Plaintext

Another definition of ‘simplicity’ as seen in the Backspin opinion page of Mark Gibbs at Network World:

“When I use the word simplicity I don’t mean dumbing down, I mean adding polish and applying serious design effort to make the software or hardware not just usable but actually a pleasure to use.” [1]

Mark also observes that we regularly encounter many complex products.  Why? 

He notes that the amount of complexity and detail in products and problem solving is overwhelming.  Once overwhelmed, we take shortcuts (we don’t read doc, test, or fully understand before proceeding) and then make mistakes.  We are not likely to see products improve because users are not likely to complain about the complexity (we are likely just too exhausted to complain). 

1. Outrage and lust, by Mark Gibbs, Backspin, Network World, 01/12/2007, http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2007/011507-backspin.html

An item in today’s Boston Globe: Monday, Jan 8, 2007 Business section, p.D2 reports that in Marketing Daily, Robbie Blinkoff calls a new trend SIMPLEXITY — giving a product or service a ”veneer of simplicity” to mask its underlying, complex technology so that people will be able to use it. 

In other words: Appear to be easy, you do not need to take out features (complexity) but rather take away the appearance of complexity so that users enjoy using your product.

Is it valuable to spend some ‘extra time’ to simplify a presentation, a process, an application design, etc? 

The short answer: Yes, you benefit from your efforts to save the time of others. 

I was told that Winston Churchill responded to a request for him to give a speech by asking how long he would need to talk.  The requestor asked why it mattered how long he would speak, assuming that Winston would just need to know when he was scheduled to give his talk and to see if he was available.  Winston explained that a brief 10 minute speech would take 2 hours to prepare so that he could be concise and to-the-point, whereas he would only need 10 minutes to prepare for a rambling 2 hour talk.  (note: I’ve been unable to confirm/verify this story about Winston.)

The two cases seem to be:

• SIMPLE FOR AUDIENCE (USER):
  If it is easy for the listener (only need to listen to a 10 minute talk), then it takes relatively more effort by the presenter to prepare the ‘simple talk’.
• SIMPLE FOR THE PRESENTER (DEVELOPER)
  If it is easy for the presenter to prepare a ‘simple talk’, then it will take relatively more effort by the listener to summarize and synthesize the presenter’s message.

Q:  Is it worth having the presenter spend 2 hours to prepare?
A:  Is it worth wasting the time of the audience and the organization they are all part of?

Consider the consumption of human resources — the time people spend with the speech — presenting and listening. 

First example: 12 people in a meeting (1 presenter and 11 people listen)

• In the first case: 1 person gives a 10 minute talk with 2 hour prep
  (1 presenter x 2 hour prep) + (1 presenter + 11 listeners * 10 min talk) = 4 hours total
• In the second case: 1 person gives a 2 hour talk with 10 min prep
  (1 presenter x 10 min prep) + (1 presenter + 11 listeners * 2 hour talk) = 24 hours and 10 mins total

In the example, an ‘extra’ 20 hours is consumed.  Some project managers (depending on their resource utilization factor) might consider that 20 hours is just about 1 man week of available productive time! 

If you ask the presenter, they may feel that it wasn’t worth it to spend the ‘extra’ time (effort) preparing their talk.  From their point of view they would spend 2 hours and 10 minutes on a talk either way.  

• In the first case: 1 person gives a 10 minute talk with 2 hour prep
  (1 presenter x 2 hour prep) + (1 presenter * 10 min talk) = 2:10 hours total
• In the second case: 1 person gives a 2 hour talk with 10 min prep
  (1 presenter x 10 min prep) + (1 presenter + * 2 hour talk) = 2:10 hours total

What’s the difference? 

Q:  What difference does it make to the presenter whether they spend more time preparing their talk to make it simpler for their audience? 
A:  Well, it makes a difference to the presenter, if they are also in the audience.

Let’s take the first example a little farther. 

Second example:  12 people meet to each give a presentation (such as a conference, a board meeting, a department heads’ meeting)

• In the first case: 12 people each give a 10 minute talk (with 2 hour preps)
  12 presentations x [ (1 presenter x 2 hour prep) + (1 presenter + 11 listeners * 10 min talk) ] = 12 presentations x [ 4 hours total per presentation ] = 48 hours total for all presentations

• In the second case: 12 people each give a 2 hour talk (with 10 min preps)
  12 presentations x [ (1 presenter x 10 min prep) + (1 presenter + 11 listeners * 2 hour talk) ] = 12 presentations x [ 24 hours and 10 mins total per presentation ] = 290 hours total for all presentations

In this examle, an ‘extra’ 242 hours are consumed.  That’s a little over 30 days x (8 hour days) or, for project managers with a certain resource utilization rate, that is 60 days x (4 hour days).  Also, if you asked them: each individual does not feel that they personally spent or lost 30 – 60 days, but their organization does feel it. 

So how does all of this affect you? 

Consider that your ‘audience’ is:

• your coworkers,

• your users, and

• your customers. 

• And that you are also in their audience.

If you spend your time saving them time AND they also spend their time saving you time, you all benefit dramatically. 

Take the time to simplify.