The complexity tax
The complexity tax is demanded by those who want to create dependency.
I was reading recently about a country that had “pervasive corruption and bureaucracy”, and how this made it very complicated to do business. It reminded me about the book, The Mystery of Capital, by Hernando De Soto, in which he showed that the poorer the country, the more complicated the bureaucracy.
It also reminded me of an article I read about the decline of the British Empire. Seemingly, as the number of colonies continued to drop, the number of bureaucrats involved in colony administration rapidly increased. Strange? Not really.
While discussing a piece of software with one of its managers, he readily agreed with me that it had succumbed to too many features. However, he pointed out that each feature represented at least one job, and sometimes a team of people. Deleting a feature was thus tantamount to getting rid of someone. The programmers had become powerful and were seeking to increase features, not reduce them.
In another company it became clear that the increasing complexity of the IT infrastructure created a proportional dependency of the organization on the IT department. I do not believe that the IT department was deliberately seeking to create complexity, but neither do I believe that it was highly motivated to reduce it.
Most organizations are producing far too much content. Too many emails, too many PowerPoints, too many reports, too many webpages. All this content creation activity keeps a lot of people busy. Also, much content is far more complicated than it needs to be. Of course, there is a reason for this complexity.
If, for example, legal documents were genuinely easy to read and understand, then we wouldn’t need as much advice from lawyers would we? Many who create content have an incentive to make it complicated because it creates a dependency on them.
Most of those who take bribes in poor and corrupt countries don’t become very rich. The tax that corruption and complexity places on a country drains practically everyone’s resources.
The complexity tax on an intranet affects the productivity and efficiency of the organization. It may benefit a particular person or department in the short-term, but creating unusable applications and unfindable, unreadable content will cost everyone in the long run.
The consequences of the complexity tax on a public website are even more severe and immediate. In money-rich, time-poor economies, there is no greater sin than to waste people’s time. You thus tax their time and their attention at your peril. They will give you a couple of seconds and then they will hit the Back button.
Even government websites that have a monopoly must pay heed here. If the website is too complicated, then citizens will pick up the phone or drive to the government office. Thus, a complicated website means that services will be more costly for everybody.
There are forces at play within all organizations that seek to create complexity and dependency. These forces can be entrenched, but must be uprooted if we are to truly embrace all the promises that the Internet offers.

Marco says:
Added on September 14th, 2008 at 5:57 pmIt seems like you are writing of Italy. The cost of the growing complexity due to bureaucracy (and often also corruption) is not a problem for the ones who manage and benefit from the present situation, draining all the resources of the country. Anyway they couldn’t survive to an economy collapse.
I’ve learnt one thing about bureaucracy: it not only force you to spend extra time for useless things, but also reduces all the resources that every company needs to survive.
Brian Anderson says:
Added on September 17th, 2008 at 1:22 amThe reasons for too much content and too much complexity on top of it are varied:
1) Ego and a need for control of the website,
2) Misconceptions about what makes a website effective or a grasp of its real purpose, and 3) Insecurity about the company’s competitive positioning in its marketplace, which involves point #2.
Perfectly simple, informative websites are in the minority due to tug-of-wars between rival corporate factions for control of what has been recognized as the flagship representative of the firm: the website. It is here that an executive’s or department’s influence can be seen. If there are competing visions, marketing directions or strategic differences, political intrigue will see to it that the dominant view or approach will be portrayed online. And this is regardless of the awareness of what makes a good website, its performance, and of how much is being spent upgrading it. .
2) The power grabs and control of the website’s creation, direction, and content’s focus assumes more importance than its utility and usefulness. An emphasis on executive or managerial biographies and an underwhelming presentation of service / product information, complicated language, an overdone Flash presentation, foot-long case studies, a company-centric focus, and little concern for what the site visitor might like to see makes it obvious that someone or a dominant group within the firm is dictating web policy.
3) Frequently, those in charge of the corporate website will compare themselves to their competitor’s online presentation and grow fearful of their firm’s seeming technical inferiority. The solution: more of whatever Charlie or Sue across town is doing and that means complexity piled upon special effects complemented by deep linking or the opposite: a bland, say nothing mostly vacant yet self-aggrandizing approach to online publishing that helps no one find out anything worth discovering; it’s the epitome of playing it safe so as to conform to what the rest of the market is perceived to be doing.
In all these scenarios, who loses? The website’s visitors be they the public looking for answers (and trying to avoid a 45 minute telephone wait) or the earnest prospective customer looking for a straight, easy-to-find answer.
Ephraim Freed says:
Added on September 17th, 2008 at 3:12 pmBrian- these are really great points!
In looking for an out-of-the-box (OOTB) intranet product I discovered ThoughtFarmer (http://thoughtfarmer.com).
This website immediately and concisely explains what the product does, and more than that, it shows how it works. Features, pricing, information about software maintenance - all the material customers want to see immediately is available easily and simply.
I see this website as a great example of presenting information simply for the customer. The product itself is outstanding as well!