I have been taking a fascinating course in language by Professor John McWhorter. One of his themes is that languages naturally become more complex over time. There are many processes that cause this as languages are passed through the generations and slowly mutate – vowels sounds change and consonants can be added to the ends of words, for example. And meanings are constantly changing too. He discusses the Navajo language which is phenomenally complex with, incredibly, almost no regular verbs.
It got me to wondering about whether processes, like languages, have a tendency to get more complex over time too. I think perhaps they do. I remember walking through a process with a Project Research Associate (assistant to the Project Manager) and she explained each of the steps with a green light package used for approving a site for drug shipment. One of the steps was to photocopy all the documents before returning them to the Regulatory Department. These photocopies were then stored in a bulging set of filing cabinets. The documents were often multi-page, double-sided and with staples and there were many of them – so it took over an hour for each site. I asked what the purpose was but the Project Research Associate didn’t know. No-one had told her. It was in the Work Instruction so that’s what she did. The only reason I could think for this was that at some point in the past, a pack of documents had been lost in transit to the Regulatory Department and fingers of blame were pointed in each direction. So the solution? Add a Cover-Your-Arse step to the process for every pack from then on. More complexity and the reason lost in time.
I’ve seen the same happen in reaction to an audit finding. A knee-jerk change made to an SOP so that the finding can be responded to. But making the process more complicated. Was it really needed? Was it the most effective change? Not necessarily – but we have to get the auditors off our back!
Technology can also lead to increasing complexity of processes if we’re not careful. That wonderful new piece of technology is to be used for new studies but the previous ones have to continue in the “old” technology. And those working in the process have to cope with processes for both the old and the new. More complexity.
There are a set of languages which are much simpler than most though. That have somehow shed their complexity. These are creoles. They develop where several languages are brought together and children grow up learning them. The creole ends up as a mush of the different languages but tends to lose much of the complexity in the mean time.
Perhaps processes have an analogy to creoles. Those people joining your organisation from outside – they do things somewhat differently. Maybe by pulling these ideas in and really examining your processes, you can take some of the complexity out and make it easier for people to follow? For true continuous improvement, we need to be open to those outside ideas and not dismiss them with “that’s not the way we do things here!” People coming in with fresh eyes looking at how you do things can be frustrating but can also lead to real improvements and perhaps simplification (like getting rid of the photocopying step!)
What do you think? Do processes tend to become more complex over time? How can we counter this trend?
Text: © 2019 DMPI Ltd. All rights reserved.
Image: Flag of the Navajo Nation (Himasaram)
Hi Keith,
A fantastic article!
Agree with all points about how the processes do become complex. And this is where the KISS (Keep It Simple) principle comes in – but I also agree that it (together with listening to the new-comers) can be a challenge by itself…
Talking about the languages analogy, I agree that at some stages the languages become more complex, but then they tend to become simpler (good examples are the English language that had lost the “thou art”; or the Russian language that had lost some of the noun cases; or how the Latin language, in mix with the local dialects, evolved into the series of Romance languages, each of them simpler than their “mother Latin”; and I bet there are other examples) – maybe because it’s getting too difficult to use the complex language by common people. But the processes should also be targeted to the common people for everyday use, not to a dozen of academics for some very sophisticated matters…
And special thanks for sharing the McWhorter’s course with me (which I still owe you)!
Best regards,
Oleg.
Thanks Oleg.
McWhorter talks about intrinsic and extrinsic languages. Intrinsic ones are ones that only children learn – Navajo is an example of that. All human languages used to be like that and spoken by a relatively small number of people. They tend to get more and more complex over time. Extrinsic ones are ones like you’ve mentioned – the languages we all think of – such as English, Russian, French, Mandarin etc. These are learned by adults as well as by children (as a second language). And because after the age of 14 or so, you can’t really learn a new language as a native tongue, these extrinsic languages tend to simplify somewhat. Fascinating!
You’re welcome to keep the McWhorter course!
Thanks Oleg, Keith.
Many thanks Keith!
I obviously need to refresh my memories about the intrinsic and extrinsic languages 🙂
Have a great day,
Oleg.