data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bf194/bf1943caa2b1dc6a149ad910e5ec74ed3caa0db2" alt="A close-up view of a chipseal road surface A close-up view of a chipseal road surface"
A close-up view of a chipseal road surface. Chipseal road surfaces are produced by covering the existing surface (which is usually asphalt or chipseal) with one or more layers of asphalt and with one or more layers of fine aggregate. Rolling and traffic bind the layers together and then with the substrate. This approach to surface treatment is additive. It's lower in cost than removing the substrate and replacing it with new pavement. In this way, chipseal is analogous to what many engineering teams are compelled to do to meet their budget constraints. To maintain the road economically, we add material to its surface even though we know that the added material doesn't address subsurface cracking. Image by Xf8 courtesy Wikmedia.
Additive bias is a cognitive bias that affects our ability to assess the value of candidate solutions to problems. Specifically, it causes us to favor additive solutions — solutions that add components and complexity to solutions we already have. Likewise, it causes us to assess as less valuable subtractive solutions — solutions that have fewer components and which are less complex than solutions already in hand. For more about additive bias, see "Additive Bias…or Not: I," Point Lookout for June 26, 2024.
As noted in my earlier post, additive bias is only one of many possible sources of overly complicated problem solutions. In that post, I posed a realistic scenario in which the additive bias could play a role. I also provided two descriptions of mechanisms in which organizational politics could cause people to favor additive solutions over subtractive solutions.
In this post I describe two other mechanisms unrelated to additive bias, and which can produce overly complicated problem solutions. These two mechanisms are based on assessments of engineers as to the cost of implementing the problem solution. In this scenario I suggest how an engineer could judge that an additive solution might be more easily implemented than a subtractive solution, even though the subtractive solution might appear to be a simpler result.
Two technical phenomena that can lead to asset bloat
Although additive bias can lead to asset bloat, other phenomena can do so as well. Here are two effects that have roots in technology.
As engineers go about their work of adding a capability to an application, they have the usual technical concerns. The must identify what parts of the code need alteration, what parts need to be added, and what parts need to be removed.
Under schedule and budget pressure,engineers must decide how much to
invest in understanding the current
system. Sometimes creating whatever
support the new changes require
is a lower-cost approach.
- The cost of understanding
- Under schedule and budget pressure, engineers must decide how much to invest in understanding how the system now works. Unless the engineers were personally involved in developing the system as it now stands, that task — understanding the system — typically involves study, research, and possibly interviews of the authors of the existing system, if they're available. In some cases, a lower-cost approach involves creating whatever support facility the new changes require, rather than studying the system to determine whether those capabilities are already present in some form, or if so, how to use them.
- The end result, in some cases, is capability duplication that can appear to be the result of additive bias. In reality though, the engineers who do this will have found a way to meet the objective with even less work than would have been required without the duplication of capability. What appears to be additive is actually subtractive from the viewpoint of the engineers doing the work.
- Revalidation
- If our engineers decide to modify module M of the existing system, they might later be required to re-validate M as part of their work. Revalidation can require execution of test suites and evaluation of test results. To perform these operations, some portion of the engineering effort must be allocated to understanding the validation process, possibly extending the validation process, and performing the validation.
- This portion of the effort can act as a deterrent to engineering teams that are considering approaches that involve modifying existing components of the system. To avoid revalidation, some teams elect alternative approaches. Alternative approaches often involve adding new elements that are required only because of the decision not to alter any components that would then require revalidation. The end result then can appear to be consistent with additive bias when it's actually the result of avoiding approaches that would necessitate revalidation.
- It should be noted that in software engineering, at least, approaches that exploit inheritance and polymorphism can limit the need for revalidation.
Last words
These past two posts have provided four examples of mechanisms that cause system maintainers to choose to add components to the systems they maintain. They add these components even though they recognize that alternative subtractive approaches can yield superior outcomes. I hope that those who argue that these additions are evidence for the effects of additive bias can provide quantitative analysis to support their positions. First issue in this series
Top
Next Issue
Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!
Your comments are welcome
Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.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.
This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.
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 Conflict Management:
Pariah Professions: I
- In some organizations entire professions are held in low regard. Their members become pariahs to some
people in the rest of the organization. When these conditions prevail, organizational performance suffers.
Agenda Despots: II
- Some meeting chairs crave complete or near-complete control of their meeting agendas. In this Part II
of our exploration of their techniques, we emphasize methods for managing unwanted topic contributions
from attendees.
The Self-Explanation Effect
- In the learning context, self-explanation is the act of explaining to oneself what one is learning.
Self-explanation has been shown to increase the rate of acquiring mastery. The mystery is why we don't
structure knowledge work to exploit this phenomenon.
Even "Isolated Incidents" Can Be Bullying
- Many organizations have anti-bullying policies that address only repeated patterns of interpersonal
aggression. Such definitions expose the organization and its people to the harmful effects of "isolated
incidents" of interpersonal aggression, because even isolated incidents can be bullying.
Bad Trouble: Misdirection
- When Bad Trouble develops at work we have a chance to see what our organizational cultures are made
of. Many of our colleagues respond constructively. When they don't, misdirection tactics are popular.
Here's a little catalog of misdirection responses.
See also Conflict Management and Conflict Management for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
Coming February 26: Devious Political Tactics: Bad Decisions
- When workplace politics influences the exchanges that lead to important organizational decisions, we sometimes make decisions for reasons other than the best interests of the organization. Recognizing these tactics can limit the risk of bad decisions. Available here and by RSS on February 26.
And on March 5: On Begging the Question
- Some of our most expensive wrong decisions have come about because we've tricked ourselves as we debated our options. The tricks sometimes arise from rhetorical fallacies that tangle our thinking. One of the trickiest is called Begging the Question. Available here and by RSS on March 5.
Coaching services
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.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 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
Follow Rick
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/94a06/94a0604c4155baf88040f77fbc49d09a008ece03" alt="Send email or subscribe to one of my newsletters"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3584a/3584a1f6e7d285bb57b8c896a979f05d6a16b8cd" alt="Follow me at LinkedIn"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8f92f/8f92fd54a689a74cd4cd3dbca8b78715076c518b" alt="Follow me at X, or share a post"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/782d3/782d398c606ef1b53e28dcbce78bb1d367b204ed" alt="Subscribe to RSS feeds"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/42503/42503a3e90f5ad32f0d7d390fe7bb54f7d280e96" alt="Subscribe to RSS feeds"
Recommend this issue to a friend
Send an email message to a friend
rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.comSend a message to Rick
A Tip A Day feed
Point Lookout weekly feed
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d4430/d4430d8c56e3668d101d14e4d35bb2f68ebb1145" alt="Technical Debt for Policymakers Blog"