Many speak about simplicity, the search for simplicity, the quest for reducing complexity But or the term complicated there is no clear and concise unit of measure. Neither is there a unit of measure for simplicity. It's like anything of that class - "I know it when I see it."
But Dan Ward has a nice little book titled The Simplicity Cycle.The book has great examples of how we can fool ourselves into thinking that buzz words, and simple (and some times simple minded) approaches to complex problems can be used. When Dan uses the term complex, he uses a clear and concise definition.
This definition...
Lots of interconnected parts equal a high degree of complexity.
Few interconnected parts equal a low degree of complexity.
But there is more to it than than, there always is and that's why simple anologies don't actually work in practice. Dan reminds us...
So, while the consisting of interconnected parts definition is simple, applying that definition and establishing a qualitative assessment of whether or not a system has a lot or a little is—well—not so easy.
Context is everything. When someone says, this is complex and doesn't mention the context, well it's hard to know if that is true of not. A colleague complained "this SharePoint user interface for setting up a Team Site is really complex." Really? Compared to what?
Or, "the flight navigation computer software system architecture is complex." Really, compared to what?
There are time when comparisons between compelx and not-complex can be made. But in all cases units of measure are needed for the discussion to proceed.
No domain, no context, hard to tell if the statement is useful to anyone.
