The corporate landscape is littered with attempts to “fix” things that either were not “broken” or needed only minor changes or adjustments to make them work in a satisfactory manner. Often these “fixes” come in the form of additional and/or altered computer controls. Everything is better when it’s “computerized”…Right?

I must confess that I like computers. I make computers. I sell computers. I would be happy to sell you one (and preferably many) of the computers we make. However if my computers did not serve your needs simply and cost-effectively I wouldn’t be doing you any favors.

Sometimes a non-computer solution is the best approach. Like a whiteboard or simple pad and pencil, pen or sharpie located where needed. Other times a partial computer solution is best. A counter, a sensor or a logic function where (one example) if this switch trips then do something else can be a simple, inexpensive solution.

One place I worked at some years ago made connector cables and I made several “cable testers” for them. These were inexpensive battery powered, portable and fit the application exactly. The worker simply plugged in the cable to be tested, pressed a button and the tester indicated good or bad. There was a PC driven machine available to do this but it was many times more expensive, not portable and required considerable time to configure for a given task. Maybe it was useful for some things but the workers were much more comfortable using the simple black box that I made.

The following is a short story illustrating the “simpler is better” approach:

A toothpaste factory had a problem: Due to the way the production line was set up, sometimes empty boxes were shipped without the tube inside. People with experience in designing production lines will tell you how difficult it is to have everything happen with timings so precise that every single unit coming off of it is perfect 100% of the time. Small variations in the environment (which cannot be controlled in a cost-effective fashion) mean quality assurance checks must be smartly distributed across the production line so that customers all the way down to the supermarket won’t get frustrated and purchase another product instead. 
Understanding how important that was, the CEO of the toothpaste factory gathered the top people in the company together. Since their own engineering department was already stretched too thin, they decided to hire an external engineering company to solve their empty boxes problem. 
The project followed the usual process: budget and project sponsor allocated, RFP (request for proposal), third-parties selected, and six months (and $8 million) later a fantastic solution was delivered — on time, on budget, high quality and everyone in the project had a great time. The problem was solved by using high-tech precision scales that would sound a bell and flash lights whenever a toothpaste box would weigh less than it should. The line would stop, and someone had to walk over and yank the defective box off the line, then press another button to re-start the line. 
A short time later, the CEO decided to have a look at the ROI (return on investment) of the project: amazing results! No empty boxes ever shipped out of the factory after the scales were put in place. There were very few customer complaints, and they were gaining market share. “That was some money well spent!” he said, before looking closely at the other statistics in the report.  
The number of defects picked up by the scales was 0 after three weeks of production use. How could that be? It should have been picking up at least a dozen a day, so maybe there was something wrong with the report. He filed a bug against it, and after some investigation, the engineers indicated the statistics were indeed correct. The scales were NOT picking up any defects, because all boxes that got to that point in the conveyor belt were good. 
Perplexed, the CEO traveled down to the factory and walked up to the part of the line where the precision scales were installed. A few feet before the scale, a $20 desk fan was blowing any empty boxes off the belt and into a bin. Puzzled, the CEO turned to one of the workers who stated, “Oh, that…One of the guys put it there ’cause he was tired of walking over every time the bell rang!”

$8 million vs $20    Hmmm! Money well spent?

<author unknown>

Please note: At least this equipment actually worked as intended. I’ve seen companies spend far more than $8 million and end up with equipment that either did not work at all or, more often, did not work fully as intended. While this project was a success in that it worked as planned it was a failure in that it was far too complex and costly for the task at hand. The solution did not fit the scope of the problem which makes it a failure.