« Nitwits and Nitpicks in the Garden of Good and Evil | Main | Be Careful What You Ask For, You Might Get It »

November 1, 2006

The Innovative Simplicity of Complexity

Writing about innovation in the October 15 issue, CIO Magazine's Mike Hugo states, "It's too bad innovation doesn't happen from hard work alone; but... at the heart of every innovation there is... the moment of inspiration. "

He caps it off by saying, "Inspiration occurs when a certain combination of ideas suddenly reveals a simple underlying pattern that ties the work together and expresses what the work is about... Finally, remember that innovation is an art more than a science."

I like the attention drawn to artists as model practitioners of innovation. And Hugo's article is all about how artists work to capitalize on inspiration. But let's not get fooled into the idea that the "sudden revelation" that he calls inspiration comes from something other than hard work, too.

It can't be a surprise that as a businessman he lands on "simplicity" as a keynote of "inspiration". In effect, he suggests that complexity obscures the onset of inspiration, which in turn delays or prevents "true innovation" -- at least until someone orchestrates the complexity into a moment of simplicity.

This is an appealing argument because it resonates with the frustration and triumph of getting new things implemented. In fact, what Hugo actually winds up mostly talking about is how we should manage ideas into actual production. Along the way he emphasizes the notion that achieving simplicity in design (i.e., "the work") leads to production success, and that (in a business context) the product's economy of scope equals "innovation".

Despite the appeal, a lot is left loose in that presentation. Let's tighten it up.

For starters, his is not a good general definition of innovation. It might be true that a certain idea offers a breakthrough in efficiency that for some organization will be a new experience or capability -- in which case that "breakthrough" aspect would be the value of the idea for that organization. If the shoe fits, wear it. But efficiency doesn't make the idea absolutely innovative. In many organizations, an idea with the impact Hugo describes might simply be an "improvement".

Second, and more importantly, if (as Hugo argues) simplicity is achieved through "orchestration", then we need to know what the orchestration is about. Otherwise, we're left at this famous intermediate point of pain:

So what about this orchestration? As more and more executives are told to take responsibility for "innovation", a wise path for them would be to avoid reinventing the wheel and go learn something from R&D, who do this stuff all the time. The point: inspiration is cultivated. In fact, it's cultivated from experience; and experimentation is possibly the most important of those experiences.

Of course, making experimentation affordable is an issue. (We're encouraged to think of it in terms of ROI, not just in terms of expense.) But more importantly, what we have to do here is to understand where simplicity matters.

So... last, but not least, consider the difference between complexity and complication. Complexity is about the necessity of the many elements combining for one effect. (A high-performance football team is complex.) Complication is about the inclusion of unnecessary elements in the combination. (The famous Rube Goldberg contraptions are complicated.) Complexity almost always risks being complicated; but design, when faced with complexity, is usually quite intent on removing complication -- not automatically determined to remove complexity.

In science and math, which like to account for all the complexity we can stand, the related notion of "elegance" is extremely important. At Dictionary.com, "elegant" gets the following definition:
#6. (of scientific, technical, or mathematical theories, solutions, etc.) gracefully concise and simple; admirably succinct.
Going this route, Webster's New World Dictionary 2nd College Edition adds that "simple" means "having few parts or features; not complicated or involved." (Definition #2)

As of this writing, an excellent demonstration is found on Wikipedia.com:
"In modern notation, simple expressions can describe complex concepts.
This image:

is generated by a single equation."

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/02/Pic79.png/180px-Pic79.png)

Here, it is literally obvious that the effect (the image) is possible only through the combination of its many parts; but the logic of the combination is what is simple. The design work went into discovering that logic. It's not the image pattern (the effect) that is simple; it's the logic pattern (the cause). And what is the punchline here? Simplicity generates complexity. Where this matters versus Hugo's observations is as follows:

(Hugo) "When you find a simple combination of workflow processes and technology that can satisfy a wide variety of business requirements, then you have an innovative design."

Well, no you don't, not really, or not necessarily. You might just have a good design, or a versatile design.

And about those requirements: products everywhere are constantly upgraded by meeting a variety of so-called "requirements" (i.e., adding enhancements) that come in from all over and later get distributed together in a new "release". But what matters is how many of those enhancements add up (together) to a more singular important advance for most users. FInally, most product releases are not innovations unless they're used somewhere -- or in some way -- that they haven't been before.

What needs to be examined in the business context is threefold:
- Where is innovation valuable? Just being new doesn't automatically mean being valuable. By definition, value is in the significance of the difference that the newness offers.
- Where is complexity valuable? In general, when complexity allows a benefit that is otherwise not available, it should be managed, not arbitrarily reduced.
- Where is simplicity valuable? Simplicity is valuable when, as a cause, it provides a less complicated way to get the needed effect.

If we sum this up, we can easily conclude that the most valuable kind of innovation is this: something new that simplifies even more the way to get as much complexity as is needed for the benefits to kick in.

Posted by Malcolm Ryder at November 1, 2006 8:27 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.malcolmryder.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/292

Comments

Post a comment