I’ve been working on this for a number of years, leading product development, and do not feel as though I have all the answers yet. As Don said, simplicity is complex. However, here are a few of the behavioral elements that have worked for me (IMHO).

First, refocus business and engineering people off features and onto goals of the user. This advice is consistent with many others who are proponents of so-called goal oriented design.

Second, question every assertion. Why is a particular feature indispensable in the opinion of Customer Service, Engineering, or Sales (each of which has their own biases)? Does it support the goals of your typical user profile? (Remember that 50% of all users are below averge Not a great way to make friends, but people should understand your motivation.

Third, reinforce good behaviors in operants, those behaviors that support your philosophy of simplicity. Use this to counterbalance the bruised egos caused by your relentless pursuit of simplicity. It will decrease friction on future product developments where the simplicity is important.

Finally, constantly inspire others to do better and keep it simple (related to above) through servant leadership. Pick a task in the product development process and do it yourself with excellence, demonstrating simplicity. If there are other weak areas/disciplines, create straw man examples that illustrate a better way but are less than perfect (so that the owner of that process area will be inspired to take your straw man and do better).

The feedback loop (product sales, market share) has a long delay, so be patient.

Darrell McCauley

P.S. Interesting note on EMBODY (I’ve created many straw men for Marketing): The April 2007 issue of Harvard Business Review suggests that it takes years for a simplicity message to be effectively delivered (Quality Is in the Eye of the Beholder).

The important point is to distinguish between philosophy and sales. From a philosophical point of view, simplicity is to be sought after. John Maeda’s book on Simplicity is wonderful: take it as a bible.

But. (There always is a “but.”) But John is not involved with day-to-day selling. My point was that there is a gap between what we would prefer to have as our design philosophy (Maeda’s “simplicity”) and what people actually base their purchase decision on.

I argue that on the whole, the market place says it wants simplicity, but buys things that are more complex. Why? Because they perceive that complexity equals power. Simplicity equals, well, less power. And despite what people say they prefer, when it comes to the actual purchase, they want more power for their money.

Worse, simplicity often costs more. Would I pay more money for something that looked simpler? Yes, I would - but most people would not.

And yes, my statements are oversimplified generalizations. One can always find contradictory examples. But please, not the iPod and its competition. Here, what people fail to recognize, is that the iPod is a system: licensing, a website, downloading to computer, downloading to player, the player itself, and the DRM that forever ties you to the iPod and iTunes. Yes, it is a brilliant player, but the real brilliance is Apple’s understanding of the total system experience. Many competitors come close on the player. Nobody comes close on the entire system.

Conclusion: Simplicity is complex.

Don Norman

complexity, in the name of extra features can be tangibly shown to a prospective customer. i mean, for most folks, more is more… it’s much harder to demostrate that a product may do less, but do it better…

in addition, simplicity has gotten a lot of press - and when this happens, there will be those who try to balance that - which is a good thing in many respects - still, despite the attention simplicity gets, the larger problem today still seems to be that things are overly complexx….