Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- principles:gall_s_law [2021-04-10 15:38] – [Contrary Principles] 2600:1700:5ce0:4780:b513:180a:c0aa:eee1
+++ principles:gall_s_law [2021-04-10 15:41] – [Contrary Principles] 2600:1700:5ce0:4780:b513:180a:c0aa:eee1
@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 * Gall was partially correct.  All complex systems developed from simple systems but not simple systems that work.
-Complex systems develop from simple systems that "partially work" but needed to be improved upon to fully achieve the goal.  By partially work, I mean systems that fail to achieve the desired result but produce a result sufficient to the developer to motivate continued improvement and, by extension, increased complexity.  Although slightly tautological, if a simple system "worked", meaning it completely achieved the desired result, making it more complex would not only be unnecessary but foolish as to do so would require an investment of some resource and create a risk of creating a deleterious effect to the system, as any change carries with it an inherent risk of injecting error into the system and its process.  If the system truly works, the question becomes why would you take on the cost and the risk of changing it.  To do so would be sub-optimal unless the system had not achieved the goal in full.  If gall believes that "works" means sub-optimal performance, then his "law" can be accepted as true; however, if that is the can "works" should have been replaced with a more specific term. Either way, the law stands as only partially correct.
+Complex systems develop from simple systems that "partially work" but needed to be improved upon to fully achieve the goal.  By partially work, I mean systems that fail to achieve the desired result but produce a result sufficient to the developer to motivate continued improvement and, by extension, increased complexity.  Although slightly tautological, if a simple system "worked", meaning it completely achieved the desired result, making it more complex would not only be unnecessary but foolish as to do so would require an investment of some resource and create a risk of creating a deleterious effect to the system, as any change carries with it an inherent risk of injecting error into the system and its process.  If the system truly works, the question becomes why would you take on the cost and the risk of changing it.  To do so would be sub-optimal unless the system had not achieved the goal in full.  If Gall believes that "works" means sub-optimal performance, then his "law" can be accepted as true; however, if that is the can "works" should have been replaced with a more specific term. Either way, the law stands as only partially correct.
 Having said this, are there systems that maximally worked that were made more complex and, therefore, meet Gall's statement.  One would have to believe so but only in the context of an addition.  Take a hypothetical example of a business' distribution system.  Suppose the system is simple and effective to the point that it meets Gall's meaning of "works".  Now suppose that there is an addition of a new region to cover or a new product line that is added.  Keeping the system relatively the same and grafting on these additions will necessarily create a more complex system.