Comments

With the rapid growth of government and its financial burden, I'm wondering if we're not near (or even past) the tipping point of the complexity that Clay Shirky is writing about. I'm not at all concerned about his examples of corporate myopia. That's merely "interesting." Corporations come and go, markets evolve, governmental bureaucracy doesn't. The disproportionate rate of growth of government in a recession-plagued economy ultimately makes a true economic recovery more difficult. (just my opinion, but very concerned)

Posted by Richard Posey at April 2, 2010 8:58 AM

addendum to my comments: I left out the words "regulatory burden" ... which speaks more closely to Clay Shirky's remarks on increasing complexity. I find what's going on today ... the rapid rate of increasing regulatory burden, as well as government debt, truly disturbing. And I thought it was out of hand in the last administration. Our children and grandchildren are going to despise us. - RP

Posted by Richard Posey at April 2, 2010 9:26 AM

TP, please do comment on Shirky's post. Saw it earlier and immediately thought of you ... :)
Is excessive complexity what really caused the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Posted by Mike L. at April 2, 2010 9:30 PM

Every-time the government makes a new law it should have to scuttle an only one.

otherwise its just going to get bigger, and if they cant see why that's bad, its no wonder they suck at running the country.

Posted by ar-lock at April 2, 2010 10:11 PM

Wow.

Just... wow.

Trevor will love this.

I have to go away and do some thinking. Thanks Tom.

Posted by Lois Gory at April 3, 2010 8:24 AM

From the article.

"Bureaucracies temporarily reverse the Second Law of Thermodynamics. "

That is also what life does. The 'simplicity' this guy is talking about depends on distribution technology that is far from simple - and could not have been created by anything other than a complex society. The underlying electronic infrastructure is very complex - what we see appears simple.
A response to this attack from 'simplicity" from the media companies are 3-d movies. They are at the moment doing quite well.

Here is an recent news article that also ignores the complexity of the underlying infrastructure.

http://www.digtriad.com/news/national_world/article.aspx?storyid=139446&catid=175

Now, the man in the article above uses a GPS device to retrieve his camera. It is the cornerstone of his 'simple' method. There is nothing simple about the infrastructure that supports GPS technology.
My point is that web video is far from simple. In fact, it depends on much more complex systems that anything put out on even the old black and white network TV. Shirky has a point but I see a big hole in much of his reasoning. Complex systems can be outdone by other even more complex systems that, because of their complexity, do something so well, they appear to be simple. Just watch anyone walk down the street - walking seems simple, huh? Tell that to a computer scientist.

Posted by zorro at April 3, 2010 11:38 AM

Lois - I rest my case on simplicity

zorro is right that there is often complexity ‘behind the scenes’ to make anything appear simple and straightforward.

I've said for 40 years that management is made far too complex … by managers. It starts with language that seems designed to confuse. I believe it is sometimes deliberate because of pretentiousness. Most people want it in a basic understandable language in my experience. The more bullshit the more suspicion of pretentiousness and arrogance sad to say.

Posted by Trevor Gay at April 3, 2010 12:11 PM

Zorro is correct in part. The problem is not complexity, but unproductive over-complexity. Walking is complex but productive, but walking becomes unproductive over-complexity in a "three-legged race", usually leading to a collapse.

Posted by Mike L. at April 3, 2010 9:40 PM

Impressive post. Staggering how sticky our mental models become and how difficult it is to break free from their gravity before they collapse like a dying star.

Posted by David Porter at April 4, 2010 8:15 AM

the assumptions underlying this post are false.

take the act of governing. in a world with increasing amounts of data and tools with which to analyze data, government's need for both the tools and higher paid employees has to rise.

Anyone who reads The Big Short" by Michael Lewis can readily see this reality.

The ATT "case" proves the point. ATT did not have employees who were smart enough that they could understand the data---that their cost structure was drive by assumptions about levels of service---and that "just good enough" might suffice viz for a solution.

A current example is cap and trade as a solution for "global warming." Anyone who has seriously investigated the literature on amelioration of CO2 levels quickly comes to understand that there may be millions of solutions or combinations or solutions, many of which would be very inexpensive to implement.

Moreover, every day science is coming up with new ideas. The weakness of a democracy is that each solution immediately takes on a political aspect, as the system is gamed for the redistribution of income that will follow any choice. What all players have in common, however, is that they do not want a center of gravity that actually can be a neutral arbiter. In sum, it is in the interest of all players that the "game" be irrational.

Man has always had the ability to manage complexity. The greatest managers who ever lived, the builders of the Pyramids, had few tools with which to work and therefore relied on more important skills---the psychology of the workers and material suppliers.

Munger and Lewis (and Harry Truman) lectured constantly that psychology was everything.

Those, above, who post about the Gov't debt haven't learned this simple lesson. Gov't debt was 35% of GDP when Jimmy Carter was president. Did that cure the country's sour mood? Current levels of federal debt are not a problem. What is a problem is that our economy doesn't work for the average American and there is no prospect of that changing. No simple solution is on the horizon for putting millions of Americans back to performing productive work. Those whose narrow self interest lies in maintaining the status quo will therefore attack complexity, for they know that only complex undertakings, in the terms of information management, can solve our situation

Posted by John L Davidson at April 5, 2010 8:44 AM

Samsung could be the proof of the contrary: a very complex business model integrating complete production cycles from basic components to distribution into your local retail shop in the mall near you.

Posted by Alan Green at April 5, 2010 2:03 PM

Can't we just say 'never say never' and be done with discussions like this?

Some complex business models work, some don't.
It that simple, (or complex).

Posted by zorro at April 5, 2010 4:13 PM

I agree zorro - we will all have our views, preferences, biases and personal experiences about simplicity or complexity. Both have a place in business I guess. My take on it is that many managers make things far more complex than they need to be – beginning with language. Complexity is often going on ‘behind the scenes’ but frontlines and customers prefer to see simplicity at the front end as far as I’m concerned

Posted by Trevor Gay at April 5, 2010 5:15 PM

But still useful to have discussion of course :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at April 5, 2010 5:22 PM

Trevor, zorro, good morning

Lovely day today...

A model?
Complex or not?
Requires data
Quality data
To simply test and learn from
The trick is to learn....

have a lovely day, I intend to

Patrick

Posted by patrick at April 6, 2010 2:36 AM

Bit concerned about the Roman Empire "quick collapse" example -

1) Arguably the Roman empire did not collapse - it morphed into several parts (Byzantine for example) so you could argue that it decentralised!

2) That decentralisation was due to demographic changes in the western part of the Empire. Now I guess you could say that the Empire in it's old form couldn't handle those changes and the "decentralisation" was not a design but a natural occurance.

3) However It wasn't a quick process - probably took around 300 years! So Sudden Collapse is a little off.

viagra for free trial

There were some specific events that were quicker - the withdrawl from Britain being one of them which were pretty traumatic for those involved (Dark ages anyone!) But then I would not call myself "English" without influx of Angles (Not forgetting Saxons, Jutes etc as well!). And the Saxon "invasion" was not a sudden event - more a migration over many years albiet at times with bloodshed.

Posted by PaulH at April 7, 2010 9:34 AM