No I don't think so. That explanation only works for simple systems, if at all. But all the many players and their very diverse needs and ideas are very complex.
I think i's more likely that it's something described in studies about human problem solving, which leads us to preferring overly complex solutions because we prefer adding something.
> Adding is favoured over subtracting in problem solving
> A series of problem-solving experiments reveal that people are more likely to consider solutions that add features than solutions that remove them, even when removing features is more efficient.
I think we also have forces in play that add to this bias. Or they are the result of it, for some of them. For example, when there is an easy and cheap or even free solution there is no incentive for marketing and selling it. It's hard to tell a customer that they don't actually need you, especially if it isn't a one-off, or that they should go somewhere cheaper and more simple. It is much easier to get paid for adding than for doing nothing or for subtracting, both as an employee and as a business.
It certainly looks that way when I look around. We have frequent complaints about a lack of skilled labor - but that's also because everything keeps getting more and more complex.
For example, once it was enough to once every half year update a piece of paper on each bus or tram or train station with the schedule. Now it's some highly complex networked computer solution and display to display when the next bus is going to arrive. Sure there is added value - but there also is a gigantic amount of new complexity for every small "convenience". When it comes to something like waiting for the next tram, specially in an urban environment with 10 minute schedule, the benefit of knowing if it's 2 or 7 minutes that you'll have to wait is negligible compared to the effort of providing and maintaining that service. (we have this situation in my town).
Of course there is added value for much of it, maybe all. But I see the complexity and size of systems I knew in a much more simple form when I grew up exploding.
The problem is, continuously educating new people to know ever more and to be able to handle more and more sophisticated systems has a continuously increasing cost to society too, since we don't live any longer than before. Never mind everything we do, from planning to maintenance, is ever more complex too.
In addition, the new system may not be as robust as the more simple ones of the past. It all works as long as it does. If we see another chip crisis for example, and I just read a pretty dark forecast for China/Taiwan, all those solutions that require working world-wide supply chains, here, chips from Taiwan, are a problem.
In enterprise systems, it’s always easier (organizationally) to add a feature than to subtract one. Subtraction usually puts some work in the queue of some team, which is usually not politically viable.
For instance, say Team A is used to receiving a report in Excel every week. If an upstream system is added or changed, Team A will fight like hell to keep their Excel report even if it’s no longer needed. Whereas “the system shall generate a weekly Excel report” is just another feature in the backlog and much easier to sell to the organization.
Excellent response, but I suspect you were agreeing with the person you were replying to, instead of making a counter-argument.
I just watched a simple four-building network get over-architected into a monstrosity involving multiple consultancies, vendors, and products.
Why? Nobody gets paid to not add things. Especially as a third-party, you get no money at all for doing nothing, even if that’s the best solution for the customer.
Worse still, in this case the vendor relationship was managed by a customer staffer who is themselves a direct contractor! If the work to manage external consultants dries up, their own contract won’t be renewed.
“You can’t convince someone of something if their salary depends on them not believing it.”
I'm a consultant also, and more than a few times I've advised the customer not to overcomplicate things. I can only "afford" to do this because I'm already over-worked and not in need of additional projects. Some other consultants in those meetings looked at me like I had grown a second head that started speaking in Klingon.
There will always be lots of advice and action simplify this or that. That does not change the aggregate outcome. It's not a never-decreasing number and it's chaotic messy life.
I had a doctor trying to make me pay less and come less. I had many more trying to sell me useless garbage, from network marketing vegetable juice to magnetic mats, after they did not find an obvious disease and concluded "it's in my head" (I'm fine now, reason was eventually found at a university clinic and solved for good).
As I already mentioned in my post, to actively market things you need to make money. The teams making he most money are able to do the most marketing and the most sales. Those pointing to free solutions are unable to hire sales people. There is no pharma company that can sell unpatentable already easily available substances, or only with minor improvements for packaging it more conveniently or in a cleaner form, the ones making billons can run lots of ads and sende out sales reps and give gifts and benefits to those making purchase decisions.
Web forum and word of mouth compete with large companies with dedicated and very sophisticated marketing and sales organizations for reach and ability to convince, and you can only make contracts with the latter.
The forces out there don't prevent you from "doing the right thing", they just slightly, or maybe not so slightly, favors those wo don't.
The chemical company that finds their product does not really help much and potentially has very severe environmental effects is much more likely to go out of business or to be bought than the ones lying about it and increasing the marketing budged and sales effort (see tobacco, oil companies and climate change research, etc.)
.
"Let's do nothing instead of this" is highly disfavored by our system - and by our mindset. The people now found responsible for making and selling products and substances they already know are bad, if they were out of work, society would shun them and "paying them to do nothing" (even if it would be much better) is frowned upon by most of society. Everybody is forced to do something, anything. On the other hand, it's actually quite hard with all the basics long taken care of - for those who can pay. Or, the problems are so intricate it's hard to impossibel to solve in a private initiative, often even for billionaires, who too have to chose their battles. So we end up with lots of cheaters and people selling products, substances, services with little to no regard for consequences. They may be bad people, but our system creates a lot of pressure on everyone and people react.
Most architects have limited influence on the entire stack, so they try to achieve results in the sub part they can control. This leads to overly complex sub parts, as you can’t optimize the entire stack. Probably another example of Conway s law.
I think i's more likely that it's something described in studies about human problem solving, which leads us to preferring overly complex solutions because we prefer adding something.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00592-0 (you may need Sci-Hub - paywalled)
> Adding is favoured over subtracting in problem solving
> A series of problem-solving experiments reveal that people are more likely to consider solutions that add features than solutions that remove them, even when removing features is more efficient.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03380-y
> People systematically overlook subtractive changes
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-brain-typical...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/04/16/bias-prob...
I think we also have forces in play that add to this bias. Or they are the result of it, for some of them. For example, when there is an easy and cheap or even free solution there is no incentive for marketing and selling it. It's hard to tell a customer that they don't actually need you, especially if it isn't a one-off, or that they should go somewhere cheaper and more simple. It is much easier to get paid for adding than for doing nothing or for subtracting, both as an employee and as a business.
It certainly looks that way when I look around. We have frequent complaints about a lack of skilled labor - but that's also because everything keeps getting more and more complex.
For example, once it was enough to once every half year update a piece of paper on each bus or tram or train station with the schedule. Now it's some highly complex networked computer solution and display to display when the next bus is going to arrive. Sure there is added value - but there also is a gigantic amount of new complexity for every small "convenience". When it comes to something like waiting for the next tram, specially in an urban environment with 10 minute schedule, the benefit of knowing if it's 2 or 7 minutes that you'll have to wait is negligible compared to the effort of providing and maintaining that service. (we have this situation in my town).
Of course there is added value for much of it, maybe all. But I see the complexity and size of systems I knew in a much more simple form when I grew up exploding.
The problem is, continuously educating new people to know ever more and to be able to handle more and more sophisticated systems has a continuously increasing cost to society too, since we don't live any longer than before. Never mind everything we do, from planning to maintenance, is ever more complex too.
In addition, the new system may not be as robust as the more simple ones of the past. It all works as long as it does. If we see another chip crisis for example, and I just read a pretty dark forecast for China/Taiwan, all those solutions that require working world-wide supply chains, here, chips from Taiwan, are a problem.