Simplicity beats Complexity

00:00:00: Welcome to the deep dive.

00:00:02: If you're leading projects today, you probably know the landscape isn't just complex anymore.

00:00:07: It feels, well,

00:00:08: turbulent.

00:00:09: Turbulent is exactly the right word.

00:00:10: We're

00:00:10: in this era where the pace of change, both inside the company and out in the market, it just constantly threatens stability.

00:00:18: And if you've ever felt like your project is failing, maybe not because... of lack of effort, but just because your sort of traditional plan-driven approach can't keep up, then you're definitely in the right place today.

00:00:30: Yeah, that feeling of institutional lag, that's exactly what we're digging into.

00:00:35: We're pulling insights from Dr.

00:00:36: Gerhard Friedrich's work.

00:00:37: He's got this interesting background PhD in psychology, then dove deep into IT project management.

00:00:43: And crucially, his path included, well, pretty painful startup failure back in two thousand two.

00:00:51: That experience wasn't just a setback.

00:00:52: It was, you know, a profound learning moment.

00:00:55: It forced him to stop chasing this kind of false sense of certainty.

00:00:58: That's

00:00:58: the key pivot, isn't it?

00:01:00: He realized the tools we built for stable, predictable environments, they just fundamentally break down when the scope is vague and the ground is shifting under your feet maybe hour by hour.

00:01:10: Precisely.

00:01:11: So our mission here is to unpack his systemic adaptive framework.

00:01:15: We want to show you how organizations can maybe stop betting on predictability and actually start building genuine adaptability into their DNA.

00:01:23: So let's start by defining that core problem.

00:01:26: Project turbulence.

00:01:28: It's not just general chaos.

00:01:30: Turbulence in this context refers specifically to the intensity and the speed of changes.

00:01:35: Could be market shifts, tech disruptions, internal reorgs, anything that really disrupts a project's stability.

00:01:42: And the critical thing is that turbulence and complexity, they feed off each other, right?

00:01:45: They amplify each other.

00:01:46: Exactly.

00:01:47: It creates this escalating feedback loop.

00:01:49: And Dr.

00:01:49: Friedrich uses a brilliant analogy here, which I liked.

00:01:52: Turbulence depends entirely on your position.

00:01:55: The glider versus the jumbo jet.

00:01:57: Right.

00:01:58: Are you trying to fly through the storm in a like a fragile glider with minimal controls or are you in a big stable jumbo jet?

00:02:05: your structure, your methods, they decide which vehicle you're piloting.

00:02:10: And if you find yourself in that glider, or maybe your projects consistently hit high turbulence, three critical success factors really rise to the top.

00:02:21: This is the lesson learned the hard way back in two thousand two.

00:02:24: Fail your force focus.

00:02:25: Okay, what are those three?

00:02:27: Number one is decision latency.

00:02:28: Let's call it DL.

00:02:29: DL.

00:02:30: Got it.

00:02:30: Number two, keeping a minimum scope.

00:02:32: Small is beautiful.

00:02:33: Right.

00:02:34: And number three, engaged project sponsorship.

00:02:37: Which means, you know, active support and guidance, not just signing off on the budget.

00:02:40: Let's really

00:02:41: focus on that first one, decision latency.

00:02:43: You define DL as the total time it takes to make a decision and act

00:02:47: on it.

00:02:47: Yes, exactly.

00:02:48: Not just the time in the meeting room deciding, but the total time until the consequences of that decision actually start happening in the real world.

00:02:56: So

00:02:56: why does speed matter more than, say, getting the decision perfect?

00:03:00: Because in a turbulent environment, the hidden cost of just waiting.

00:03:04: It's catastrophic.

00:03:05: We see it in the data.

00:03:07: The sources suggest that reducing decision latency alone can boost overall project performance by, well, a staggering twenty-five percent.

00:03:15: Wait, hang on.

00:03:16: Twenty-five percent?

00:03:18: Just from making decisions faster and acting on them?

00:03:21: That seems huge.

00:03:22: What are organizations actually cutting to get that?

00:03:25: Fewer meetings.

00:03:27: or is it deeper?

00:03:28: It's deeper.

00:03:28: It's all of that, but mostly it's cutting organizational friction.

00:03:31: Friction,

00:03:32: okay.

00:03:32: Think about it.

00:03:33: Every day spent waiting for a senior sign-off or waiting for three different silo departments to reach consensus.

00:03:40: That's a day the world might have changed.

00:03:42: Right,

00:03:42: the opportunity cost.

00:03:43: Exactly.

00:03:44: IDL doesn't just waste time.

00:03:46: It means the decision you finally make might be based on totally outdated information.

00:03:50: So you're reducing that hidden cost of waiting, freeing up resources for value creation, not navigating bureaucracy.

00:03:57: OK, that makes sense.

00:03:58: So that quarterly budget review meeting that holds up, signing a key vendor contract for six weeks, that's decision.

00:04:04: latency in action.

00:04:05: That's a perfect example.

00:04:07: And the speed factor, it interacts profoundly with complexity.

00:04:10: You can connect this to frameworks like Cinefin, you know, categories before you act.

00:04:14: And those really complex, turbulent situations.

00:04:17: Higher speed, shorter DL is absolutely essential.

00:04:20: But the challenge is.

00:04:21: making sure those decisions are safe to fail probes.

00:04:24: If

00:04:24: to fail probes, meaning small

00:04:26: actions, reversible steps, not huge, exhaustive plans, trying to achieve perfection up front, you tailor your approach, you balance the need for speed with how tough the problem actually is.

00:04:38: Okay, so we need fast low latency decisions.

00:04:41: But doesn't speeding up just invite chaos?

00:04:44: Wouldn't a complex fast world need an equally complex fast solution to kind of mirror that volatility?

00:04:50: Which I think brings us straight to part two, this counterintuitive idea about the power of simplicity.

00:04:55: It is counterintuitive because for decades, a key guiding principle has been Ashby's law of requisite variety from, uh, nineteen fifty six.

00:05:02: Right.

00:05:02: Only variety can destroy variety.

00:05:04: I've heard that shorthand.

00:05:05: Exactly.

00:05:06: And what Ashby basically said was that a system can only be regulated effectively.

00:05:11: If the regulator, the manager, the process has at least as much variety as many possible responses as the system is trying to control.

00:05:18: Okay, so the practical takeaway was?

00:05:20: Well, traditional project management, even some early agile thinking often took this to mean, if the environment is complex, your management framework needs to be just as complex, flexible, adaptive.

00:05:34: you basically mirror the complexity you're facing.

00:05:36: Which, I mean, logically, that seems sound.

00:05:38: If the outside world is crazy, your internal mechanisms should be super sophisticated to handle every possibility.

00:05:44: But you're saying Dr.

00:05:45: Friedrich and the actual evidence points elsewhere, especially in turbulence.

00:05:50: Yes.

00:05:50: That's the core finding that challenges this.

00:05:53: Ashby's law seems to work best in complicated situations, you know, where things are intricate but ultimately noble, known unknowns.

00:05:59: Right.

00:05:59: But when we face true uncertainty and high turbulence, when we literally have missing data, unknown unknowns, the empirical evidence shows that mirroring complexity is not the winning strategy.

00:06:10: Why not?

00:06:10: What does it do wrong?

00:06:11: It adds friction.

00:06:12: It increases decision latency.

00:06:14: It makes things slower just when you need to be faster.

00:06:17: But hang

00:06:17: on, isn't the entire project management industry, especially fields like finance or risk management, built on incredibly complex statistical models?

00:06:26: How do we justify telling, say, senior leadership that the expensive, complex portfolio system they just bought might actually be holding them back?

00:06:35: We justify it with robustness.

00:06:37: Simplicity works because it's robust.

00:06:39: It generalizes better.

00:06:40: Look at the science.

00:06:41: Okay,

00:06:41: give me an example.

00:06:42: Think about medicine.

00:06:44: Jidgerenser and his team found a simple decision tree using only three critical cues for doctors, performed almost as well as a complex statistical model that used nineteen parameters.

00:06:55: Wow,

00:06:55: three versus nineteen.

00:06:57: And the simple model, it was faster, obviously cheaper to run, transparent.

00:07:00: doctors could understand it, and often more accurate than unaided judgment.

00:07:04: So

00:07:04: fewer variables, but the right variables win the day.

00:07:08: Precisely.

00:07:09: Or think even simpler, athletes catching a fly ball.

00:07:11: They don't calculate parabolic trajectories in their heads, right?

00:07:15: That's way too slow, too much brain power needed.

00:07:17: So

00:07:17: what do they do?

00:07:18: They use the gaze heuristic.

00:07:19: They just run, adjusting their speed to keep the angle of their gaze on the ball constant.

00:07:25: Simple rule guarantees they end up where the ball lands.

00:07:28: That's

00:07:28: fascinating.

00:07:29: A simple heuristic beats complex calculation.

00:07:33: And this applies even in, say, finance, which loves complexity.

00:07:37: Absolutely.

00:07:38: The one in rule.

00:07:39: You know, just allocate your assets equally across N-available options.

00:07:42: Divide it equally.

00:07:44: That sounds almost too simple.

00:07:45: It often beats complex, optimized portfolios based on modern portfolio theory, especially when there's true uncertainty, when past data is unreliable or just plain missing.

00:07:55: Okay, so why does simple win in these turbulent uncertain times?

00:07:59: Simpler adaptive systems tend to win.

00:08:02: Because one, computational efficiency, less thinking time means faster decisions, lower cognitive load.

00:08:08: Two, transparency, they're easier to understand, communicate, build trust around.

00:08:13: And three, critically robustness.

00:08:16: They generalize better to new situations because they focus on fundamentals, not just noise and historical data.

00:08:23: that might be irrelevant now.

00:08:24: Okay, right.

00:08:25: So we need to be fast and we need to be simple.

00:08:27: But if we're simplifying, cutting complexity, using simple rules, how do we know we're simplifying the right thing?

00:08:33: unless we understand the whole system where the real problem lies?

00:08:37: Which brings us to part three, embracing that systemic view.

00:08:41: Exactly.

00:08:41: We have to stop treating the project like a fancy Lego set where success is just clicking all the pieces together perfectly.

00:08:48: Right, the sum of the parts.

00:08:49: Based on Von Berthelmanffy's definition from way back in nineteen sixty-eight, a system is a set of interconnected elements forming a complex whole.

00:08:57: The important properties, the things that matter, they arise from the relationships between the parts, not just the parts themselves.

00:09:02: A system isn't just the sum of its parts.

00:09:04: And for us in project management, that's a huge shift.

00:09:07: We used to see projects as just sequences of tasks, you know, got charts filled with detail.

00:09:14: Now we're pushed towards a more holistic, value-driven approach.

00:09:18: Tailoring is key.

00:09:19: But sometimes, sometimes tailoring the existing process isn't enough, is it?

00:09:24: No.

00:09:25: Sometimes success requires more of a rebel mindset.

00:09:30: You have to dare to redraw the boundaries of the system itself.

00:09:34: You have to ask, is the problem the solution we're currently trapped inside?

00:09:38: Ah,

00:09:38: okay.

00:09:39: The historical examples you mentioned really drive this home.

00:09:41: They do.

00:09:42: Think about Alexander the Great and the Gordian Knot back in three thirty three BCE.

00:09:46: Right, the impossible knot.

00:09:47: He didn't sit there patiently trying to untangle it using the accepted method.

00:09:51: That was the system boundary.

00:09:52: He redefined the problem.

00:09:53: The goal was to sever the connection, not necessarily untie the rope and just cut it with his sword.

00:09:58: He focused on the outcome, not the prescribed process ritual.

00:10:01: And that's a real challenge for everyone listening, is our current governance process, our stage gates, our demand for detailed upfront plans, is that the Gordian knot we keep trying to untangle.

00:10:12: when maybe we should be cutting the complexity by redefining success and simplifying the whole approach.

00:10:17: Precisely the question to ask.

00:10:20: Or think about Johannes Kepler in sixteen oh nine.

00:10:22: With the planets.

00:10:23: Yes.

00:10:24: Planetary orbits just couldn't be modeled accurately using the accepted dogma of perfect circles.

00:10:29: He rejected that constraint that system boundary and tried ellipses instead.

00:10:34: And it worked.

00:10:35: He changed the scope of what an acceptable solution looked like.

00:10:38: And suddenly the system made sense.

00:10:40: So if we embrace this systemic, adaptable mindset, what's the actionable takeaway for managers?

00:10:46: If mirroring complexity is out, what do we do instead?

00:10:50: We target the bottleneck.

00:10:51: It's like the theory of constraints applied to turbulent projects.

00:10:54: Identify the actual bottleneck in your system.

00:10:56: Is it a slow review process?

00:10:58: A specific overloaded resource?

00:11:01: Is it decision latency itself?

00:11:03: Find the real constraint.

00:11:04: Then, take action to improve that bottleneck's performance.

00:11:08: And crucially, evaluate the impact on the overall system, not just the bottleneck in isolation.

00:11:14: Then repeat.

00:11:15: We have to realize that piling on detail in early plans doesn't buy us safety.

00:11:19: No, it feels safer.

00:11:21: It often fosters planning tunnel vision.

00:11:23: It makes us blind to the systemic shifts happening around us.

00:11:26: So the mindset shift is, forget predictability in turbulent times.

00:11:30: Adaptability is the only safe bet.

00:11:33: which means using things like scenario analysis to improve the system's overall capability to respond quickly.

00:11:39: Whatever happens.

00:11:39: That adaptability needs structure, though.

00:11:42: It's hard to be fast and simple if your whole organization is built like a slow, rigid pyramid.

00:11:47: How do we build an organizational engine that can actually do speed and simplicity?

00:11:51: Right, structure matters immensely.

00:11:53: We need to move away from traditional hierarchies.

00:11:55: They create silos, they slow down adaptation.

00:11:58: The source material points strongly towards fractal organizations.

00:12:01: Fractal organization, what does that mean in a project context, like patterns repeating?

00:12:05: Sort of, yes.

00:12:07: Think of it as nested structures where each level operates under similar guiding principles.

00:12:12: Key features are self-similarity.

00:12:14: Small teams act like mini self-contained project units.

00:12:19: They rely heavily on autonomy and quite radical decentralization.

00:12:23: Decision making is distributed.

00:12:25: So the cure for that common problem, you know, the regional office can't seem to implement the new policy from HQ fast enough is self-similarity and giving them more power.

00:12:34: Exactly.

00:12:35: When decision-making is pushed down, individual units can react dynamically to local changes, internal or external, without waiting for laders of approval from the center.

00:12:43: Keeps that decision latency low.

00:12:45: Right where it matters at the point of action.

00:12:47: This idea of decentralized authority, the firefighter analogy you use is perfect.

00:12:51: They are experts at managing chaos.

00:12:53: They are.

00:12:55: And think about how they operate.

00:12:56: They rely on incredibly strict standardization and training.

00:13:00: Every move is practiced obsessively.

00:13:02: Right,

00:13:03: highly disciplined.

00:13:04: But they combine that strict training with decentralized decision authority.

00:13:09: The team lead on the ground, closest to the actual fire, is empowered to make tactical calls within the overall strategy.

00:13:16: you trust the training and you trust the team lead.

00:13:19: Yes.

00:13:19: So the project management application is clear, train people well, set clear strategic boundaries, and then empower your team leads to make the tactical decisions within those boundaries.

00:13:29: And we have to remember, always, that a project is fundamentally a socio-technical system.

00:13:34: Socio-technical.

00:13:35: Meaning?

00:13:36: It means we aren't just dealing with code processes, tools.

00:13:41: We're dealing with people interacting with those things.

00:13:44: There are two intertwined subsystems.

00:13:46: The technical IT tools processes and the social culture, team spirit, relationships.

00:13:52: And you need both working together.

00:13:53: It's

00:13:53: what's called joint optimization.

00:13:55: You have to evolve both together.

00:13:56: You can't optimize one and just expect the other to compensate.

00:13:59: We see that fail all the time, right?

00:14:01: Yeah.

00:14:01: You buy a flashy new AI project management tool, the technical fix, but the team culture, the social system distrusts it or hasn't been trained or isn't incentivized to use it properly.

00:14:12: So the expensive tool just gathers best.

00:14:14: Joint optimization failure.

00:14:16: That's a classic example.

00:14:18: Tools like J-I-R-A-A-I dashboards, even just online meeting platforms, they absolutely shape how teams work and whether projects succeed.

00:14:27: But team spirit alone can't fix terrible tech.

00:14:30: And great tech fails if the team isn't engaged.

00:14:32: They must evolve together.

00:14:34: And

00:14:34: when we talk about that people side, that social system leadership is obviously critical.

00:14:39: It's the engine.

00:14:40: The Bowers and Seashore model from back in nineteen sixty-six is still relevant.

00:14:44: It highlights four core leadership processes that drive both performance and the social climate.

00:14:49: Ensuring goal clarity, supporting team member development, building strong team relationships, and optimizing the working conditions.

00:14:56: And this leadership, it's not just the person with the manager title, especially in these adaptive structures.

00:15:01: Absolutely not.

00:15:02: In a turbulent environment, peer leadership becomes vital.

00:15:05: And the foundational ingredient, the thing that enables speed, decentralization, and that robust adaptation we need, it's social support.

00:15:12: Social support.

00:15:14: That's the glue, the connective tissue that allows for speed.

00:15:17: It really is.

00:15:18: Strong social support actually accelerates decision making.

00:15:21: It lowers DL because people feel safer acting.

00:15:25: It enables decentralized problem-solving because team members trust each other enough to step up and tackle issues without waiting for permission.

00:15:32: Okay.

00:15:33: And critically, it's the absolute bedrock for psychological safety.

00:15:37: It reduces that feeling of vulnerability, encourages people to speak up, improves the air culture, may be okay to try things and sometimes fail quickly.

00:15:46: Because when people feel supported, they're willing to take those necessary, simple, fast, sometimes risky actions that turbulence demands.

00:15:54: Exactly.

00:15:55: Without support, people play it safe, latency goes up, and adaptability dies.

00:15:59: Right.

00:16:00: That brings us towards the end of this deep dive.

00:16:02: If we synthesize everything we've covered, the sort of guideposts for managing projects in this turbulent era seem clear.

00:16:08: I think so.

00:16:09: You really have to embrace that systemic view.

00:16:11: The systemic

00:16:11: view.

00:16:12: Bet on adaptability, not predictability.

00:16:14: That's a big mental shift.

00:16:15: Adaptability over predictability.

00:16:18: Simplify.

00:16:18: Don't mirror complexity.

00:16:20: Yes.

00:16:20: Build those fractal organizations if you can.

00:16:23: Empower decentralized decisions.

00:16:26: Decentralize.

00:16:27: And fundamentally, foster and support shared leadership, peer leadership, built on that foundation of social support.

00:16:33: It really comes down to giving up that institutional addiction to certainty, doesn't it?

00:16:37: To unlock speed and flexibility.

00:16:39: It does.

00:16:39: Yeah.

00:16:40: Which leads to maybe a final thought or question for everyone listening.

00:16:44: If the key to success in turbulence is fundamentally giving up that chase for certainty, what organizational dogma are you holding on to today?

00:16:53: What sacred cow, what longstanding procedure is secretly just increasing your team's decision latency?

00:16:59: Think about that process everyone complains about, the one that adds friction, but nobody dares to actually cut it.

00:17:04: That might just be your Gordian knot.