareas inherpractice thatcouldusesomeimprovement,butwhatabouttherestofus?Whatcanwedowithit?

Ifindthemapmetaphorhelpful inansweringthatquestion.TheSimplicityCycleisamapthatcanhelpusfigureoutwherewewanttogoandcanhelpusfind thepaths thatwill takeus there. Itenablesus to think innewdimensionsanddiscouragesusfromsimplisticallyequatingcomplexitywithvalue.

Whetherwearedesigningabusinesspractice,adentalprocedure,oranartinstallation, this littlemapshows that some routeswill takeus towardmakingthingsbetter,whileotherroutespointusintheoppositedirection.Sothemapisa useful guide for individual behaviors and decisions aswe design and createthings.Buttherealpowercomestolightwhenweuseitwithotherpeople.

When teams get together towork on a design, it is sometimes difficult toverbally express concepts related to complexity, in part because we Englishspeakerssomehowendedupwithasingleword(simple)thatmeansboth“easy”and “uncomplicated,” as if those two concepts were synonymous. To makemattersworse,we also use theword simple to describe someonewith limitedmentalabilities.Nowonderthereissomuchcomplexityoutthere.Ourlanguageitselfnudgesusawayfromsimplicitybybefuddlinganddevaluingitsmeaning.

To seewhy this is a problem, let’s try a little challenge.Go get amug ofsuperhot coffee and balance it on your nose. [Ed. note—this challenge isprovided for illustrative purposes only. Please do not attempt.] This is not acomplicatedtask.Thereareonlytwoelements,themugandthenose,althoughifweincludegravity,Isupposetherearethree.Butdespitenotbeingcomplicated,itisnoteasy,isit?Howmanyofyouburnedyourfacesjustnowwhiletryingtogetthebalancejustright?[Ed.note—hopefullynoneofyou.]

TheCoffee-Face Experiment shows that something can be simplewithoutbeingeasy.Italsoillustrateshowfailingtomakethatdistinctioncanleadtoallsortsofproblems.

TheSimplicityCycleaimstohelpusresolvethissituationwithoutrewriting

the dictionary by providing a visual vocabulary that augments our verbalcapacitytodescribeanddiscussdesigns.Thevariousslopesandregionsinthischart allowus todistinguishbetweena thing that is simple (easy) anda thingthat is simple (uncomplicated) in a way that mere words often cannot. Mostcritically,itforcesustoassesswhetherornotthethingisanygood.Asyoumayrecallfromanearlierchapter,that’sreallythepoint.

Howdowedothis,exactly?WhenI’mworkingwithadesignteam,Iliketodraw a blank Complexity-Goodness graph on a whiteboard, then ask myteammatestoindicatewheretheythinkthecurrentdesignresidesandwhereweshouldheadnext.That’sasimpleapproachtoanimportanttask.Whetherornotit’seasydependsonwhoisintheroomandwhatsortofdesignthey’reworkingon.

Easyornot,thisapproachleadstolively,insightfuldiscussionsanalyzingthecurrentdesignandexploringspecificideasabouthowtoimproveit.Introducingthisnewcommunicationmodeminimizesthetimespenttalkingpasteachother,aswhenonepersoninsiststhatadesignissimplewhileanotherarguesthatno,thedesign isactuallysimplebutnotsimple,whilea thirdpersonsays itneedsmoresimplicityandeveryoneelseintheroomjusteatsthedonuts.

Insteadofarguingwhetherornotsimplicityissimple,orwhetheranysenseof thatword applies to our design, theCycle diagram instead leads us to talkabouthowgoodourdesignis,howthevariouselementsofthedesigncontributeto(ordecrease)goodness,andwhatstepscanbetakentomoveinthedirectionofgreatergoodness.Nolongercanwecontentedlyassumeeachadditionshouldbeembracedandincluded.Instead,whensomeoneproposesaddinganewmode,newfeature,newstep,ornewcomponent,theteammustanswerthequestionofwhetherornottheadditionisanimprovement.

Alongwithhelping teams toevaluate thewisdomofadditivemethods, theCycle diagram often prompts design teams to pursue improvement strategiestheymighthaveotherwiseoverlooked.Reductiveapproachessuchassubtractionand integration become more visible and attractive, opening up alternativeapproachesthatcanleadtopowerfulbreakthroughs.

Nowhiteboard?No problem. The same approach is just as effective on apieceofpaper,anapkin,orthebackofanenvelope.Maybeevenmoreso.

Introducingavisualvocabularylikethistoagroupcanbeamajorboosttocommunication and problem solving, largely because these visuals have lessbaggage thanwords like simple.We approach the lines and arrows and swirlswith fresh eyes and explicit meanings, free from unconscious assumptions.

Drawingtakesusawayfromourdefaultwayoftalkingandleadsustobemoreprecise,thoughtful,anddeliberate,withoutslowingthingsdown.EvenwhentheSimplicity Cycle becomes a familiar tool in the group’s toolbox, it is stillsufficiently different from the more typical verbal communication to free usfrom status quo thinking.Plus, over time it can change thewordsweuse andmakethemmoreuseful.

Alongwithfunctioningasavisualvocabulary,theSimplicityCycleisalsoakineticvocabulary.Aswestandbeforethewhiteboard,markerinhand,wemustmoveourbodiestoexpressourselvesratherthanrelyingsolelyonwords.Wedonotmerelysay,“Thedesignistoocomplicated.”Wesay,“Thedesignishereandneedstogothere,”asourhandsweepsacrosstheboardtodrawalineoracurve.Thisawakensanentirelydifferentregionofthebrainandunleashespreviouslyuntappedimaginativeresources.

InhisbookTheReflectivePractitioner,DonaldSchöndescribesthissortofthing as a “drawing/talking language.”He analyzes a vignette about a pair ofarchitectscollaboratingonadesignandhighlightsthewaythey“drawandtalktheir moves in spatial-action language.” He points out that “drawing revealsqualities and relations unimagined beforehand,” and shines a light on placeswherewordsalonecannotreach.

UsingtheSimplicityCycleasa“spatial-action language”notonlychangeshowwetransmitandreceiveinformation;italsochangeshowweproduceit.Wethink differently about things when we express thoughts in the form ofmovement.Schönexplains thatdrawing isa typeofexperiment, away to testtheories andmakediscoveries.Thepersonholding the pencil does not alwaysknowwhat theresultwillbeuntilafter the lineshavebeendrawn.Drawing isthus a form of thinking out loud and, when done with a group, is a way tocollaborativelyexploremultiplealternativesthatmightotherwisebeoverlooked.

Aswehavetheseconversations,eitherwithagrouporinourownheads,theSimplicity Cycle map confronts us with many questions. One of the mostcommonisthis:“HowcanItellwhereIam?”

Well,ifwe’restartingwithablanksheetofpaper,we’reinthebottomleftofthechartandweprobablyknowit.Similarly,whenwearriveat theRegionoftheSimple,we’llknow.Trustme,we’llknow.Soall that’sleft is todeterminewhereinthecentralcloudweare.

Thatmaybeacommonquestion,butitturnsoutthat’sprobablynottherightquestion.

FIGURE19:WHEREAMI?

Ourspecificlocationinthe“WhereAmI?”cloudatanymomentintimeislessimportant than our trajectory. Rather than asking, “Where am I?” we shouldfocus on figuring out, “Where am I going?” In engineering terms, our vectormattersmorethanourpositionandtheimportantthingtoidentifyiswhetherthelatestchangetothedesignmakesitbetterorworse.

One reason our location does not matter much is that the prescribedbehaviors for the upper left corner are essentially identical to the prescribedbehaviors for the center of the chart. In both cases, improvements requireintegration, simplification, and streamlining. So don’t spend too much timetryingtonarrowdownapreciselocation.Thinkinsteadintermsofwherewe’reheading.

Keep in mind that when we talk about the design process, we’re largelytalking aboutmaking changes to the design.We add things or subtract them,making our object simpler or more complex. So the question is whether thetransitionfromversion1.3toversion1.4representsanimprovementormerelyacomplexification.Didourtrajectorycarryustowardtheright,inthedirectionofincreasedgoodness,ortowardtheleft,wheregoodnessdecreases?

The answers to these questions help us identify what type of designbehaviors we should adopt next. If our previous step made things morecomplicated and worse, our next step should probably involve simplification.Butifthepreviousstepmadethingsbetter,wemaywanttocontinuealongthatformerpath.

Now, if there is one point we could try to identify, it’s the “peak of

complexity,” the point of critical mass where increases in complexity reducegoodness.Howcanwetellifwe’rethere?

Theshortanswer:wecan’t.CliffCregoexplains:

Wheretheclimaxofcomplexitycomeswecanneverknowforsure,butnaturalmovementalwaysbeginsandendswithsimplicity.

FIGURE20:THECLIMAXOFCOMPLEXITY

Theslightlylongeransweristhatexperience,intuition,theinsightofothers,andhindsight are the best ways to make the assessment. The more times we gothroughthisexperience,themorelikelywearetorecognizethepatternwhenitisrepeated.Sometimeswejusthaveagutfeelingthatwe’vehitthepeakandit’stimetoshiftourapproach.Alternatively,peoplewithfresheyescanseethingswe can’t. And looking back, we can almost always see the point where ourdesignhittheinflectionpointandstartedtogetworsebecausewecontinuedtoadd complexity unnecessarily, or the point where we changed our designapproachandbeganacourseof simplifications thatdramatically improved thesituation.

Reflecting on our design efforts (both in themoment and afterward) helpstranslateexperienceintoexpertise,turningwhatwedidintowhatweknow.Thisalsobolsters our intuitive capacity for recognizingwhenwehavehit thepeakand should begin the transition from genesis to synthesis. The benefit of thispractice is not merely for our current design but also for future endeavors.

Spendingsometimethinkingabouttoday’sprojecthelpsimproveourprospectsfortomorrow’s.

RecalltheearlierstoryaboutMicrosoft’sVistaandWindows7software.TheVista teamcontinuedaddingnewfeatures (to includefifteenshutdownmodes)long after passing the peak of complexity. The final product left much to bedesired.Notwishing to repeat this failure,Microsoft adopted a new approachthatwasmoresensitivetotheimpactofcomplexityandprovidedincentivestosoftwarecoderswhofoundwaystostreamlineandsimplifythenextproduct.

Previous comments notwithstanding, there is not necessarily “one” criticalmasspointweshouldaimfor.AsFigure21shows,itismoreofaregionthanapoint.

FIGURE21:CRITICALMASS

Designconversationsshouldnotbelimitedtodesigners.Atsomepoint,wemayalsowanttotalkabouttheprojectwithpeopleoutsidethedesignteam,suchasbosses,customers,orinvestors.TheSimplicityCyclecanbeusefulhere,too.

Many consumers automatically assume a digital camera with 100 photomodesissuperiortoacamerathatonlyhas84,becausecomplexityissoeasilymistaken for sophistication. Nevermind that we only ever use one or two ofthosemodes—peoplestillprefer topaya littleextra forall thatother stuffweneitherneednorunderstand.But imagine ifwecouldhelpconsumersbemorethoughtful,moredeliberate, choosing instead tobuy things that areabetter fitfor theirneeds.Thisapproachservestheconsumersinterestsand improves the

qualityandreliabilityoftheproduct,becausesimplerdesignshavefewerwaystheycanbreak.Fewerproblemsequalshappierbuyers.Everybodywins.

I’m not suggesting product designers have to gather all their potentialconsumers around a whiteboard and walk them through the Simplicity Cyclediagram, although that would be awesome. Instead, I’m suggesting that adeliberateemphasisonsimplicitycanandshouldbeasellingpoint.Thekeyistomake the connection between simplicity and goodness, rejecting the usualtendency to play up unnecessary complexity as a desirable feature. Somecompanies like Apple do this well already. Others have lots of room forimprovement.

This shift in preference from complexity to simplicity is neither automaticnorintuitivelyobvious,sowe’llneedtomakesomeefforttobringpeoplealonganddemonstrate themeritsof this approach. It’s something todowith people,nottopeople,anditstartswithaconversation.Dependingonwhowe’retalkingwith,thatconversationmaynotinvolvesketchingx-yaxesonawhiteboard,butonce we are familiar with the Cycle, we can find many ways to express it,perhapsthroughstoriesandexamplesthatarespecifictooursituation.

Thepointis,therearemanywaystousetheSimplicityCycle—asadesignpromptforasoloproject,asacommunicationenablerandcreativitypromptforateam,andasawaytodiscussaproject’svaluewiththebossorwithcustomers.Likemyfriendthedentist,you’llprobablyfindwaystoputittousethatIneverimagined,whatevertypeofworkyoudo.

Inthenextchapter,we’llusethediagramasalenstolookatthedesignofworkitself.We’llfocusontherelationshipbetweeneffortandachievementandspend some time looking at how complexity affects the way we relate andcommunicate.

CHAPTER5

OnHardWorkandDesign

Imagineit’sawarmspringday.Thesunisshining, thebirdsarechirping, thescent of lilacs fills the air.Wewould like to open awindow in order tomorefullyappreciatenature’sbeauty,sowegripthewindowsillandpressupward.

Itremainsshut.Darnit.We push harder, but the window refuses to cooperate. What is our next

move?Wecouldgeta tool—acrowbar,ascrewdriver,ahammer—anythingtoconvey an increased amount of force to the window. If we’re interested in apermanent opening in thewall, dynamitewould certainly produce the desiredeffectalthoughthelilacsoutsidewouldundoubtedlysuffer.Orwecouldembarkona six-monthweightlifting regimen, to increaseour arm strength inorder toovercomethewindow’sresistance,astrategywithabonushealthbenefit.Thenagain,bythetimewe’resufficientlybulkedup,winterwillhavearrivedandthelilacs will have wilted, so this approach is unlikely to be substantially moresatisfyingthanthedynamite.

Fortunately, there is anotheroption.Wecouldusea single finger togentlyswingthewindowlatchintotheunlockedposition.

Ah,that’sbetter.Trying really hard without making progress often indicates something is

wrongwithourapproachorourunderstandingoftheproblem.Theremaybeanunseen barrier involved, and removing the barrier may be a simplematter ofstepping back and considering the situation from a different perspective.Overcomingobstaclesoftenrequiresmorethoughtfuleffortandlessbruteforce,more simplicity and less complexity. Maybe we need to put down thesledgehammerandunlatchthewindow.

Howoftendoesthishappeninourlives,bothprofessionallyandpersonally?Wepushhardtogetpromoted,togetadate,ortocreateourmagnumopus,but

instead get passed over, turned down, or otherwise underwhelmed with theresults.Shouldwehavetriedharder?Orwastryingharderpartoftheproblem?Maybewewere pushing in thewrong direction, adding complexity and effortwheresimplicityandeasewerecalledfor.Maybeapauseoratrimwouldhaveledtoabetteroutcome.

Thisisnottodenigratehardwork,butlet’snotfetishizeit,either.Whenweareinthezoneandoperatingatourpeakability,thingsmovesmoothlyandthat’sokay.Insuchsituations,progressmayappearandevenfeeleasy.Thisdoesnotmeanitisn’trealprogress.Thatdoesnotmeanitisn’tgood.

Inhisautobiography,filmmakerAkiraKurosawabemoanstheways“humannaturewantstoplacevalueonthingsindirectproportiontotheamountoflaborthat went into making them.” He argues that a thing’s value ought to bemeasuredintermsotherthanhowharditwastodo.Ithinkhe’sontosomething.

To be sure, there are timeswhenwork feels likework. This, too, is okay.Sweatingandstrainingarenotalways things tobeavoided,and ifwewant torun amarathon,we have to put in themiles.However, ourmarathon trainingshouldincludelearningtorunwithgoodform,toprovidemaximalreturnonourexertion,andinasensetominimizetheamountofeffortrequired.Notonlydoesgoodformmakeforanefficientrunner;italsoreducesthelikelihoodofinjury.

The question of effort and ease matters because when we place value onthingsbasedprimarilyonhowdifficulttheyweretoaccomplish,weheadtowardthe upper left corner of our map, toward greater complexity and diminishedgoodness.Thingsinthatareaareverydifficultindeedandifwedon’tknowanybetter, that’swherewe’llheadbecausewe’vemistakendifficultyforgoodness.Amorethoughtfulapproachseesthatdifficultyinitselfisnothingtobragabout,that signsof strain are signsof opportunity for improvement rather than signsthatalliswell.Whensomethingisdifficulttodo,wemightbefacingasituationripe for simplification, even if nobody else sees it. Particularly if nobody elseseesit.

For generations, travelers carried heavy luggage through train stations andairports.Sometimes, clever travelerswouldpay a fewcoins to rent awheeledcartuponwhichtostacktheirbags,buttheideaofputtingwheelsdirectlyontothebagsthemselvesdidn’treallytakeoffuntil1987.

When wheelie bags finally appeared on the market, some macho typesscoffedattheimpliedweaknessofpeoplewhocan’tcarryabag,whilecountlessothersaroundtheworld,includingesteemedexpertsintheprestigiousdisciplineof luggagedesign, surelyuttered thephrase“Whydidn’t I thinkof that?”The

answer is that they treated the strain of carrying a suitcase as inevitable.Thatburningsensationinyourshoulderasyoulugyourluggagefromplacetoplacewasjustoneoftheunavoidableconsequencesoftravel.

In hindsight, putting wheels on bags looks like an obvious solution, butpeoplewhoprobablyshouldhaveknownbetterfailedtoseeit,largelybecausetheyfailedtorecognizearemarkablyobviousproblem.Probablytheyneededanap.Assomeonewho’soldenoughtoremembercarryingasuitcasethroughanairportortwo,IknowIneededone.

Thefunnythingis,thewheelisafairlyoldtypeoftechnology.Thewheeledluggage solution therefore did not require any major scientific breakthroughbefore it couldbe implemented.Thewheel isalso relatively inexpensive, so itcouldbeaddedtoabagwithoutsignificantlyincreasingthecost.Andthewheelis simple,withno fragile electronics, noneed for batteries or computer chips.Where’sthedownside?Orrather,whattookussolong?

Itissuchabasicconceptthatweallmightbetemptedtokickourselvesfornotcomingupwith it.Butdonotbefooled. If thesolutionwas trulyobvious,peoplewouldhavethoughtofitalreadyandfiguredoutawaytoimplementit.Making this type of improvement requires a very specific mindset, one thatviewsdifficultyasasignpostthatchangeisneededandpossible,ratherthanasan unavoidable aspect of the human condition. It requires us to seek out thecleversimplicityontheothersideofcomplexity, toaskquestionsotherpeoplearenotasking.Andasgenerationsofsuitcase-carryingtravelerscanattest,thatmindsetisratherrare.

Fortunately, it ispossible tocultivate itanddeliberatelypointourminds inthat direction, by paying attention to things that are difficult and looking foropportunities to add a wheel or move a window latch. The Simplicity Cyclehighlightsthatparticularpathandthatmodeofthinking,bypointingoutthatthepath to increased goodness often involves removing unnecessary effort ratherthantoleratingit.

TheSimplicityCycleremindsusthatgoodnessmattersmorethandifficultyor complexity. It also remindsus that solutions that are simultaneously simpleandgoodcanexist.Maybenotall thetime,butcertainlysomeof thetime.Bymappingout the locationof thesepotential solutionsandshowingsomeof thepathsthatwilltakeusthere,thediagramopensupnewvistasandopportunitiestoexplore. Itpointsus in thedirectionofadifferent typeofskillandmastery,one that accepts difficulty where necessary but does not automatically equatestrainwithprogress.

Oneoftheproblemswithexcessivestrainisthatitleadstoexhaustion,andwhen we’re tired, everything is harder. Not because the world becomes anydifferentwhenwearewipedout,butbecausefatiguemakesusstupid.Itcloudsour judgmentand temptsus toneedlesslyadoptbrute-forcemethods, trying tosolve problems with the maximum amount of effort and minimal amount ofcleverness.Whenwearetired,wearemorelikelytopickupthesledgehammerordynamite,overlookingthewindowlatch.

Ifyoueverfindyourselfinawhirlofcomplexity,strainingwithoutmakingheadway and pouring out resources with no visible return, it probably makessensetotakethatpausewetalkedaboutearlier.Sometimes,anapcanmakeallthedifferenceintheworld.

FIGURE22:SLEEPONIT

Restisimportantbutanyonewhotriestonaptheirwaytoexcellenceisboundtobe disappointed. Effort matters, and in his bookOutliers, Malcolm Gladwellfamouslywrotethatmasteryofanyskillrequirestenthousandhoursofpractice.He admits that is a suspiciously round number, but his point is still worthconsidering.Whenweapproachitcorrectly,practicedoes indeedmakeperfectandsuchperfectiondoesnothappenovernight.Ittakesupwardsoftenthousandhours’worthofeffort.

Practice is about effort, yes, but practice is also about making and fixingmistakes, identifyingand removing friction fromour efforts. It doesnot entailmerely doing the same thing over and over, but instead involves a thousandsmalltweaksasweexperimentwithnewtechniquesandmodificationsofformer

ones.Eventuallyweareable to focuson the techniques thatwork,honingourability to perform. In doing so, we move our practice from the center of theSimplicityCycletothelowerrightcorner.Towardperfection,howeverfleetingthatperfectionmightbe.

I wonder, does a pianist play her instrument in order to keep her fingersnimble,orisittheotherwayaround?Doesshenotcherishnimblenessbecauseit producesmusic? In the sameway, is not simplicity admirable and virtuousbecauseofwhatitproduces,whatitallowsustodo?Dowenotsimplifyinordertoachievehighergoals,ratherthansimplifyingforthesakeofsimplicityitself?

It isworth restating:Simplicity isnot thepoint. It is a tool, adiscipline, apractice that helps us do other things. Things that matter infinitely more.Simplicityisanessentialingredientinawell-designedproductandawell-livedlife,butitisonlyaningredient.

Nevertheless,simplicityisanimportantingredient.Whenweleaveitout,theresultcandevolveintoanexpensive,overengineeredmonumenttodifficulty(forthedesignerandconsumeralike).

We say a thing is overengineered when its performance far exceeds itsenvironmental demands. Such a device uses gold platingwhen aluminumwilldo, operates at frequencies beyond a human’s ability to appreciate or speedsbeyond a human’s ability to operate. It might have a designed life span farbeyondtheunderlyingtechnology’sexpectedrelevance.Overengineereddesignsare extremely vulnerable to disruptive innovations that provide less capabilitybut are better alignedwithmarket needs, asClaytonChristensen explained sobrilliantly in The Innovator’s Dilemma. Providing consumers with high-endproducts might create a barrier to entry for competitors who cannot providecomparablequality,but it also creates anopening for a low-end,good-enoughentryintothemarketthatjustmightprovepopularwithhigh-endclients.

Imagineifsomeoneinthe1980shaddesignedaWalkmanrobustenoughtolast one hundred years. The accompanying cost would be high, in large partbecauseofthecomplexityandredundancynecessarytoachievesuchobjectives.Overengineeredproductsaregenerouslydescribedas“high-end,”whenamoreaccuratedescriptionmaysimplybe“pricey.”

Abetteralternativeisthehighlyengineeredproduct,whichissleek,elegant,andfocused.Itexhibitsalignmentbetweenwhatitisdesignedtodoandwhatitactually has to do. Clearly, we have options and alternativeswhenwe designthings.Overengineeringisnotagoodoption.

FIGURE23:OVERENGINEERED/HIGHLYENGINEERED

Speakingofoptions,theopeninglineofShunryuSuzuki’sbest-sellingbookZenMind, Beginner’s Mind says, “In the beginner’s mind, there are manypossibilities.Intheexpert’smind,therearefew.”Don’treadpastthosesentencestooquickly.Assumethelotuspositionandtakeamomenttoponderthembeforemovingtothenextparagraph.

Now, I’m not a Zen master, not by a long shot. I’m a garden-varietyMethodistandwhenitcomestoZen,I’mstrictlyanamateuranddilettantewhomay have no ideawhat he’s talking about. Does thismean I have beginner’smind(shoshin)?Maybe,buthowwouldIknow?

Given my almost complete ignorance of the subject, I won’t pretend tounderstandshoshininanysortofenlightenedmanner.However,Iwouldliketooffer a few observations, the first of which is this: Suzuki is making anobservation.

Let’srereadhiswords:Inthebeginner’smind,therearemanypossibilities.In the expert’smind, there are few. In those two sentences, Suzuki is neithercomplimenting nor criticizing anything. He is noticing. His comments aredescriptive,notprescriptive.Heispointingoutadifferencebetweenexpertsandbeginners, not passing judgment or comparing relative values. Thus, anyassumptionthatonetypeofmindisbetterthantheotherissomethingwebringtothetext,notsomethingwefindthere.LiketheancientstoryoftheZenmasterwhocontinuedpouringteaintothestudent’soverflowingcup,weneedtoemptyourselvesofourpreconceptionsbeforewecancomeintocontactwithreality.

IfwetakeSuzuki’sstatementasastraightforwardindictmentofnarrowness

withinexpertiseandablanketpraiseofbeginner’s imaginativepowers,wenotonlymisunderstandhim,wealsomisunderstandZenitself.Andifweperseverelongenoughtogettopage2ofhisbook,wewillhearSuzuki-roshitellus,“ForZen students the most important thing is not to be dualistic.” Thus, his dualframeworkofbeginnerandexpertisnotwhatitmightappeartobeatfirstblush.

Yes,beginner’smind isavaluedpractice inZen,andmanypractitioners—including Suzuki—talk about cultivating it and “always embracing shoshin.”Thismightseemtoimplythatseeingmoreisthesameasseeingbetter.ButletusbearinmindthatZenalsovaluesrestraintandstandsinstarkcontrasttothecommonWesternphilosophyof“moreisbetter.”So,yes,beginner’smindseesmanypossibilitiesandexpertmindseesfew.Whoseesbetter?MakethesoundofonehandclappingandthenI’lltellyou.

Suzuki’s observation about beginners and experts illuminates severalimportant aspects of the Simplicity Cycle. When we first set out on a newproject, fewdecisionshavebeenmadeandmanyoptionsarestillon the table.Facedwithalotofoptions,thebeginneraddsandcollectsandcreates,movingfrom the lower left corner to themiddleof themap.Thisexpansive, inclusiveworld-view is important and productive as long as it sets a foundation forsubsequentsimplificationsandisnotallowedtocarrythedesignupandto theleft,inthedirectionoffoolishcomplexity.

Inthisearlyphaseofadesign,theproverbialConeofUncertaintystretchesoutwidebeforeusandholds“manypossibilities.”Then,aswemakedecisionsandadvancethedesign,wenarrowdownourfutureoptionsuntilwehave“few.”

Atthatpoint,thestudentmustbecomethemasteranddevelopanabilitytodistinguishbetweenpossibilities,identifyingwhichareviableandwhicharenot.This culling of possibilities can be described as “seeing fewer,” as theunproductive and unwise possibilities are cast aside. In thisway, the designernowpursuessimplificationsandanarrowersetofoptions,transitioningtoanewtrajectorythatcarriesthemdownandtotheright.

Butjustasthebeginnermusttakecaretonotallowtheirexpansivevisiontocarrythemtoaplacewherecomplexityoverwhelmsgoodness,theMastermusttakecaretonotletexperienceleadtoafoolishnarrownesswheretheyseelesswell than they once did and overlook possibilities that should be explored orembraced.TheMastermustbeonguardagainstthetendencytofollowonlythecomfortable,provenpathsandthusoverlooktheRightPath,whichmaybemorevisibletoanovice.

Whileabeginnerfacinginfinitepossibilitymayfinditimpossibletotakethe

first step, Masters face a different danger, that of arrogant narrowness andblindness to new alternatives,making it difficult for them to take a step theyhavenottakenpreviously.Humansnaturallydevelopintellectualinertia,latchingon to certain ideas andbeliefs to the exclusionofothers.Even an enlightenedone can fall prey to unwise habits of thought andmistake them for inevitabletruths.

ThusZenpractitionersatalllevelsofexperienceareencouragedtocultivateshoshinandmaintainanopennesstosurprisingpossibilities.Inordertodothis,ithelps tohave severalbeginnersaround, tohelp remindusof exactlywhat abeginner’smindlookslike.Perhapsthisisoneofthereasonsthatbeginnersandmastersareoftenfoundinproximitytoeachother,asituationthatbenefitsboth.

For example, a beginner facing a million options may be paralyzed intoinaction because he or she lacks the ability to distinguish and judge betweenalternatives. That is where the Master’s narrowness comes in, to break thebeginner free from immobilizing uncertainty by pointing them in the rightdirectionandhelpingthemtaketheirfirststepsdowntheNobleEightfoldPath.

OneofmyfavoriteZenstoriesillustratesthisnicely.Ittellsofanovicemonkwho asked Master Zhaozhou to teach him. The apprentice saw so manypossibilitieshewasunsurewhichonetopickorwhattodo.Zhaozhou,inwhosemindtherewerefewpossibilities,simplyaskedifthemonkhadeaten,andwhenthemonkansweredintheaffirmative,theMastertoldhimtogowashhisbowl.Uponhearingthis,thenovicewentawayenlightened.Thestorydoesn’tmentionit,butIsuspectZhaozhouwentawayenlightenedaswell.

WeconcludethisdiscussionofZenthesamewaywebegan,withSuzuki’sobservation:Inthebeginner’smind,therearemanypossibilities.Intheexpert’smind,therearefew.AsourdesigneffortscarryusthroughtheSimplicityCycle,bearthiskoaninmind.Ascomplexityrisesandfalls,asgoodnessincreasesanddiminishes,aspossibilitiesopenandclose,bearthiskoaninmind.Asweexpandourdesignsthroughtheinelegantpreparationsthateventuallybecomeinvisibleor as we trim our designs into elegant simplicity, bear this koan in mind.Whetheryouareanoviceoramaster,abeginneroranexpert,bearthiskoaninmind.Anddon’tforgettowashyourbowl.

We turnnow fromancientZenwisdom tomodern techno foolishness. I’mtalking,ofcourse,aboutFacebook.Inthisnextsection,we’regoingtoshiftfromlooking at a specificmaster/novice relationship and instead take a look at therole complexity and simplicity play in other types of relationships, beginningwithanobservationfromeveryone’sfavoritesocialmediaplatform.

Changingone’sFacebookrelationshipstatusto“it’scomplicated”isseldomasignthatalliswell.Thetransitionfromasimple,familiar,stablestatesuchas“inarelationship”or“married”totheominouslyambiguous“it’scomplicated”indicatesastateoffluxanduncertaintythatfewpeopledeliberatelyseekoutandeven fewer enjoy. As a brief, temporary phase, “it’s complicated” can be animportantstepthatultimatelyleadstoamoresatisfyingresolution,butwepitythepoorsoulswhoperpetuallyresideinthislimbo.

The idea that relational complications are a sign of trouble does not onlyapply toourprivateconnections.Excessive interpersonalcomplexitycanmakeourprofessionaldealingsdifficultaswell.Thisisnogreatinsight,butitmightbeworthwhiletospendafewminutesconsideringstrategiesthathelpusmovetoward relationships that are both simpler and better, because design isfundamentallysocial.Designinvolvesworkingwithpeople—colleagues,bosses,customers, suppliers. It involves conversations and negotiations, compromisesandconcessions.And just asunnecessarycomplexity in adesigncanweigh itdown andmake it less good, unnecessary complexity in our relationships canleadtoallsortsofproblems.

Thefirststep is tofigureoutwhat typeoforganizationalcomplexitywe’redealing with. Three common sources of complexity are size, structure, andspecificity.We’lllookateachoneinturn,startingwithsize.

Largeorganizationsareintrinsicallymorecomplexthansmallonesbecausethey have more parts—more people, more divisions, more organizationalinterfaces.This increase in complexity feeds on itself, because hiring ten newpeople requires us to hire an eleventh to oversee them all, which probablycreates an additional layer in the organization’s structure, and things just getcrazyfromthere.Wemightdebatewhetherornottheincreaseinsizemakestheorganization better (sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t), but there is nodenyingbignessmakesthingsmorecomplicated.

And then there is the question of structure. Regardless of size, certainorganizationalformsare inherentlymorecomplexthanothers.Forexample, inmatrixedorganizations,linesofresponsibilityareshownonorganizationchartsviadottedlines,solidlines,anddashedlinesofvariousthicknessesandcolors,which change depending on the day of theweek and the phase of themoon.Specializedsoftwareissometimesrequiredinordertodepictthecomplexitiesofthematrix,where control and accountability followdifferent paths, andwhereinfluenceandauthorityaredividedfromeachother.

As with large organizations, a complex organizational structure conveys

certain benefits and strengths, enabling the organization to do things it mightotherwise be unable to accomplish.Do the benefits of this approachoutweighthe costs? That’s the question to ask, isn’t it? As we’ve seen several timesthroughout the book, complexity can be valuable and essential. The key is toknowwhen to stop and tomake the effort to simplifywhen things get out ofhand.

The thirdsourceofcomplexity, specificity,has less todowith theexternalstructureoftheorganizationitselfandmoretodowithhowpeopleapproachthework.A formal, strictly defined approach towork, relyingonhugebinders ofpolicy and intricate process diagrams, may be established for the purpose ofsimplifyingthingsbyalwayshavingananswertothequestion“Whatshouldwedo?”However,inpracticetheresultismorecomplexity,notless.

A big specific rulebook is more complicated than an informal set ofguidelinesandprinciples,becausewhenwehavealargecollectionofrulesthataim to control and guide every aspect of operations, we must also deal withinteractionsbetweentherules,addressingtheinevitableareaswhererulescomeintoconflictwitheachother.Andthenthereisthequestionofareastherulesdonotaddress,oraddressambiguously,whichrequiresawholenewlayerofrulemakingandinterpretation.Tomakemattersworse,thisformalapproachtendstofosteraparalleldisciplineofloopholery,wherespecializedexpertsaddtheirownlayersandtwiststohelppeopleinterprettherulesinavarietyofways.Simpler?Idon’tthinkso.

Large and complex organizations tend to gravitate toward this formal,legalistic approach to work, creating a perfect storm of size, structure, andspecificitywhereallthreesourcesofcomplexityamplifyeachother.Butevenasmallorganizationwithastraightforwardstructurecanfinditselfincomplicatedterritory by embracing a strictly specified mode. As with size and structure,specificity conveys several benefits and can contribute to an organization’sperformance. It can genuinely make things better. But it is important torecognizethatspecificityalsomakesthingsmorecomplex,andaswithanytypeofcomplexity,thereisacostassociated.

Size,structure,andspecificityarenot theonlysourcesofcomplexity inanorganization’s relationships. Sometimes it’s all about the drama. When theperson in charge of testing a new piece of equipment threatens to cancel theentire testprogramevery time there isahiccup in thepaperwork,orwhen thesecurityexperthelpfullyofferstorescindpreviouslygrantedapprovalsbecauseof a minor change in a seating arrangement, or when the legal counsel

confidently predicts that the smallest divergence from his or herrecommendations will certainly result in everyone going to jail for life, thecomplexitiesbeingintroducedaremoretheresultofpersonalitiesthananythingelse.Thiswillingnesstoputthenuclearoptiononahairtriggerintroducesalotoffrictionandunnecessarycomplexityastherestoftheteamwalksoneggshellslestourdrama-lovingpartnersstartrunningaroundlikechickenswiththeirhaironfire.Twowords:don’tbethatguy.

Butsomepeopleadddrama(andthereforecomplexity)whethertheywanttoornot,byvirtueoftheirpositionmorethantheirpersonality.I’mtalkingaboutbosses and other people in positions of authority. See, bosses are dramaticbecause extremes are dramatic, and the top of the pyramid is an extremeposition. Even when they communicate in calm and soothing tones, a boss’spresencealoneisenoughtoincreaseeveryone’slevelofdramatictension.Thisis not necessarily a bad thing, and sometimes it’s preciselywhat the situationcallsfor.Butbosseswoulddowelltomaintainawarenessthattheirpresenceandinvolvement raises the stakes considerably and can complexify things inunproductiveways.

Okay, so organizational complexity comes from many places, includingseveral not mentioned here. The point is that if we first spend a little timeidentifying the primary contributors, it’s not too hard to find strategies fordealingwiththem.

Iftheboss’spresencemakesthingscomplicated,thenheorshemightneedtostepawayforabit.Sometimesthebestthingabosscandoisbeelsewhere.

Istheorganization’ssizedraggingthingsdown?Getsmaller.Thisdoesnotnecessarily mean downsizing. Instead, it may be a matter of forming smallersubteamswithin the largerunits.Largechurches, for example,oftendealwiththe challenges associatedwith growth by building and nurturing small groupsthatareabletoprovidefellowshipandsupportthatalargegroupsimplycannot.Theseself-sustainingcellsare still connectedwith the largercongregation,butthey reduce someof the complexity-related pressures on the organization as awhole.

Isthecomplexstructuremakingithardertogetworkdoneinsteadofeasier?Simplify theorganizationbymaking relationshipsmoredirect and less vague,moresolidlineandlessdottedline.Ifwecan’tactuallyredrawthematrixintoasimplerstructure,wecanstilltakestepstoreduceambiguityandconfusion,suchas having face-to-face discussions with actual human beings, rather thancommunicatingviaemailandotherdistancingmethods.

Is specificity getting in the way of progress? Take a page from BrazilianbusinessmanRicardoSemler.InhisbookTheSeven-DayWeekend,SemlertalksabouthowhiscompanySemcodealtwithunproductivecomplexitycausedbyanexcessofspecificity.Semcowasvirtuallyburiedunderavastquantityofpolicy,carefully stored in binders that went largely unread and unheeded butneverthelessimpededprogress.Themainuseofthesepolicybinderswastoslowthings down, reduce flexibility, and prevent decisive movement. What didSemlerdo?Hethrewthemout.Allofthem—rulesaboutofficesize,rulesaboutworkhours, rulesaboutsalarydetermination.Everythingwentout thewindowand was replaced with . . . almost nothing. No policy is the policy. Semlerdescribeshiscompanythisway:

Semcohasnoofficialstructure.Ithasnoorganizationalchart.There’snobusinessplanorcompanystrategy,notwo-yearorfive-yearplan,nogoalormissionstatement,nolongtermbudget.Thecompanyoftendoesnothave a fixed CEO. There are no vice presidents or chief officers forinformation technology or operations. There are no standards orpractices.There’snohumanresourcesdepartment.

Andthat’sjustashortlistofwhatSemcodoesn’thave.Whatdotheyhave?Passionate customers, engaged workers, and a sustainable cash flow. I’ll takethoseovertheotherstuffanyday.

It’simportantwedon’ttakethewronglessonhere.Semler’sstrategyisnotaformoforganizationalnihilismoranarchy,andtherestofuswon’tgetthesameresults by simply torching the policy binders, then trying to carry on withbusinessasusual.LikeSemler,wehavetoreplacethecomplexifyingformalitieswithasimplifierthatisevenmorepowerful—trust.

Whether the complexity in our organization is rooted in size, structure,specificity, or something else, howwe choose to relate to our partnerswill inlarge part determine our experience and our outcomes. Building relationshipsbased on trust is infinitely simpler than formalized structures that dictateeverything from work hours to dress codes and require people to repeatedlyprovetheircompetenceandcompliancewithpredefinednorms.Buttrustisnotjustsimpler—itisalsobetter.Thisisnotamoralopinionoramatteroftaste.It’sScience.

Research by Paul Zak, a PhD neuroeconomist at Claremont GraduateUniversity,revealedthatwhenpeoplefeeltrusted,theyrespondbybehavingina

moretrustworthymannerbecauseofincreasedlevelsofoxytocinintheirbrains.Oxytocinistheso-calledcuddlehormone,whichplaysacriticalroleinawiderangeofsocialinteractions,includingtrustworthybehavior.

Zak’s research suggests that if we want the people around us to betrustworthy,we can start bymaking them feel trusted.Rather thandemandingthat thepeoplearoundus“earn”our trust,wewoulddowell togiveour trustfromtheoutsetandletneurochemistrydoitswork.

A2011paperintheJournalofTrustResearchbyR.C.Mayeretal. shedsevenmorelightontheimportanceandvalueoftrust.Thepaperdescribesafive-month longitudinal field study that showed that “thedevelopment of trust is areciprocalphenomenon.”Thismeansone’strustinagivenpersonisinfluencedbytheleveloftrustoneperceivesfromthatperson.Inotherwords,ifyoutrustme,I’mmorelikelytotrustyou.Andlesttherebeanydoubt,a2011paperintheJournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheorybyYoonChoandEvanRingquist showed that “trustworthy managers preside over more productiveorganizationsand are better able tomaintain and even increase organizationaloutcomesinagencieschallengedbylowlevelofperformance.”

But wait, there’s more! Trust not only increases trustworthiness, it alsoindicatestrustworthiness.Waybackin1980,JulianRotterpublishedapaperinAmericanPsychologist thatobserved,“Peoplewhotrustmorearelesslikelytolie and are possibly less likely to cheat or steal. They aremore likely to giveothersasecondchanceandtorespecttherightsofothers.Thehightrusterislesslikely tobeunhappy, conflicted,ormaladjusted, and is likedmoreand soughtoutasafriend.”Soundsgoodtome.

Rotter’sresearchsuggeststhatwhensomeonetrustsyou,theyaresignalingsomethingabouttheirowncharacter.Ifsomeonetrustsyou,itisasafebetthatyou can trust them back.And yes, the inverse is also true—untrusting peopletendtobelesstrustworthy.ButZak’sresearchsuggeststhatthevirtuouscycleoftrust is strongerbecause thebrain’sphysical response tobeing trusteddirectlyaffectsourbehavior.

Sadly, despite the scientific basis and solid track record of trust-basedteamingarrangements,somepeoplefindtrustexceedinglydifficult.Theywouldrathertrustadustybinderandafive-yearplanthanthecharacterorcompetenceof theperson sittingnext to them.Thesenontrusters sling aroundphrases like“trust but verify,” which usually means “I don’t trust you until I verifyeverything.”Thisistragicandunnecessary.

AccordingtoZak’sresearch, thisdistrustingapproachmisses thepointand

hastheoppositeoftheintendedeffect.Distrustcreatesaself-fulfillingprophecyinmuchthesamewaytrustdoes.Formeninparticular,feelingdistrustedcausesa release of dihydrotestosterone, which triggers the desire for aggressivephysical confrontation.This aggressiveurgemight explain the aforementionedpredilection for drama that some people exhibit. Instead of physical violence,thesedramatists expressaggressionby raising the stakes toextremes.Trustingthemmightthereforehelptodialbackthedrama.

Zak explains thatwomen are “cooler responders,” adding, “we do not yetfullyknowthephysiologicalunderpinningsforthisdifference.”Womenmaynotrespond to distrust by displaying aggression the same way men do, but theunderlying dynamic is fairly universal. Regardless of gender, trust works.Distrustdoesnot.

How do we make the transition to trust? At the risk of grosslyoversimplifying things, we start by just doing it, perhaps starting with smallthings and building from there. To be sure, a genuine atmosphere of trustrequiresmoresubstantialeffortthanjustsaying“Itrustyou,”butthatisastart.

Building a deeper sense of trust requires a certain amount of risk andexposure,awillingnesstoplaceone’swell-beinginsomeoneelse’shands,andawillingness to listen.Easier said thandone, I know.But trustme—in the longrun,trustworks.SeewhatIdidthere?

Itisprobablyworthnotingthatthereisadifferencebetweenbeingtrustingandbeinggullible.Let’snotmistakeonefortheother,refusingtotrustoutofafearofbeinggullibleorembracinggullibility in thenameof trust. Instead,wecandecide to trustwisely,notnaively.For specific resourcesonhow to fostertrust, you may want to check out Henry Cloud’s website atwww.cloudtownsend.com/trust/ (full disclosure—Cloud and I have the samepublisher).

Preciousfewofushave theauthority todirectlychange thesize,structure,andspecificityoftheorganizationswe’reapartof.EventheCEOandchairmanof theboardcan’teasily transformabigcompanyintoasmallone,acomplexstructureintoastraightforwardone,oraformalapproachintoacasualone.Asfor rewiring someone’s personality to transform them from a drama-lovinggrenadethrowertoaserenemodelofconfidenceandcollegiality,well,that’snotgoingtohappenanytimesoon,either.Butweallhavethecapacitytobetrustingandtrustworthy.Thatjustmightbethesparkthatignitesthebroaderchangesourorganizationsneed.Thatjustmightbethefirstandmostimportantsteptowardradicalsimplificationsthatmakethingsbetter.

CHAPTER6

TheDoldrums,TheyHappen

Welcometochapter6.Wearenowroughlytwo-thirdsofthewaythroughthebookandIwouldjustliketosaycongratulationsonmakingitthisfar.I’mtoldbooks like this one are purchased more often than they are read, let alonefinished,andasmuchas Iamthankful for thepurchase, Isincerelyappreciatethereadingjustasmuch.

Thereasonpeopleoftendon’tgetthisfarinabookhaslittletodowiththegoldfish-level attention span of readers or the prodigious heft of the booksthemselves. The sad truth is, this is the part of the bookwheremany authorsbegintophoneitin(soI’mtold).Whydoesthishappen?Well,atthispointinalmost any book, the main idea has been presented and the critical evidenceprovided, but it’s too soon for the grand finale.What remains is to bring themanuscriptuptowhateverscientificallycalculated,totallynot-arbitrarylengthisnecessarytoensurebestsellerstatus,usuallyviaaseriesoffurtherexamplesthatbasicallyrestateearlierconceptsorthroughfluffylittlesidenotesthatstrivetoatleastprovideentertainmentifnotinsight.

It is generally felt that this part of the book is too late to introduce newmaterialorconcepts,because if saidmaterialwere really important, surely theauthorwouldhavebroughtitupalready,right?Sincenewmaterialisunwelcomeat thispoint, all that remains is to restate earlier commentsor introduce fluffylittle sidenotes that strive toprovideentertainment ifnot insight.Anyoneelsehavingadéjàvumomenthere?

Lingeringinthiscreativedoldrumsresultsinunnecessaryadditionsthatonlymake the book longer, not better. The result is a boring and long late-middlesection that turns people off and causes them to either skip ahead to theconclusionortoabandonthebookaltogether.

Fearnot,dearreader.Ihavenointentionofcomplyingwiththatpattern.Ido,

however,wanttobringittoyourattention,notforthesakeofpokingfunatmyfellowauthorsormyself, but because this situation is not limited to literature.Allsortsofdesigneffortscanfallintotheblandmorassthatsooftentypifiesthelate-middleportionofabook.

A project may begin with great energy, enthusiasm, and creativity, but atsome point even the strongest among us find ourmomentumwaning.We gettired, which makes us feel less focused and more distracted. This wearinessnudges us toward familiar and comfortable behaviors rather than challengingones, so we fiddle around the edges and continue numbly adding things andmaking small tweaks to the design instead of engaging with the more taxingeffortofevaluatingwhetherouradditionsandtweaksmakethingsbetter.

Just when it is most necessary, the harder work of trimming and carvingbecomes,well,harder.Theresult—anunfortunateslideupandtotheleft,towardmore complexity and less goodness. As we’ve already seen, that’s theComplicationSlopeandit’sbadnews(thereIgoagain,repeatingmyself).

Whenthathappens,whattodo,whattodo?Coffeeornapswillonlygetussofar,becausetheissueisnotalackofawakeness.Thisfatigueismorementaland emotional than physical, and even when our bodies feel well rested ourmindscanfeeltappedout.Thesecretistokeepaneyeoutforthisslowdown,towatchforitandprepareforitratherthanhaveitsneakuponus.

This loss of creative vigor may be gradual or it may be sudden, and thetimingmaynotbeconvenient,but the fact that ithappensshouldnotbeabigsurprise. Ifwe are able tomaintain an awareness of this predictable, virtuallyinevitable phase, we are less likely to get stuck in a counterproductivelycomplexifyingmodewithoutrealizingit.Fortunately, thereareseveralways togetoutofthedoldrums,andtheyallstartbynoticingthatwe’reinthem.

Thefirstsignto lookfor isa lossofenthusiasmandafeelingofstaleness.Ourhandsfeelslow,oureyelidsgetheavy,andworkthatusedtobeexcitingisnowdull.Thatmeanswe’reinthecenterofthemapandstartingtocreeptowardtheupperleftarea.

Whenwe’re in thedoldrums,wealso tend to shift the typeofworkwe’redoing—insteadofaddingnewfeaturesandcomponentsbecause theymakethedesignbetter,we’renowmakingminor, low-valuechanges,changinghappytogladorpaintingthedarkblueareaspurpleandthepurpleareasdarkblue.Ifwecanwakeupourminds longenough toevaluate the impactofouractions,wejustmightnoticethattheimpactofeachchangeisnegligibleandtheimpactofallthechangestogetherisnegative.Yup,that’sthedoldrums.

Oncewerecognizewhat’shappening,specificexitstrategieswilldependonhow we got into the situation in the first place. If the project has been all-consumingforanextendedperiodof time, thebestmoveis tostepawayforawhile and take that pause Imentioned earlier.Noneed to rehash that strategyentirely,butthereisoneparticulartypeofpausethat’sworthmentioning.Icallitthe Shift Pause, because it involves shifting our attention and effort from onepartoftheprojecttoanotherratherthanstoppingtheworkentirely.

This strategy works because creative projects are seldom monolithic andhomogenized.Eventhesmallestprojectcontainsavarietyofaspectsandparts,andifwegetboggeddownononepart,maybewejustneedtotackleadifferentpart.For example, Iwrote the first draft of this chapterwhen I realized Iwasfruitlesslyspinningmywheelsonanearlierchapter.

Tobeentirelyhonest,Icouldn’tstandtoevenlookatthatchapteranymore,andIwasn’tdoinganyoneanyfavorsbycontinuingtomakeimperceptibleeditsor adding new paragraphs that were little more than restatements of oldparagraphs. Fortunately, writing about the doldrums in this chapter was arefreshing,catharticdiversionthatsimultaneouslycontributedtotheoverallgoalof finishing the book and prevented me from making that other chapterunnecessarilyworse.Shifting toworkon thischapterwasapausefromapart,notapausefromtheworkasawhole.

Sopausescancomeinmanyforms,longorshort,partialorcomplete,activeorrestful.Butsometimesaliteralpauseisexactlywhatwedon’tneed.

If we’re working on a stalled side project that feels stuck because ofexhaustinglyconstantinterruptionsfromourdayjob,thenmaybetheansweristoputmoreattentionontheproject,notless.Maybeweneedtheoppositeofapauseandshouldinsteadacceleratethingstothefrontburnerforawhile,tomixmymetaphors.Personally,Ialwayshaveahandfulofsideprojectsgoingatanygiven time, and when I find myself tiring of them and struggling to makeprogress, that’sexactlywhatIdo.Oneproject inparticular illustrateshowthisstrategyworks.

I was a junior engineer and it was the first time I ever initiated my ownindependentresearchproject.Itwasn’tsomethingIplannedtodoorsomethinganyoneaskedmetodo,butafterreadingbookslikeStephenCovey’sTheSevenHabitsofHighlyEffectivePeople andTomPeters’s In Search ofExcellence, Istartedtogetideasofmyown.Specifically,acrazylittleideaaboutwork,goalsetting,andrisktakingtookholdofmybrainandwouldn’tletgo.Ieventuallygave it aname (TheRadicalElementsofRadicalSuccess),but for the longest

timeitwasjustashortlistonatornscrapofpaperIcarriedinmypocket.Formonths, I felt as if Iwason thevergeof creating somethingbigbut I

struggled to carve out sufficient time to put concentrated attention on it. Isuspected my scribbled list was an iceberg tip of an idea, and I desperatelywanted to dive below the waterline and see how big this thing really was.However, my day job was demanding, as day jobs often are, and I was alsotakingnightclasses foramaster’sdegree.Plus, Iwas theprouddadofaone-year-oldgirl.Busytimes,forsure.

So, I neglected theunofficial project because everything elsewas a higherpriority.What else could I do, right? It nevertheless continued to linger at thebackofmymindandthebottomofeachday’sto-dolist,persistentlytuggingonmyimagination.Ioccasionallymanagedtocarveoutbrief interludestodabblewithit,buttheyalwaysendedtoosoonandleftmefeelingtorn,incomplete,andfrustrated.Frankly,itwasexhausting.

SoIapproachedmyboss,Joe,withaproposition:letmeleavetheofficeatnoononFridayforfourweeksinarow,togotoalocallibrarywhereIcoulddoresearchandput focusedattentionondeveloping the idea. Ipromised the timeawaywouldnotinterferewithmyformalduties,andIofferedtoreportbackonwhateverprogressImade.Iwasonlyaskingfortheequivalentoftwodaysoverthecourseofamonth,butitfeltabsolutelyextravagant.

He immediately and enthusiastically approved my request, solidifying hisundisputedpositionofBestBossEver.Duringthenextfewweeks,Ifoundthebreakthrough I was looking for, in more ways than one. The project almostimmediatelyfellintoplaceandproducedamethodologyIusedextensivelyoverthenexteightyears.Idevelopedashort trainingseminartosharethe“RadicalElements”conceptwithmycolleaguesanddelivereditseveraldozentimes,forthousandsofpeople,includingcollegestudents,seniormilitaryleaders,andtopofficials from the intelligence community. Speaking to somany audiences notonly allowed me to test and improve the idea; it also honed my skills as aspeakerandexpandedmynetworkofcollaborators,benefitsIneverenvisionedduringthosehoursinthelibrary.

I have since moved on from that particular seminar, but it was a centralaspect ofmy professional life for nearly a decade, thanks in large part to Joeagreeing to let me dedicate four Friday afternoons to it. The precious gift ofuninterruptedhourswasexactlywhatIneeded.

Thebenefitsofthatfocusedtimeawayextendedintootherareasofmylifeandwork.Because Iwas able to commit a substantial, uninterrupted block of

time to my independent research, I had more energy and creativity for myprimary responsibilities. Iwasable to thinkmoreclearlyallweek long.Yes, Iwasdoing40hoursofworkin36hours,buttheywere36focusedhoursandtheresults were better than ever. I even felt less distracted at home. Across theboard,mylifegotsimplerandbetter.Everybodywins.

Years later I asked Joe why he agreed to my request. He explained hisphilosophy that it is easier to direct energy than to create it.He knew that bysayingyestomycrazylittleproject,Iwouldgooutofmywaytodomymainjobwell.Sayingyeswasavoteofconfidenceinmyabilitiesandheknewmybriefabsencesmeanthewouldgetmoreoutofmeeachweek,notless.HewasalsointriguedtoseewhatmytimeinthelibrarywouldproduceandwentontobeavocalchampionofthemethodologyIdeveloped.

NoteverybossisasenlightenedandsupportiveasJoe,andnoteveryjobcanaccommodatethattypeofabsence.Wecan’talwayscarveouttimeonaFridayafternoon,muchlessfourFridays,andsothatspecificapproachisn’talwaystheanswer,butitdoesserveasanexampleofageneralstrategyIliketocallMaketheTime.

Dependingonoursituation,wemighthavetogetmorecreativeinourefforttofindthoseprecioushours.Writingthisbook,forexample,mostlyhappenedat5 a.m. I didn’t need special permission to carve out these early hours anddedicate them toputtingwordsonpaper.All Ineededwasa loudalarmclockandamillionpotsofstrongcoffee.

The nice thing about this approach is that it didn’t take time away fromanythingother thansleep. I seemtoneed lesssleep thanmostpeople tobeginwith, and I cleverly managed to make up for the missing rest by promptlynoddingoffinthemiddleofwhateversitcomorpolicedramaI’dbewatchingat10 p.m. A word of caution if you’re thinking about adopting this strategy,however. Researchers tell us that inadequate sleep has many undesirable sideeffects,includingheartdisease,weightgain,andyourspousethrowingapillowatyouwhenyoustartsnoringinthemiddleofCastleagain.FortunatelyIonlyencountered one of those side effects, but the point iswe should not skip toomuchsleep.Also,besuretoeatyourvegetablesandgetsomeexercise.

But spending too much or too little time are not the only paths into thedoldrums.Sometimes the issuehasnothing todowithhoursandeverything todowithpartners.

Whenasoloprojecthitsthisphase,itmightbetimetobringinabuddyortwotolendahand.Maybeweneedhelpfromsomeonewithawholenewskill

set,ormaybeweneedsomeonewithadeeperunderstandingoftheskillsweareusing. For example, a computer programmer might reach out to a moreexperiencedmentorwhocanhelpidentifyamoreproductiveapproachtowritingcode. Or she might team up with someone who knows nothing aboutprogrammingandinsteadtalkaboutwhattheprogramshoulddoratherthanhowitshoulddoit.Eitherway,thebenefitcomesfromhavingafreshsetofeyes.

Alternatively,ifwe’vegotalargeteamalreadyandtheprojectisstuckinacomplexifyingmorasswhereprogressdwindlestoatrickle,it’sprobablytimetotemporarilybreakawayforsomesolitarycogitation.

Nobel Prize–winning physicist Richard Feynman had a habit of doingprecisely that.Heworked on some of the twentieth century’smost prominentphysics programs, from the Manhattan Project to the Challenger disasterinvestigation.Eachtime,hetackledverydifficultproblemswithalargeteamofcollaborators. However, his biography by Jim Ottaviani and Leland Myrickshows him frequently spending time alone, usually engaging in activities thatwereentirelyunrelatedtothetaskathand—learningtobeasafecracker,playingthedrums,orpursuingoneofhisotherquirkyhobbies.

This behavior was not the result of amerely casual interest in recreation,although by all accounts Feynman took great pleasure in finding things out.Sure,hewashavingfun,buthishabitofgoingawayfromthegroupwasalsoadeliberate problem-solving strategy. In a letter to fellow Nobel Prize winnerEnricoFermi,Feynmanexplained,“Igetlotsofideasatthebeach.”Hewasbynomeansasolitaryscientist,butheregularlymadetimetogetaway,tobealone,andtothinkbeforereturningtothelargergroup.Thesetripstothebeachtendedto correspond with situations where he was stuck on a particularly thornychallenge.

The common element in all these strategies is the change in perspective.Whetherwe’regoing from full-time to stop,part-time to full, solo to team,orteam to solo, having a new angle on the work is key to breaking out of theinevitabledoldrums.Wemightevenwanttoplantheseadjustmentsinadvance,setting up relationships or scheduling time periods where we can shift ourattentionappropriately.

Nodoubtthereareotherreasonswefindourselvesinthedoldrums,andthusotherstrategiesforgettingoutofthem.Maybetheproblemisthatwe’reworkingon thewrongproject altogether, inwhich case thepause shouldbepermanentafterall.Maybeweneedtogetawayfromthescreenandspendsometimewithapenandpaper.Maybeweneedtogetoutoftheofficeandspendsometimein

thewoods.Regardlessofthespecificreasonorthespecificsolution,onethingtokeepin

mind is that thedoldrumshappenand that’s somethingwe shouldprepare for.When they do,we need to notice they are happening, then find away to getsome new perspectives and avoid allowing our momentum to carry us in thedirectionofincreasedcomplexityanddecreasedgoodness.

CHAPTER7

TraveloguesandArchetypes

Likemost ofmy favorite books,my copy ofDonald Schön’sThe ReflectivePractitioner is well worn and rigorously underlined. I have read Schön’smasterwork on “reflection-in-action” many times over the years, each timeleavingmyself a trail of inky bread crumbs as I highlight certain sections orscratchabrief(usuallycryptic)notetomyfutureselfinthemargins.

Imake it apoint to flip through itspagesona regularbasis, rereading theunderscored portions and finding new passages to underline. Sometimes I golooking for a specific phrase or section, while other times I simply read torediscoverandremember.Withoutfail,eachtimeIopenthisbookIcomeawaywithanewthoughttoreflectonandapply.

In a recent excursion into The Reflective Practitioner, I was struck bySchön’sobservationthat“professionalpracticehasat leastasmuch todowithfindingtheproblemaswithsolvingtheproblemfound....”Hegoesontowritethat formost professionals, “well-formed instrumental problems are not givenbutmustbeconstructedfrommessyproblematicsituations.”

Schön is not the first or only writer to emphasize the importance (ordifficulty!)ofproblemdiscovery,buthisdescriptionresonatesstronglywithme.As I wrote my own book, it was a helpful and timely reminder that all theattentionweputonproblem-solvingtechniquesamountstonothingifweendupsolving the wrong problem. Finding the right problem is therefore a primaryobjectiveinalmostanyprofessionalendeavorandmeaningfulprogressstartsbyunderstandingwhatismeantbythewordgood.

Infact,baddefinitionsofgoodareacentralproblemfromwhichallsortsofotherproblemsemerge.ThisiswhytheSimplicityCycleemphasizes“increasinggoodness”astheobjectiveofoureffortsandencouragesustospendsometimeconsidering what goodness really means, rather than contentedly pursuing

simplicityinallsituations.Ifwemerelymakethingssimpler,werisksolvingthewrongproblem.

How, then, can we make sure we have found the right problem and arepursuing the right kind of goodness, particularly when we face a “messyproblematicsituation”?Thedisciplineof reflectivepractice iscertainlyhelpfulin thatsituation.So isamap.Put the two together intoa“reflectivemapping”activityandwe’vereallygotsomething.

TheSimplicityCycleprovidesaframeworktodopreciselythat.Itmapsouttherelationshipbetweenavarietyofbehaviorsandoutcomes,andinvitesustoconsiderthemanypathswemightfollow.Indoingso,itmakesiteasierforustocorrectlyidentifycomplexity-relatedproblems. . .andthentoreflectonthem,avoidthem,addressthem,resolvethem.

To help foster such reflection, the following pages present a collection ofarchetypicaljourneysthroughtheSimplicityCycle,eachaccompaniedbyashortcommentary.Thesemini-traveloguesare snapshots from the road,a sharingofthoughts, hints, and tips from one traveler to another. This is not a definitivecollection by any means, but instead is a starting point for additionalconversationsandanexampleofwhat reflectivemappingandproblemfindingmightlooklike.

UsingtheSimplicityCycleasaframeworkforrecordingandcomprehendingour experiences can lead to helpful insights. Readers may want to createsketches of their own in order to better understand the road behind them andpreparefortheroadahead.Nofancyequipmentisneeded,justapenandpaperor perhaps a whiteboard. We begin by laying down a blank Complexity-Goodnessfield, then thinkabouthowourprojectbeganandhowitproceeded.Whatstepsdidwetaketomakethingsbetter?Whatstepsdidwetakethatmadethingsworse?Whatpathsdidwefollow,andwheredidthesepathsleadus?

Thiscanbeacommunalactivity,witha largegroupora smallone. Itcanalsobeanindividualexercise.Thesearenotmutuallyexclusiveoptions,andateam may find it useful to transition between solitary reflection and groupreflection. In terms of formality, this can be an idle doodle or a disciplinedpractice.

Aswesketchandreflect,wedowelltokeepinmindthatanygivenjourneyis part of a larger cycle.Althoughwemay happily arrive at a finish line andproducesomethingthatisverygood,thefuturealwaysholdsnewhorizonsandendlessopportunitiesforimprovement.Theselittlemapsmaytellthestoriesoflongtripsandtriumphantarrivals,buteachoneisonlyachapterinastorywith

noend.

STUCKONTHEPORCH

FIGURE24:STUCKONTHEPORCH

The journeyof a thousandmilesmaybeginwith a single step,but taking thatfirst step can be harder than it sounds.Whether it’s a series of false starts ortentativeattemptsthatareimmediatelyscrapped,wesometimesgetstuckonthefrontporch,unabletoheadoutintotheworld.Ourdesignisneithercomplexnorgood,becauseithasn’treallybegun.

In this situation, ideas pop up and are instantly dismissed as unworthy ofbeingincluded,resultinginastubbornlypersistentblanknessonthepagebeforeusandagrowingpileofballsofcrumpled-uppaperinthebinbesideus.Evenworse,ideasrefusetocome.Thepagestaysblankandthebinstaysempty.

Thisisdifferentthanthedoldrums,whichoccurinthemiddleofoureffortswherewe feelboggeddownbyall themovingandworkingand trying lotsofthings that simplydon’twork.Gettingstuckon theporchhappensondayoneandpreventsusfromgettingtodaytwo.

Truestory:thisparticularsectionofprosespentanironicallylongtimestuckontheporch.Ifyoucouldseemydraftingnotebookfortheprecedingpages,youwould see a small set of miserably bad ideas that went nowhere and werecrossedoutassoonas theyappeared.Whatmynotebookdoesnotshowis thelongstretchesoftimebetweeneachcross-out,whereIstaredblanklyatthepageandhadnowordstoadd,nordoesitshowtheevenworseideasthatbrieflycame

tomindbutneverquitemadeittomypen.Why does this happen? Because we get ahead of ourselves and refuse to

tolerate themessysideof theprocess,wherehalf-baked ideasmustcome(andgo)asweexperimentandsiftthroughthechaff.Whenweexpecteverywordwewritetobecorrect,everylinewedrawtobesmooth,andeverypieceweaddtoelegantlycomplementthewhole,thereisnospaceforbeingwrong.Weapplyastandardofexcellencethathasnoplaceat thisstageof thejourney,astandardthatparadoxicallypreventstheveryqualityitissupposedtoenable.

Thesolution is to fireyour innereditorandgiveyourselfpermission todobad work. Anne Lamott colorfully encourages writers to produce Shitty FirstDrafts,apracticethatisrelevantfarbeyondtheliteraryarena.Inasimilarvein,G. K. Chesterton argued that a thing worth doing is worth doing badly. AndWinstonChurchillwroteabout thewisdomofgrabbinga largepaintbrushandboldly,fearlesslysplashingcolorontoacanvas,withoutconcernforwhetherornotthefirstpassproducesthedesiredeffect.

Easyforthemtosay,right?Notatall.Thiswassurelyahard-wonlessonforeachof them.Buteasyornot, theyareallcorrect,anddismissing theiradvicebecause“it’smorecomplicated than that” isacop-outanda lameexcuse.Ourdifficulties are no greater than theirs and should not be allowed to prevent usfromgettingstarted.

Yes, the first step is scary.Yes, the first step is hard.Yes, the first step isoftenwrong.Thatisallirrelevant.Whatmattersisthatthefirststepisessential,andifwedon’ttakeit,thenwecan’tgoanywhere.Thefirststepmaynottakeusin the right direction, but that’s okay. At this initial phase of the journey,direction matters far less than movement. Course corrections can come later,oncewehaveacoursetocorrect.

LUCKY

FIGURE25:LUCKY

Sometimes,wejumprightofftheporchandhitthegroundrunning.Sometimes,thestarsalignandthemuseisgenerous.Sometimes,weimmediatelyexperiencewhatMihályCsíkszentmihályireferstoasastateof flow,completelyabsorbedin a challenging activity that activates our creative powers to the fullest.Weprogress smoothly anddirectly fromone slope andphase to the next,with nohiccupsordetoursalongtheway.

Sometimes,wegetlucky.TheinventoroftheSlinkywasaluckyU.S.NavyengineernamedRichard

James. In 1943, hewas experimentingwith prototypes of springs designed toholdsensitiveinstrumentssecurelyinplaceatsea.Accordingtolegend,Jamesaccidentallyknockedoneoverandwatchedittumbleinthenow-familiarSlinkymotion,inspiringhimandhiswife,Betty,tocreateabelovedchildhoodtoythatwentontosellmorethan300millionpieces.

WhilethehistoricaldetailsoftheJameses’storyarenodoubtmorecomplexthanthelegend,theoveralltrajectoryofhisinventionlooksmuchlikeFigure26.The resemblance of the final design to the original shipboard version mightconceal the effort involved from a superficial investigation (for example, thecouplespenttwoyearsexperimentingtofindthebeststeelgaugeandcoilsize),but to experienced eyes, the Slinky’s final design reveals the results of adeterminedefforttoreducecomplexity.

COURSECORRECTION

FIGURE26:COURSECORRECTION

But sometimeswe are less lucky. Sometimeswe end up in a placewe neverintended.

Whenthecomplexityofadesignoverwhelmsitsgoodness,thesolutionistomake a course correction. Streamline, simplify, integrate, and remove theunnecessarybits.

Frankly,italmostdoesn’tmatterwhichbitsweremovefirst.Startanywhere.Remove anything. When a design is in that upper left quadrant, almost anytrimmingwillmakethethingbetter.Keeptrimminglongenoughandwemightendupinaverygoodplaceindeed.

Inan1890lettertotheRoyalSociety,AustralianaviationpioneerLawrenceHargravedescribedhisapproachtobuildingexperimentalaircraftmodels.Whileinitial efforts to build heavier-than-air flying machines in the pre–Wrightbrothers era weremassively complex, Hargrave explained that he had “sweptaway such amass of tackle from themachine that its construction becomes aridiculouslysimplematter.”

OctaveChanutepraisedthisapproachinhis1895book,Progress inFlyingMachines, pointingout thatHargrave “marked a very considerable advance indesignbyagreatsimplificationofthepropellingarrangement”andwriting,“Itwillbenotedthattheengineisamarvelofsimplicityandlightness.”Thiswasaradical departure from the complex designs of the era, an important andinfluentialcoursecorrection.

After his breakthrough in simplified engine design, Hargrave beganinvestigatingdifferentgeometriesandshapesforproducinglift.Inordertokeep

his efforts focused, he used kites with no engines at all instead of actualairplanes, and eventually producedboxkites capable of lifting people into theair. Far from a step backward, these simple kites greatly advanced ourunderstandingofhowtoovercomegravityandhelpeddefinetheshapeofwingsforgenerationstocome.

ChanutesummarizedHargrave’scontributiontothedevelopmentofaviationwiththesewords:“Thuswithsmall,light,simple,andinexpensivemodelsmanyexperimentsweremade,andgreatadvancerealized.. . .”Hargraveshowedtheway to an important course correction and helped build the foundation fromwhichOrvilleandWilburWrightwouldrise.

OVERCORRECTION

FIGURE27:OVERCORRECTION

DidIsay“almostanytrimmingwillmakethethingbetter”?Yes.Butifwetryhard enough,we can certainlydo it dumbly and endupheading in thewrongdirectionafterall.

Suppose a well-meaning legal reformer wanted to reduce drug-relatedoffenses but felt that the current systemof laws, trials, appeals, and loopholeswastoocomplicated,slow,andexpensive.Ifourgood-heartedinnovatordecidesto pursue simplicity at all costs, he or she might be tempted to propose aradicallysimplesolution:mandatoryandimmediatedeathsentencesforanyonecaught selling,holding,orusing illegaldrugs.Thiswouldobviouslybring therecidivism rate to zero. There would be no more messy appeals or retrials.

Judgesandjurieswouldscarcelyhavetothinkatall—iftheaccusedisguiltyofbeinginthevicinityofdrugs,offwiththeirheads!Whatcouldbesimpler?

Theonlyproblemwithsuchaschemeisthatitishorrifyinglyterribleandistheexactoppositeofjustice.Whiletheapproachisindeedsimple,thefailuretodistinguish between virtuous and unvirtuous simplicity helps explain why theconceptissovery,verywrong.

Remember,thegoalistomakethedesignbetter,notjustsimpler.Onemoretime: simplicity isn’t the point. If we overvalue simplicity, we might getdistracted and end up overcorrecting, cutting to the bone and reducingcomplexity long after such reductions cease to bewise or productive. Coursecorrections are important, but we must be careful not to lose sight of theobjective.

RETURNTOBASECAMP

FIGURE28:RETURNTOBASECAMP

Complexitycanbeamentaltrap,ensnaringourimaginationandrestrictingourability to see simpler possibilities. Upon creating a monstrously complicatedbeast,theprospectofsimplifyingitmaybewhollyoverwhelming.

Wheredowestart?Whichthreaddowepullfirst?The beast snaps at our fingers each time we approach, resisting even a

modest attempt to trim itsbeard.Surely itwill not submit to amore thoroughexamination.Surelyitwillnotacceptrestraint.

The solution may require bolder action than a straightforward course

correction.Itmayrequireafreshstart.Scrapit.Gobacktothebeginning.Startover.NotethatinFigure28,thesignificantdecreaseincomplexitydiminishesthe

design’sgoodnessabit.Itisonlyaslightdecrease,butwehaveindeedtakenastepbackwardalongtheGoodnessaxisandourdesign isnow(slightly)worsethanitwasbefore.Thisslidetotheleftisokaybecauseouroverallpostureandpositionaresomuchimproved.Thedesignisunburdenedandsoarewe,whichmakesiteasierforustosetoffinnewdirectionsthatwerepreviouslyhiddenbyexcessivecomplexity.Asmallstepbackwardpreparesusforabigleapforward.

This can be a difficult strategy to adopt, in part because large, complexdesigns are often the product of many contributors, each of whom feelsprotectiveoftheirparticularaddition,whatevertheymightthinkofthedesign’soveralleffectiveness.Thesecontributorsmayseektoretainorreintroducetheirfavoritepieceofthedesign,andifeverypieceissomeone’sfavorite,we’llendupbackintheupperleftcorneragain.

Evenonasoloproject,restartingcanbedifficultbecauseofourtendencytoreapplyourfirstapproachoneachsubsequentattempt,resultinginversions2.0and3.0thatlooksuspiciouslylikeversion1.0.

Fortunately,withalittledisciplineandeffort,startingoverisnotasdifficultasitlooks.Infact,itcanevenbequitefun.Andyes,it’sokayforthenewdesignto retain someelementsof theold.Thekey is tomake surewekeeponly themostimportantandimpactfulpieces.

WhenJasonFriedandhiscolleaguesatsoftwarecompany37signalschangedthe company name to Basecamp in 2014, they weren’t exactly scrappingeverything and starting over, but it was pretty close. The new name reflectedtheir decision to reduce the company’s offerings to their single most popularproduct (aprogrammanagementappcalledBasecamp)and to stepaway fromothersoftwaretoolstheyhaddevelopedoverthepastfifteenyears,withnameslikeCampfireandHighrise.

The Basecamp website explains that the company is “doubling down onsimplicity,” a logical extension of their long-standing design philosophy. As37signals, they had alwaysmade a point to “start with no”when consideringnew features, resisting unnecessary additions and complications to theirsoftware.NowtheywereapplyingthatNotothecompanyitself,returningtoanearlierdegreeofsimplicity,where theyhadfewerproductsbutprovidedbetterservice.

Didthismovereallybringthemallthewaybacktothelowerleftcornerof

thechart?Maybe,butifsoitwasonlyforabriefstaywhilethecompanyanditscustomers recalibrated their definition of goodness. For thatmatter, wemightaskwhetherthecompanywaseverreallyinthatupperleftcorner.Ifwecomparethemtotheircompetitors,theanswerisalmostcertainlyno.Butifwecomparethem with their own ideals, the answer just might be yes, and that is thecomparisonthatmattersmost.

COMPLACENCY

FIGURE29:COMPLACENCY

ThegreatEnglishjournalistG.K.Chestertonwrote:

Ifyouleaveathingaloneyouleaveittoatorrentofchange.Ifyouleaveawhitepostaloneitwillsoonbeablackpost.Ifyouparticularlywantittobewhiteyoumustbealwayspaintingitagain....Briefly,ifyouwanttheoldwhitepostyoumusthaveanewwhitepost.

Leftalone,asimpledesigndoesnotbecomecomplicated.However,agooddesign exposed to a torrent of change eventually becomes a bad design. Thetransitionfromgoodtobaddoesnotmeanthedesignitselfisanydifferentthanitwas yesterday. In fact, it hasn’t changed at all . . . and that is the problem.While the design stayed static, the world changed around it and what oncelookedcrispandwhiteisnowratherdingy.

Ifwewant tomaintain theoldgoodness,wemust continually pursuenew

goodness.Wecannot restcomfortablyonour laurels for long,as if the lawofentropy did not apply to us. If we want the post to stay white, we have tocontinually paint it white. If we want our design to stay good, we have tocontinuallyworktomakeitgood.

ClaytonChristensen’sconceptofdisruptiveinnovationcomesintoplayhere.Successful, well-established firms with a track record of delivering goodproducts are particularly vulnerable to the threat of disruption in the form of“technologically straightforward” products that are “often simpler than priorapproaches.”Theseinnovationsintroducechangetothemarketenvironmentthatstatusquodefendersareunableorunwillingtoaddress.Theresultisamarkeddecreaseinastaticdesign’sgoodnessrelativetothedynamicworldaroundus.

How can we avoid or resolve the dilemma? Christensen has publishedseveral bookson the topic and Iwon’t attempt to summarizehis solution in aparagraph or two. Instead, I will simply suggest that the first step toward asolution is to strenuously avoid complacency. The second step is to read hisbooks.

LOOPY

FIGURE30:LOOPY

Perhaps a Zen master can proceed through the cycle in a straight line,undistractedandlaser-focusedonthegoal.But themortalsamongusaremorelikelytodosomethingthatlookslikethis.

Theloopypathmaynotbethemostefficientwaythroughthecycle...but

on second thought,maybe it is. Each small loop is a sign of exploration andlearning,so thispattern representsapathofchange,discovery,andcorrection.Thestoriesofsuchloopsareseldomtoldorrecorded,becauseeachlittlecircleisamodestexcursionthatleadstoanotherandisthusquicklyforgotten.

By keeping the loops smallwe constrain the costs involved (financial andmental),butevenaseriesoflargerloopsmaydepictgenuineprogress.

PerhapsthisiswhataZenmasterwoulddoafterall.

WANDERING

FIGURE31:WANDERING

J.R.R.Tolkienwrote,“Notallthosewhowanderarelost.”Asweexplorenewdesignterritorywemustsometimesmeanderinordertofindourway.

The experience of design, the journey of design, is seldom linear andpredictable.IfourpathlookssomethinglikeFigure31,itmightjustmeanwearestakingoutundiscoveredterritory.

Thatmightbethebestkindofjourney.

GETTINGLOST

FIGURE32:GETTINGLOST

Tolkienwas correct that not all thosewhowander are lost, but somewanderbecausetheytrulyhavenoideawhotheyare,wheretheyare,orwheretheyaregoing.Tobehonest,sometimes“they”is“me.”

WhatcanwedowhentheNorthStarishidden,thetrailmarkersareabsent,andeverystreetsignisinalanguagewedon’tcomprehend?

Thereareseveralstrategiestoresolvethissituation.TheBoyScoutstellusthatifwegetlostinthewoodsweshouldstayinoneplaceandwaitforrescuerstofindus.Thisissometimesanoption.

WinniethePoohoffersdifferentadvice—ifyoukeepwalkingpastthesamesandpitwhiletryingtofindyourwayhome,perhapsthesolutionistolookforthesandpitinsteadandthusfindyourwayhome.

Ican’tpromise thatapproachwillworkforyou,but itworkedfor thebearandhisfriends.

OPTIMALRANGE

FIGURE33:OPTIMALRANGE

Whetheryouarelooping,wandering,or tryingtogethomeagain,onethingtokeepinmindisthatthethin,straightlinesusedthroughoutthisbookrepresentanotionalpath,astylizedtracingofthedesignprocess.

Deviationsfromthestraightandnarrowaretobeexpectedandmightevenbedesirable.Thoselittleexcursionscouldleadtobreakthroughdiscoveries.

Soperhapswemightthinkintermsofstayingwithinanoptimalrangeratherthanstayingonanarrowtrail.Thishopefullyreducesanypressurewemightfeeltoaccuratelycalculateourexactpositiononthechart.Aslongaswekeeptotheshadedregionandouroveralltrajectoryispointedinthedirectionofincreasedgoodness,we’reprobablydoingjustfine.ThefactthatthislooselyresemblesaStarTreklogoisjustahappycoincidence.Ipromise.

PROFESSIONALPROGRESSION

FIGURE34:PROFESSIONALPROGRESSION

Acrossacareeror a lifetime,wewill setupa seriesof residences indifferentregions, moving on to a new destination after learning the lessons of the oldplace. The transition from apprentice to journeyman to master describes onesuchprogression.

Whenwebeginanewcraft,weareanapprentice,laboringintheregionofsimplicity.Anapprenticeapproachesatradewithlittleknowledgeandevenlessability. The apprentice’s task is to gather information, skills, and techniques,expandingtheirrepertoireandcapability.Whentheapprenticelooksahead,heorsheseesamountainoflearningtobeclimbed.

Ajourneyman’ssituationisdifferent.Havingstudiedatthefeetofamaster,ajourneymannowhasafulltoolbox.Itmaynotcontaineverytooltheywilleveruse,but thevastmajorityare indeedpresentby this time.For journeymen, themost productive learning and most important lessons involve deepening theirunderstanding of when and how to apply their tools, rather than adding newones.Wisdomalsocomes from learningwhenandhow tonotuseaparticulartool.

Themasterworksinsimplicity,yearsofexperienceallowinghimtoperformeach taskwith an elegant economy of effort.Amaster’s hands use toolswithminimal strain, maximal precision, and grace. And of course a master mustsimplify the craft enough for an apprentice to understand. This completes thecycle.

IGNORANCETOWISDOM

FIGURE35:IGNORANCETOWISDOM

Like an apprentice, we often begin in ignorance. Without experience orinformation,ourmindsareemptyvessels,awaitingfullness.

And so we learn. We explore. We study.We experiment. We accumulateinformationanditbecomesknowledge.Thisisgood.

Untilitisn’t.Knowledgeisolatedfromgoodnesslosesitsvalue,aswelearnmoreandmorebutunderstandlessandless.Allthegreatspiritualteachers,fromSolomon to Jesus to Buddha, attest to the way knowledge can descend intofoolishness.Theproblemisn’twithknowledgeitself,butwiththewaywetendtoidolizeit,cherishingitaboveitsvalue.

In contrast, wisdom involves seeing the patterns, seeing the connections,integratinginformationintomeaning,andrecognizingthelimitsofknowledge.Wisdomisaboutreduction,notaccumulation.Itisaboutdiscerningwhatisgoodandrelevantandnotbeingdistractedbyephemera.

Wisdomisaboutsimplicity.Themaster,too,maybeanemptyvessel.

REACTIONSTOCOMPLEXITY

FIGURE36:REACTIONSTOCOMPLEXITY

Forallthenicethingswe’vesaidaboutsimplicity,sometimesthat’snotwhatwereallywant.

Inthemiddleofthechartwewillfinddevices,objects,andexperienceswithmultiple, interconnectedlayers.Forexample,amysterynovelwithalargecastof characters and frequent plot twists is fun to read precisely because of itscomplexity. An orchestral performance uses layers and complex themes toengageourheartsandpassions.Avideogameimmersesusinadazzlingworld,fullofcomplexchallengesandsurprises.

Yes, we can appreciate simplicity in each of those contexts—a simplemystery, a simple tune, a simple game. But sometimes the most enjoyableinstanceswouldneveranswertothedescription“simple.”Sometimesthethingwe’re looking for belongs, properly, in the center of this chart, and thecomplexity contributes significantly to the listener’s/player’s/reader’sengagementandenjoyment.

Increatingsuch richcomplexity, the trick is toensure thateachclue,eachcharacter,eachnote,andeachinstrumentcontributestoacoherentwhole.Foracomplex creation, it is particularly important to remove the discordant,distractiveelements,whileretainingtheinterestingdepth.

Ofcourse,theresolutionofthestory,song,orgameoccursinthelowerrightcorner,wherethepiecesfittogetherinaneatconclusion.Itisperfectlyokaytoletanaudiencelingerinthemiddleofthechartforawhile,butbythetimetheshowisover,weshouldmakesuretheyarebroughtsafelyout.

MODELTANDVWBUS

FIGURE37:MODELTANDVWBUS

TheModel T’s success was largely the result of its simplicity. Henry Ford’sassembly lines reduced the complexity of manufacturing by breaking theexperiencedown into small,manageable stepsusing interchangeableparts andcommonstandards.Thecar itselfwassimpleenoughforanordinarypersontodriveandmaintainit.

In theearly twentiethcentury, theModelTwouldhaveresidedsquarely inthelowerrightcornerofourchart.Buttimepressesonwardandnudgeseventhebestproducttotheleft,inthedirectionofdecreasedgoodness.

Bythe1960s,theVolkswagenBusenjoyedasimilarstatusofresidinginthelower right corner. It was a wildly popular vehicle, precisely because of itssimplicity and reliability (the two are almost always directly related). The oldModelThadnotbecomemorecomplex.Itjustwasn’tasgoodasitusedtobe,becausethemarkethadchanged.Tasteshadchanged.Technologyhadchanged.

And no, the VWBus didn’t get to stay in the lower right corner forever.Nothingdoes.

AFINALEXAMPLE

FIGURE38:DUCTTAPE

’Nuffsaid.

FINALTHOUGHTS:ONMAPSANDJOURNEYS

WilliamLeastHeat-Moon’sroadtripmemoirBlueHighwaysendsthewayanyepicjourneyshould,withthehero’sreturn.Afterdrivinghistricked-outvanonathirteen-thousand-mile loop around the continental United States, Least Heat-Moon fuels up one last time and begins the final leg of his journey, back toMissouri,wheretheadventurebegan.

Well,sortof.After threemonthson theroad in1978, themanwhoreturnedwasnot the

same as themanwhodeparted.Maybe the difference is in theway hewalks.Maybeinthewayhestands.Maybeit’s inhiseyes.Ormaybeit’severywhereand nowhere all at once. The change is subtle and impossible for an externalobservertoquantify,butitissurelyprofoundandalmostcertainlypermanent.

Hishometownnodoubtlookedmuchthesametothosewhoneverleft,butit, too, had changed.LeastHeat-Moon’s neweyes saw it differently than theyhad before, and in a very real sense, the home he came back to had been re-createdasprofoundlyasLeastHeat-Moonhimself.For thatmatter, sohad theentire universe. If you’ve ever been on an adventure, whether it’s around theblockoraroundtheworld,youprobablyknowwhatI’mtalkingabout.

Asimilarchangehappensona journeyofdesign.Wesetout into territorythatmay be familiar ormay be alien, alongwell-trod paths or through virginforests,alongbluehighwaysorredones.Butregardlessofnoveltyordifficulty,whethertheroadissmoothandstraightorroughandwinding,weareremadebythe experience. Transforming a blank sheet of paper, an empty screen, or anunshapenlumpofclayintosomethingnewcannothelpbuttransformusaswell,andthistransformationwillaffectallourfuturejourneys.

Withourneweyeswesee theworldaroundus inadifferent light.Weareawareofpreviouslyhiddenalternativesandopentonewopportunities.Wecome

away with a better understanding of why previous designers made certaindecisions.Wemay even discover paths that take us to better places than ourpredecessorsinhabited.Perhapswelearnthatacomfortable,familiarpathdoesnottakeuswherewewantedtogoafterall,orthataforebodingdoorwayleadstoamorebeautifulplace thanwecouldhave imagined.Wemaylearn that theoldmapwaswrongorincomplete.Andifweareparticularlyboldandcurious,wemightevenbeable to fill inemptyspaceson themap,asaboon to futuretravelers.

These discoveries shape our subsequent interactions and decisions, ouradditions and subtractions. They affect our definition of goodness and ourappetiteforcomplexity.Thischangeseverything.

The secret ingredient that catalyzes all this change is the road dust on ourownboots, the sign thatwe have actively engagedwith theworld rather thanremainedabystander.Whenwereplacetheolddustof inactionwithnewdustfromthetrail,wegainaspecialkindofpowerandaspecialkindofauthority.We speakwith credibilitywhenwe say, “Iwas there . . .” even ifwe’re onlyspeakingtoourselves.

Agoodmapisoneofthemostusefultoolswecantakeonajourney.Aswithany tool, learning to use amap is a skill that requires guidance, practice, andeffort. A tenderfoot’s initial exposure to a map produces bewilderment ratherthan insight. The symbols and shapes mean nothing at first. But once anexperiencedguideexplainshowtoreadthekey,howtoorientthemap,andhowto interpret the various lines, squiggles, and shadings, meaning emerges. Thebeginnercannowfindhisorherway,andmayevenvisitplacestheguideneverknewabout.

Amapdoesnotonlyshowusoneplaceorequipusforasinglejourney,itshowsusthewholeworld,alifetimeofjourneys.Mapscanthusbeasourceofinspiration, showing that places exist that we cannot see from where wecurrently stand. William Least Heat-Moon looked at his map every day andpickedashisnextdestinationatownwithaninterestingname,connectedbythethinbluelineofasmallhighwayratherthanthethickredlineoftheinterstate.Although these towns were not directly visible from his starting point eachmorning,hecouldseetheirnamesonthemap.Hecouldseewhichroutewouldtakehimthere.Andthatwasenoughtomaketheentiretrippossible.

Buteventhebestmapisincomplete.Recallfromchapter1thatthemapisnot the territory. It cannot tell uswhat theweatherwill be like, how thick thevegetationwillbe,nor thenamesof thepeoplewemightmeetalong theway.

Theclosenessoflinesonatopographicalmapsuggeststheachewewillfeelinourlegsaswescaleasteephillandtheexcitementofreachingthesummit,buttheonlywaytoexperiencetheviewistomakethetrip.

TheSimplicityCycleisthusastartingpoint,apotentialsourceofinspirationfor your design efforts. I hope it helps distinguish the smooth paths from therocky dead ends. I hope it helps equip you formany fulfilling expeditions, asyouexploreandexperience thecycle.Ofcourse, reading this littlebook isnosubstituteforputtingpencil topaper(orfingerstokeyboardorchisel tostone)andactuallydesigningsomething.Thatiswheretherealchangebegins.

So by all means, spend some time with the map. Study its contours andtwists.Dreamaboutvoyagestostrangenewlands.Braceyourselffortherigorsof the road. Then head out into the unknown and make something beautiful.Whenyoucomebackhome,thereisaprettygoodchanceyou’llfindthatyou’vechanged,andsohastheworld.

FIGURE39:THESIMPLICITYCYCLE

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Ioweanenormousdebtofgratitudetosomanypeoplewhohelpedmakethisbookareality.Attheriskofoversimplifyingthings,hereisabriefstoryofhowitallhappened.Mythanksgoouttoeachpersonnamedbelow.

The Simplicity Cycle began as a sketch in a notebook, inspired by aconversation with Lieutenant Commander Jenny Soto from the U.S. Navy. Ihashedout the idea furtherwithawhiteboardanda smallgroupof supremelytalentedAirForce innovatorsat theRomeResearchSite incentralNewYork,including Brian Yoshimoto, Gabe Mounce, Kurt Barsch, Ryan McKeel, andKevin Bartlett, most of whomwere captains at the time but went on to earnseveralfurtherpromotions.

The first published version appeared as an article in the November–December2005issueofDefenseAT&Lmagazine,witheditorialhelpfromtheinimitableJudithGreig.IthenpublishedalongerversionatChangeThis.com.AtDanPink’ssuggestion,Istartedturningthisfunnylittle ideaintoabook.WithDon Norman’s enthusiastic encouragement I continued refining it, making itsimpler and better. Don also introduced me to his wonderful agent, SandyDijkstra, andhercolleaguesatSDLA, includingEliseCapronandRozFoster.TheytookmeonasaclientandsecuredabookdealwithHarperBusiness,whereHollisHeimbouchworkedherbrilliant editorialmagicandhelpedme remake,reimagine, and reframe the manuscript into something far better than I everdreameditcouldbe.EverywritershouldbesoluckytoworkwithHollis.

Along the way, I received endless encouragement and assistance fromcolleagues and students too numerous to count. My friends Will Goodman,LieutenantColonelMattKeihl,andLieutenantColonelChrisQuaidallhelpedme more than they know. Professor Dave Barrett from Olin College wasparticularly supportive, posting the Cycle diagram on the wall in his lab andregularly inviting me to speak with his students. Lieutenant Colonel HeinoMatzken from the German Army confirmed that I was using

verschlimmbesserungcorrectly.RolfSmith,akaColonelInnovation,graciouslyallowedme to share it on a School for Innovators “ThinkingExpedition” andwiththeAssociationofManagersofInnovationduringanincredibleweekendinDeath Valley, California. And even though our all-too-brief time workingtogetherendedafewyearsbeforeIcameupwiththisidea,LieutenantColonelJoeWottondeservesmuchcreditforhelpingmebuildthefoundationasawriter,thinker,andengineeruponwhichthisbookisbuilt.

Throughoutthisjourney,mywife,Kim,hasbeenalovingcompanionandasource of much strength, wisdom, and blessing. Our daughters, Bethany andJenna,bringtremendousjoyandfunintomylife.Asalways,thisbookisforyouthree.

GLOSSARY

Complex: Consisting of interconnected parts. Objects can have high or lowdegreesofcomplexity.

ComplexitySlope:Aphase inwhich complexity andgoodness are increasingproportionally,representedbyalinerunningupandtotheright.Theprimaryactivitiesalongthisslopeareadditive,asnewfeatures,parts,andfunctionsareintroducedtothedesign.Theseadditionsproduceapositiveeffectonthedesign’squality.

Complicated: A state in which complexity is high and goodness is low, asrepresentedbytheupperleftcorneroftheSimplicityCyclediagram.

ComplicationSlope:Aphaseinwhichcomplexityandgoodnessareinverselyproportional, where complexity increases and goodness decreases. Theprimary activities along this slope are additive, as new features, parts, andfunctions are introduced to the design.These additions produce a negativerather than positive effect. This slope is perpendicular to the ComplexitySlopeandrunsupandtowardtheleft.

Cycle:Arepeatedseriesofactivities.Doldrums: A phase characterized by fatigue, apathy, and confusion in which

progress is slow or nonexistent. Usually occurs in the middle of a longproject.

Efficient:Containingpreciselytherightquantityofparts.Goodness:Ageneral term that represents themeasuresofmerit anddesirable

attributesofaparticularobjectordesign.Make theTime:A strategy for breakingout of thedoldrums,which involves

strategicallyinvestingtimetoachievetop-priorityobjectives.Pause:Atemporarybreakinwork,forthepurposeofbreakingupunproductive

momentumandallowingamentalreset.PrematureOptimization:Anill-timedshiftfromtheComplexitySlopetothe

Simplification Slope, instituted before assembling a sufficient mass of

complexity.Theresultingproductprovidesminimalgoodness.Shift Pause: A pause strategy that involves shifting activity from one

componentoraspectofadesignontoadifferentcomponentoraspect,ratherthanasuspensionofactivityentirely.

Simple: A state in which complexity is low, found on the lower half of theSimplicityCyclediagram.

SimplificationSlope:Aphaseinwhichcomplexityandgoodnessareinverselyproportional, where complexity decreases and goodness increases. Theprimaryactivitiesalongthisslopearereductive,asnewfeatures,parts,andfunctionsaresubtractedfromthedesign.Thisslope isperpendicular to theComplexitySlopeandrunsdownandtowardtheright.

Simplistic:Astateinwhichcomplexityandgoodnessarebothlow,foundinthelowerleftcorneroftheSimplicityCyclediagram.

SpecialPiece:Acomponentthat,whenaddedtoadesign,drasticallyimprovesthe design’s goodness and facilitates removal of previously addedcomponents.

Trimming: Removing a part (or series of parts) from a design, in order toidentifywhichelementsareessentialandwhichareextraneous.ThispracticecomesfromtheTRIZmethodology.

TRIZ:The“TheoryofInventiveProblemSolving,”amethodologyinventedbyRussianinventorandscientistGenrichAltshuller.

Verschlimmbesserung: German word for an improvement that makes thingsworse.

SELECTEDSOURCES

Chanute, Octave. Progress in Flying Machines. Long Beach, CA: Lorenz &Herweg,1976.

Christensen,Clayton.The Innovator’sDilemma:TheRevolutionaryBookThatWillChangetheWayYouDoBusiness.NewYork:HarperBusiness,2011.

Dertouzos, Michael. The Unfinished Revolution: Human-Centered ComputersandWhatTheyCanDoforUs.NewYork:HarperCollins,2002.

Gladwell,Malcolm.Outliers: The Story of Success.NewYork:Little,Brown,2008.

Lackoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1980.

Maeda,John.TheLawsofSimplicity.Boston:MITPress,2006.Morville,Peter.AmbientFindability:WhatWeFindChangesWhoWeBecome.

Sebastopol,CA:O’ReillyMedia,2005.Musashi,Myamoto.TheBookofFiveRings.NewYork:BantamBooks,1982.Norman,Don.DesignofEverydayThings.Revisedandexpandeded.NewYork:

BasicBooks,2013..LivingwithComplexity.Boston:MITPress,2010.

Petroski,Henry.TheEvolutionofUsefulThings:HowEverydayArtifacts—FromForksandPinstoPaperClipsandZippers—CametoBeasTheyAre.NewYork:Vintage,1994.. Small ThingsConsidered:Why There Is No PerfectDesign. NewYork:Vintage,2004.

Pink,DanielH.AWholeNewMind:WhyRight-BrainersWillRuletheFuture.NewYork:Riverhead,2005.

Pye, David. The Nature and Art of Workmanship. New York: CambridgeUniversityPress,1968.

Reynolds, Garr. Presentation Zen: Simple Ideas on Presentation Design andDelivery.NewYork:NewRider,2008.

Schön,Donald.TheReflectivePractitioner.NewYork:BasicBooks,1984.Semler,Ricardo.TheSeven-DayWeekend:ChangingtheWayWorkWorks.New

York:Portfolio,2003.Suzuki,Shunryu.ZenMind,Beginner’sMind.Berkeley,CA:Weatherhill,1970.

CliffCrego’sPoetryisavailableonlineatpicture-poems.com/week4/complexity.html.

ABOUTTHEAUTHOR

DANWARDretiredasalieutenantcolonelintheU.S.AirForceafterspendingmorethantwodecadesresearching,developing,designing,testing,andfieldingmilitaryequipment.Heholdsthreeengineeringdegreesandspecializesinrapid,low-cost innovation.His assignments include theAirForceResearchLab, theNationalGeospatial-IntelligenceAgency,theAirForceInstituteofTechnology,the Pentagon, and International Security Assistance Force Headquarters inKabul, Afghanistan. Dan was awarded theMaster Acquisition Badge and theCommand Space Badge. In 2012, he received the Bronze StarMedal for hisservice in Afghanistan. He lives in Massachusetts with his wife and twodaughters.

Discovergreatauthors,exclusiveoffers,andmoreathc.com.

ALSOBYDANWARD

F.I.R.E.:HowFast,Inexpensive,Restrained,andElegantMethodsIgniteInnovation

CREDITS

COVERDESIGNBYGREGGKULICK

xkcdcomicreprintedbypermission.

ExcerptfromCliffCrego’s“OnComplexity,SimplicityandHumanDesign”isreprintedwithpermission.

QuotefromNeilMix’sblogpostreprintedwithpermission.

Allotherimagesanddiagramsarebytheauthor.

COPYRIGHT

THESIMPLICITYCYCLE.Copyright©2015byDanWard.AllrightsreservedunderInternationalandPan-American Copyright Conventions. By payment of the required fees, you have been granted thenonexclusive,nontransferablerighttoaccessandreadthetextofthise-bookon-screen.Nopartofthistextmaybe reproduced, transmitted, downloaded,decompiled, reverse-engineered, or stored inor introducedinto any information storage and retrieval system, in any form or by anymeans, whether electronic ormechanical,nowknownorhereafterinvented,withouttheexpresswrittenpermissionofHarperCollinse-books.

FIRSTEDITION

ISBN:978-0-06-230197-0

EPubEditionMay2015ISBN9780062301987

1516171819OV/RRD10987654321

ABOUTTHEPUBLISHER

AustraliaHarperCollinsPublishersAustraliaPty.Ltd.

Level13,201ElizabethStreetSydney,NSW2000,Australiawww.harpercollins.com.au

CanadaHarperCollinsCanada2BloorStreetEast-20thFloorToronto,ONM4W1A8,

Canadawww.harpercollins.ca

NewZealandHarperCollinsPublishersNewZealandUnitD1,63ApolloDriveRosedale0632

Auckland,NewZealandwww.harpercollins.co.nz

UnitedKingdomHarperCollinsPublishersLtd.

1LondonBridgeStreetLondonSE19GF,UKwww.harpercollins.co.uk

UnitedStatesHarperCollinsPublishersInc.

195BroadwayNewYork,NY10007www.harpercollins.com

*Incaseyou’rewondering,theprojectIdemonstratedthatdaywaseasytouse...andshelikedit.

*www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/21.html.