In the business world, complexity is often justified when it delivers genuine technical, emotional, or financial value. Yet, the act of simplifying frequently proves to be a more arduous, albeit infinitely more rewarding, challenge.
Throughout my career, I have countless times heard leaders utter, within the same breath and without perceiving the contradiction: “Get to the essence,” while immediately adding, “But we must account for A, B, and C, and consult X, Y, and Z.” I have often thought: “Chief, one day, you will have to choose.”
Beyond this anecdote, simplification remains one of the most complex tasks in business, given the divergent interests, contradictory directives, cumbersome processes, and occasional incompetence involved.
Consider this comparison: we touch upon the holy grail when we see an artist or an athlete reach the heights with such grace and simplicity of movement that the effort appears non-existent. Yet, colossal work lies behind this apparent ease.
In the economic sphere, simplification seems a formidable challenge, both technically and communicatively. If too simple, no one buys into the idea; if too complex, no one understands it.
To simplify a process is to remove intermediate steps upon which certain entities or individuals depend. Removing “their box” from the flowchart is akin to awakening the tiger slumbering within them.
This syndrome is equally prevalent in project governance: the number of bodies to consult is often so excessive that it hampers efficiency. The situation becomes critical when Legal challenges the business model, Compliance imposes criteria that compromise the project, or Procurement demands a contract renewable every two years, whereas industry standards dictate terms of five to ten years or more.
While consultation is always legitimate, it must be conducted with simplicity and efficiency. Everyone must remain within their remit; otherwise, the project is delayed and becomes shapeless.
Simplification is not merely a militant act; it is an art. It requires identifying the essential versus the secondary, and accepting that a summary is not an exhaustive treatise. Too many senior executives and managers revel in complexity. Why? One possible answer lies in a lack of accountability. If a project fails, no single individual is responsible because everyone contributed…
A product may be technically complex, but the process to achieve it should remain as clear as possible. Sometimes, a series of complex steps leads to a refined, simple result, as seen in furniture design or construction. The greatest successes are those that can be visualised in a single gesture and explained in one sentence.
At a time when it seems necessary to place a lawyer at every stage of a process, the battle is far from won. Fortunately, some smaller enterprises do not yet burden themselves with all these complexities.
Happy reading, and every success in your simplification endeavours