Last week, Jaguar announced a major rebranding. I think it’s stupid, and not just because I don’t like it. (I don’t, but I’m neither a branding expert nor the target audience.) Instead, it’s stupid because of how it discards the brand’s past.

It’s a common error: faced with a suboptimal system (e.g., declining car sales,) its stewards call for scrapping it altogether and starting anew. You see the tendency everywhere:

  • Calls for abolishing the Department of Education (or, at the other end of the political spectrum, the police)
  • Dumping a longstanding PKM system for a snazzy new tool
  • Sonos’s disastrous from-the-ground-up app redesign

Stupid, stupid, stupid. From Soviet collectivization to modern-day Venezuela, history is filled with examples of radical interventions leading to worsened conditions.

That said, I understand the impulse. “Out with the old, in with the new” holds a strong allure. That empty notebook at the beginning of the school year promises a fresh start. So many possibilities! Surely you’ll get it right this time. New year, new you.

But it’s never that easy. Complex systems evolve to perform lots of primary functions – plus lots of secondary and tertiary functions that elude hot takes. Revolutionary “solutions” seldom offer workable replacements. At best, they impose ideals that fail to meet real-world conditions. That is, they violate Gall’s Law.

The “chuck it” approach often fails because it’s delusional:

  • There are aspects of the current system you don’t understand.
  • You’re discounting hard-won knowledge embodied in current structures (particularly, its compromises to real-world needs.)
  • You’re underestimating how hard it’ll be to restore seemingly unimportant features.
  • You want to accelerate changes that necessarily take time.

More obviously, when intervening in a system — even one that’s operating sub-optimally – your first goal should be to do no harm. But hubris plus ignorance plus impatience produces harm. A more conservative approach is often better. G.K. Chesterton:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

So how do you get to “see the use of it”? Here are a few suggestions:

  • Map the system. Research system components and actors. Talk with stakeholders to identify its main ‘levers’ and outcomes.
  • Identify key functions. Understand what the system does — and not just the outputs you can measure. (E.g., units sold is easily quantifiable; the company’s cultural cachet isn’t.)
  • Model proposed changes. Build prototypes to test and iterate possible interventions.
  • Include feedback loops. Create mechanisms to measure IRL performance; include Andon cords.
  • Build in flexibility. Assume interventions will be wrong; provide mechanisms to correct course (or, in the worst case, roll back.)

Yes, this takes more time and money. And yes, iterative improvements aren’t as sexy as complete reboots. But consider how much more it’ll cost to correct course (and restore your reputation) should the flashy new system fail. (Ars Technica: “Addressing blowback from Sonos’ wildly unpopular app redesign will cost the company $20 to $30 million ‘in the short term,’ according to CEO Patrick Spence.”)

Intervening in complex systems requires humility. Do the research. Talk with stakeholders. Map the system. Grok its functions — and not just the superficial ones. (E.g., some “inefficient” systems serve as critical cultural glue.) Prototype and test replacements. Only then should you proceed — cautiously. Evolving a suboptimal system is often preferable to starting anew. Adaptation > replacement.