Surface Ripples

Complicated Doesn't Mean Good

 An amusing anecdote occasionally appears about how the US spent millions trying to develop a pen that would write in space, whereas the Russians used a pencil.

As with many such stories, this one isn’t based on fact, but it does serve to remind us of the human tendency to think that, because something is complicated, it must be good.  In the course of a conversation on the complexity of certain processes, my French colleague quipped, ‘S’il est compliqué, c’est forcément bon’ (it must be good if it’s complex).  Katrina Marçal wrote in The Guardian newspaper on 24 June 2021, ‘As humans, we strive for the difficult, grandiose and complex,’ the inference being ‘without questioning whether it’s really necessary.’

Our processes often reflect this tendency.  In a previous article, I quoted the example of getting rid of ‘dumb rules’.  Maybe we also need to get rid of overly complicated procedures.

The problem with complexity is… complexity.   Something complex is harder to put into practice as well as to remember and has more chance of going wrong.  In an emergency, will people remember multiple steps in complicated procedures?  This is why we’ve developed checklists for so many events.  Modern aircraft emergency checklists are all computerised so that the on-board computer analyses the problem and displays the correct checklist for pilots to follow.  On QF32 outbound from Singapore to Sydney, one of the plane’s engines suffered an ‘uncontained failure’.  Engine components and casings flew into other parts of the aircraft (disabling multiple systems), but the pilots still managed to land back at Singapore.

In this instance, so much was going wrong so quickly that the on-board computer ‘couldn’t keep up’ and kept churning out one checklist after another as fresh problems announced themselves.  In the end, the (highly experienced) Captain decided that they were still flying, they had a measure of control and could land.  He reverted to what some call ’seat of the pants’ flying and simplified the situation.

The losses of Boeing 737-Max aircraft also show the dangers of complex systems.  In this case, the flight control programme caused unforeseen errors resulting in at least two attributable losses.  

Labels: Leadership, Productivity, Strategy, Teamwork

posted by William Martin @ 12:31