[Sigia-l] Simplicity

[Will Parker]

On Mar 11, 2007, at 11:47 PM, Ziya Oz wrote:
> Somebody emailed me about a quote:
>
> "Accept the fact that some things can never be made simple."
>
> which I believe is from John Maeda's book, "The Laws of Simplicity."
>
> <http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10933>
> <http://tinyurl.com/3385od>
>
> I haven't read it, so I couldn't comment on his take.

Same here, so there's one simplification.

> But I spent the entire
> weekend looking at a 200MB Visio file of a very un-simple business  
> process,
> which when plotted would cover an entire conference wall. My job is to
> drastically simplify it. I haven't personally seen many things that  
> are so
> inherently un-simple that they can never be made simple. Have you?

Sure. Explain why the ratio of the circumference and diameter of a  
circle is equal to pi, and why that number is irrational. For extra  
credit, briefly discuss whether the value of pi is tied to the  
physical laws of this particular universe, or whether it would be a  
valid constant across a range of possible universes. (Don't mess with  
a science fiction reader, daddy-o, I cut off your finger.)

Alternatively -- we are talking about something allegedly designed by  
humans, right?

Back in the days before Newton, the biggest problem for astronomers  
was the assumption that all celestial motion must be expressible in  
that most perfect of God's creations, the circle. Observation,  
however, showed that the motion of the planets did NOT proceed in  
perfect circles - and thus the idea of epicycles -- circular paths  
riding on other circular paths upon other circular paths, God's own  
Spirograph -- was born. And yet, the bloody-minded planetary orbits  
still would not fit. And then Newton plotted the path of a planet  
around the Sun, found that it was an ellipse, and formulated the law  
that defined the path and suggested the cause.

One possibility, of course, is that you're looking at the model  
according to the way it officially described to you and/or documented  
by the owners of the process, and not the way it actually works. Are  
you sure you trust the information on which you've built your model?  
Are you sure you have the full story?

Another possibility, assuming you have done a proper job of  
decomposing the process model into well-formed objects, actions, and  
interactions, is that the business process itself is inherently  
flawed. If your schedule and relationship with the client permits,  
perhaps you could find a simpler process for your client and suggest  
some changes.

- Will

Will Parker
wparker at ChannelingDesign.com
206-228-3187 (cell-preferred)
206-783-1943 (home office)


"The only people who value your specialist knowledge are the ones who  
already have it." - William Tozier