Complexity: Value or Obstacle?

It starts with a joke. Kind of.

I always threaten to start a company called Luddite Consulting. A typical interaction would go like this:

"Well, we're seriously thinking of buying this million-dollar ERP system that will totally overhaul the way we work and make us more like everyone else."

"Yeah, bad idea. Don't do that. $5000, please. I've just saved you $995,000."

I know this sounds counter-intuitive from an IT guy, but there are some basic truths to life that don't necessarily conform to always adopting the latest and most complex systems. Full disclosure here. I live half my life in Apple notes. I annoy my wife by having local and online music libraries always available on any speaker. I enjoy my toys.

Also, while I am not an architect, I can legitimately call myself a designer for some things. I had the occasion to do IT work for a design firm where technology played a tug of war with well, design. A relevant observation was brought up by a colleague (at a different firm) who shared an article about an iPad drawing program (Spaces) that may develop the ability to integrate via IFC with 3-D cad systems. The article said something that I found to be profoundly true:

“Any tool in which you have to model walls, a floor, and a ceiling to create a space is NOT a conceptual building design tool.” This rules out the use of popular BIM applications like Revit, Archicad, Allplan, Vectorworks, etc. by design architects, project architects, practice owners, practice principals, etc. — those who actually come up with the preliminary design concept for a building project. And they, by and large, are still doing this conceptualizing using traditional sketching with pen and paper

My discussions with a certain architect always mirrored this. Interesting design almost never started with defining floor plans, slabs, and walls at the beginning. Yet that is what some places try to mandate. Start with your model in software x, so the the development time will be quicker. The loss is core ideas.

Precision without concept is pointless. It leads to repetitive output and little actual design. Forcing a procedure before an idea is fleshed out means the idea will never grow.

In our zeal to embrace the new, and the cutting edge, we often forget that technology should serve people, not the other way around. I liken this to an analogy I made when I once ran for office: "Capitalism is like an ox. You care for it, feed it, and it will pull your plow across the field. This doesn't mean you let it sit at your dining table and decide where you sleep at night."

This does not mean there is not a time for procedure, but that is rarely at the gestation phase of a plan. I understand why BIM managers may not like dealing with translating sketchup models, or having people trace over hand drawings. There is a time element that comes into play, and it is not always efficient to make the vague conform to effective systems.

The problem is that the human mind is analog, not digital. A vague idea may need layers and layers of tracing to flesh out the problem that needs to be solved. That aesthetic element that makes a building special may not be achieved by pointing clicking or dragging. There are of course exceptions--some people become so facile with software that they literally think in it as they would in a language in which they are proficient. But we disregard the special thought process that accompanies a hand using a drawing (or even a writing) tool at our peril. Even essays and presentations can be aided by the human hand--we circle, we point, we underline, we draw arrows, we sketch, we cross out. We cheat our customers if we don't understand that and accommodate for it.

But back to those big integrated systems. When a firm expands enough, the accompanying systems will change and by necessity will become more complex with it. This is an unavoidable consequence of growth, but therein lies the challenge. When too much complexity enters the picture, efficiency slows and frustration grows. The challenge of IT is to make things understandable enough, and unobtrusive enough that people feel their work is made easier and not harder by the tools they must use. We have to make the complex seem simple. We have to acquire and configure tools that staff feel comfortable using, or they will resent their daily tasks. The guiding question should not be ''What is everyone else doing?", but rather "What is good for us?"

And it might actually be the case that we have to buy that million dollar ERP system, but often the better focus is to invest in something which does things like making information easier to find or eliminating repetitive work. If we open people to possibility rather than chaining them to software-dictated procedure, we end up with a happier and more productive workplace.