Elegant Projects and Occam's Razor

How often is a project likened to a swan, elegant and serene above the surface with all the hard work going on below? When it is used the observation is rarely meant as a compliment, but instead a comment on how the project manager is managing perceptions. Maybe we are missing the  point as elegance is a quality that is prized and sought in other walks of life.

I recall that as an undergraduate I solved problems every day, much as I do now as a project manager. I was studying physics and was always encouraged to find “elegant” solutions. Why? Well because they were considered to be better solutions. They were more applicable, they demonstrated greater insight and usually produced faster results. Why would we not want this in our projects, especially if we can link elegance to success?

Recently I have been wondering why we rarely, if ever, hear the word “elegant” used in connection with projects. It is more likely that you will here “pragmatic”, “effective” or “tactical” cited as desired characteristics - even strategic is rare in these troubled times. I found it hard to think of a good example of an elegant project. In fact it was much easier to recognise a lack of elegance in complexity, poor progress and inefficiency.  We all know examples from our personal life and there are certainly plenty of public instances of inelegant projects. In these cases they are often late and over budget, are completed
through persistence and hard work, even brute force, and are rarely considered successes when delivered, by anyone other than the politicians (big “P” and small “p”) with a lot at stake.

So what is an elegant project?  In my search for elegance, I returned to first principles (as any undergraduate would be encouraged to) in search of clues to what are the defining characteristics. The most useful material came from mathematics where a proof or solution is described as elegant when it:-

• uses a minimum of additional assumptions or previous results;
• is unusually succinct; derives a result in a surprising way (e.g. is constructed in an unusual way);
• is based on new and original insights; or can be easily generalized to solve a family of similar problems.

The first item is similar to and in keeping with Occam's Razor. This is the principle that from among competing hypotheses/solutions, selecting the one that makes the fewest assumptions/has the fewest dependencies usually provides the best answer; the simplest approach/solution will be the most credible/effective until it is proved wrong or unworkable.

As I read this the proverbial light bulb glowed brightly. Too many projects try to be “clever”. While simplicity is preached, complexity is delivered. Commonly there are too many assumptions, implicit and explicit. Project plans become bloated. True insight is often discounted as repeating the past is seen as safer and preferable, but with little evidence that we have learned anything from that past. Projects (by their  definition) are one-off activities, BUT we keep doing projects. It is not the approach or skills that are one off, just some of the details, yet how often are previous project plans dusted down, updated and re-used. I would suggest, rarely. Instead too often we reinvent the wheel time and time again.

So can we use this insight usefully to identify elegant projects and see if there is a link to success? One my life long interests is rugby and I would suggest that the “project” that was England's assault in the 2003 rugby world cup could be considered “elegant”.. If you read Sir Clive Woodward's book called ”Winning!” you will see that his approach encompasses all five characteristics. He took personal charge and started from the basics. His “plans” are succinct and key elements of his communication. He definitely went about his role in an unusual and surprising way and brought key insights. Lastly he has used it several times both in rugby and other sports. Undoubtedly he had success and not just with England in 2003.

In another classic example of two clearly comparable projects ie the Scott and Amundsen race to the South Pole it appears that elegance correlates with success. Amundsen had a simple, clean plan based on experience that was executed well. In contrast Scott based his plan on untried assumptions about the skills he would need and because of his wide source of funding, his plan became complex in its need to include many ancillary objectives. History clearly records who was successful.

While this is not absolute proof, when we think about elegance it is clear that it warrants more consideration in projects than it currently receives.

One reason is that, unlike university, we do not have “tutors/teachers” looking for elegance. Instead most business governance looks for pragmatism, considering each project to be one-off, in search of that holy grail of maximum benefit for minimum cost. Many decisions are taken within a micro world encompassing just that project, missing the wider picture.

This is a great opportunity for a programme office and/or delivery managers to add real value. Here are some suggestions:-

• Look back at the qualities of elegance and use them to appraise projects in future.
• Pick up quickly on inelegance and resolve it.
• Look for correlation with success and use it to reinforce the mind set with sponsors and project managers