Gratuitous Complexity as a Type III Error

As I've noted in an earlier edition, statisticians identified Type I and Type II errors about 70 years ago. Briefly, a Type I error is a false positive and a Type II error is a false negative. The concept of Type III errors is a generalization of these first two. The approach I favor is that of Raiffa [Raiffa 1968], who identified Type III errors as those errors in which one solves the wrong problem correctly. So, for example, building walls and fences to stop the flow into Nation A of refugees fleeing the violence of drug cartels in Nation B is a Type III error, because the problem isn't the flow of refugees into Nation A; rather, the problem is the violence of drug cartels in Nation B.

Gratuitous complexity in the design of technological products or technological infrastructure can also be a Type III error. By gratuitous I mean unwarranted by the application, or lacking justification in terms of the needs of those who use the asset. That is, a gratuitously complex system is one that could be replaced by a simpler design that would meet all present or near-term needs of stakeholders.

What makes gratuitous complexity a Type III error is that it doesn't usually arise by accident. That is, engineers and designers don't run around dreaming up complex designs because they couldn't think of how to meet the need more simply. While it's true that achieving elegant simplicity does require significant and intentional effort, there is a wide gap between elegant simplicity and gratuitous complexity. When a gratuitously complex system is proposed as a solution, something more than failure to achieve elegance is afoot. It's possible — even likely — that the proposed design is intended to solve problems other than the stated system requirements. Below is a little catalog of the problems gratuitous complexity might be intended to solve.

Boredom

People do get People do get bored from time to
time, especially when the work
they do seems repetitive and datedbored from time to time, especially when the work they do seems repetitive and dated. To make things more interesting, engineers might redefine the problem they're solving in such a way that a more complex solution is required. From the perspective of the engineers, gratuitous complexity is solving the boredom problem, not the user's problem.

Political advantage

One can gain political advantage by becoming one of the few people who can deal with the complexity of the system under construction. But that works only if the system complexity crosses a threshold that's high enough. Gratuitous complexity can be the solution to political weakness.

Inability to shape strategy

Some technologists might have argued for a shift in organizational strategy, but failed to persuade decision makers to adopt it. By creating systems that meet the needs of the strategy they advocate, they can reduce the resources required to adopt the rejected strategy, which can make a future adoption decision more attractive. The engineer or designer is thus using gratuitous complexity to solve the problem of inadequate influence on organizational strategy.

Learning and practice

Some technologists use their task assignments to meet personal learning and practice objectives. To accomplish this, they must sometimes add complexity to what they construct to meet their personal needs, rather than the needs of the asset's stakeholders. Their work then demonstrates their grasp of current technology trends. If this mechanism occurs with significant frequency, it's possible that the employer's objectives are outdated, and this phenomenon could be interpreted as a warning to the employer.

If previous efforts, possibly involving different sets of assets, also included gratuitous complexity, the value of those efforts might be enhanced if the current effort exploits the gratuitous complexity of the past efforts. Eventually, the entire asset suite might be converted in this way. This phenomenon is among the more difficult to detect, because it seems to be confirmation of the wisdom of past design decisions. Although that might make sense technologically, it's a wasteful investment unless the organization intends to move in the direction those assets support.  Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Workplace Politics:

Scopemonging: When Scope Creep Is Intentional

Scope creep is the tendency of some projects to expand their goals. Usually, we think of scope creep as an unintended consequence of a series of well-intentioned choices. But sometimes, it's much more than that.

The Deck Chairs of the Titanic: Strategy

Much of what we call work is about as effective and relevant as rearranging the deck chairs of the Titanic. We continue our exploration of futile and irrelevant work, this time emphasizing behaviors related to strategy.

Projects as Proxy Targets: I

Some projects have detractors so determined to prevent project success that there's very little they won't do to create conditions for failure. Here's Part I of a catalog of tactics they use.

Why We Don't Care Anymore

As a consultant and coach I hear about what people hate about their jobs. Here's some of it. It might help you appreciate your job.

That Was a Yes-or-No Question: I

In tense situations, one person might question another. As the respondent replies, the questioner interjects, "That was a yes-or-no question." The intent is to trap the respondent. How does this work, and how can the respondent escape the trap?

See also Workplace Politics and Devious Political Tactics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming October 28: Notes to Self

Many of us jot important reminders to ourselves on sticky notes, used envelopes, scraps of paper, and whatnot. Often we misplace these notes, or later find them too late to serve their purposes. Here's a low-tech alternative that works better for some. Available here and by RSS on October 28.

And on November 4: Mastering Messaging for Pandemics: I

When a pandemic rages, face-to-face meetings are largely curtailed. Clarity in text messaging and email communication becomes more important than usual. Citing dates and times unambiguously requires a more rigorous approach than many are accustomed to. Available here and by RSS on November 4.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenmhXARWRMUvVyOdHlner@ChacxgDmtwOKrxnripPCoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info

Public seminars

The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power

Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.

• A recording of a program presented June 29, 2017, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.
   
• A recording of a program presented June 29, 2017, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.
   

Bullet Points: Mastery or Madness?

Decision-makers in modern organizations commonly demand briefings in the form of bullet points or a series of series of bullet points. But this form of presentation has limited value for complex decisions. We need something more. We actually need to think. Briefers who combine the bullet-point format with a variety of persuasion techniques can mislead decision-makers, guiding them into making poor decisions. Read more about this program.

• A recording of a program presented June 24, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.
   
• A recording of a program presented June 24, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.