Making things simple is often the hardest thing there is. When someone says ”make it simple”, they usually mean that the solution should be easy to understand and use. But real simplicity rarely arises through reducing the amount of work required. On the contrary, deep analysis, thoughtful design, and many iterations are often required to hide the complexity behind a smooth user experience. From the ergonomics of a pistol grip to the design of a public transport bus, simplicity relies on someone having done the difficult work beforehand. This article describes why simplicity is not the opposite of complexity, but the result of handling complexity in the right place.
Doing simple things is difficult
Why the ”make it easy” prompt is often misunderstood
Introduction
”Can you make it simple?”
It is one of the most common formulations in working life. A manager, colleague, or customer expresses a desire that a solution, process, or product should be simple. Often there is also an implicit expectation that the work should be fast and require limited resources. Here an interesting paradox arises. What is easy to use is rarely easy to create. On the contrary, user-friendly simplicity is often the result of extensive work involving analysis, design, testing, and refinement. When someone says ”make it simple,” two completely different desires often blend together:
- Make it easy to use.
- Make it quick and cheap to produce.
In practice, these goals are often contradictory.
Simplicity is a final product, not a starting point
The most advanced technology is often characterized by its naturalness of use. Take, for example, the design of a pistol grip. For the user, the grip should feel natural, stable, and intuitive. The hand should automatically land in the right position. Balance, friction, angle, and material selection should work together without the user having to think about them. But behind this experience lies extensive research, ergonomic studies, testing, and generations of product development. The same logic applies to public transport. When a passenger gets on a bus, it should be easy to:
- find the right line,
- understand the ticketing solution,
- orient themselves in the vehicle,
- knowing when it’s time to get off.
What is perceived as simple is actually based on a complex interplay between traffic planning, information design, technology, accessibility requirements, safety regulations, and customer insights. The user does not see the complexity because someone else has already handled it. That is the very definition of good design.
Two types of solutions
When a client says that something should be done simply, it is valuable to first determine what type of simplicity is desired.
Option 1: Easy to build, difficult to use
The fastest solution is often to move the complexity to the user. Examples:
- An Excel sheet with a large number of tabs.
- A set of rules in hundreds of pages.
- An IT system that requires several days of training.
- A process where the user has to choose between many different options themselves.
From the developer's perspective, this is often effective. The solution can be delivered quickly and at low cost. The user, however, has to bear the burden of complexity.
Option 2: Difficult to build, easy to use
The user-friendly solution is based on the opposite principle. Example:
- A form that automatically adapts to the user's situation.
- A decision support tool that presents a recommended alternative.
- A process where only relevant choices are shown.
- A system where automation reduces the need for manual decisions.
Here, time is invested in the development phase instead of the deployment phase. The complexity remains, but it is handled by the solution's design rather than by the user.
Simplicity requires deep understanding
It is surprisingly easy to create complexity. It is much more difficult to create simplicity. To be able to reduce complexity, one first needs to understand it. This means that one needs to understand:
- the needs of the users,
- the objectives of the activity,
- emergency situations,
- risks and consequences,
- addictions and points of integration,
- long-term effects.
Only when the complexity is understood can it be determined what can be removed, simplified or automated. Many failed simplification initiatives are due to attempts to simplify before fully understanding the problem. The result is not simplicity, but a simplified view of reality. The difference is crucial.
The invisible labor effort
One of the most underrated aspects of simplicity is that the work behind it is rarely visible. When a user navigates an intuitive digital service, uses an ergonomically designed product, or follows a clear process, the solution often appears self-evident. This is a sign that the design has succeeded. The better the work behind the scenes is performed, the less the user notices it. The real performance therefore lies not in adding more features, more choices, or more instructions. It lies in the ability to reduce the unnecessary without losing the necessary.
The question that should be asked
When someone says: ”Make it simple.” the counter-question should be: ”Do you mean simple to develop or simple to use?”
It is only when this question is answered that it is possible to make a reasonable assessment of time, resources, and level of ambition. If the goal is rapid delivery, the work can often be accomplished with limited effort. If the goal is high user-friendliness, the organization must simultaneously accept that simplicity requires investments in understanding, design, and quality assurance.
Simplicity is not the absence of complexity
A common misconception is that simplicity means that complexity has disappeared. In reality, complexity has simply been shifted. Either it lies with the user or with the developer of the solution. Mature organizations realize that the most valuable investment often lies in absorbing the complexity internally so that customers, employees, and stakeholders encounter a clear and simple experience. That is why the world’s most successful products, services, and processes are rarely the result of a little work. They are the result of a great deal of work that has been done in the right way.
Conclusion
Making something complex is often quick. Making something simple is often difficult. Therefore, when a customer or employee asks for a ”simple solution”, it is rarely about reducing the workload. Rather, it is about investing enough effort so that the user does not have to experience the complexity themselves. The real meaning of ”making it simple” is therefore not:
”Do less”
Without:
”Understand more, so that others can do less”
And that is perhaps one of the most valuable competencies in modern leadership, business development, and product design.
