Additive bias…or Not: II

Additive bias is a cognitive bias that affects our ability to assess the value of candidate solutions to problems. Specifically, it causes us to favor additive solutions — solutions that add components and complexity to solutions we already have. Likewise, it causes us to assess as less valuable subtractive solutions — solutions that have fewer components and which are less complex than solutions already in hand. For more about additive bias, see "Additive Bias…or Not: I," Point Lookout for June 26, 2024.

As noted in my earlier post, additive bias is only one of many possible sources of overly complicated problem solutions. In that post, I posed a realistic scenario in which the additive bias could play a role. I also provided two descriptions of mechanisms in which organizational politics could cause people to favor additive solutions over subtractive solutions.

In this post I describe two other mechanisms unrelated to additive bias, and which can produce overly complicated problem solutions. These two mechanisms are based on assessments of engineers as to the cost of implementing the problem solution. In this scenario I suggest how an engineer could judge that an additive solution might be more easily implemented than a subtractive solution, even though the subtractive solution might appear to be a simpler result.

Two technical phenomena that can lead to asset bloat

Although additive bias can lead to asset bloat, other phenomena can do so as well. Here are two effects that have roots in technology.

As engineers go about their work of adding a capability to an application, they have the usual technical concerns. The must identify what parts of the code need alteration, what parts need to be added, and what parts need to be removed.

The cost of understanding

Under schedule and budget pressure, engineers must decide how much to invest in understanding how the system now works. Unless the engineers were personally involved in developing the system as it now stands, that task — understanding the system — typically involves study, research, and possibly interviews of the authors of the existing system, if they're available. In some cases, a lower-cost approach involves creating whatever support facility the new changes require, rather than studying the system to determine whether those capabilities are already present in some form, or if so, how to use them.

The end result, in some cases, is capability duplication that can appear to be the result of additive bias. In reality though, the engineers who do this will have found a way to meet the objective with even less work than would have been required without the duplication of capability. What appears to be additive is actually subtractive from the viewpoint of the engineers doing the work.

Revalidation

If our engineers decide to modify module M of the existing system, they might later be required to re-validate M as part of their work. Revalidation can require execution of test suites and evaluation of test results. To perform these operations, some portion of the engineering effort must be allocated to understanding the validation process, possibly extending the validation process, and performing the validation.

This portion of the effort can act as a deterrent to engineering teams that are considering approaches that involve modifying existing components of the system. To avoid revalidation, some teams elect alternative approaches. Alternative approaches often involve adding new elements that are required only because of the decision not to alter any components that would then require revalidation. The end result then can appear to be consistent with additive bias when it's actually the result of avoiding approaches that would necessitate revalidation.

It should be noted that in software engineering, at least, approaches that exploit inheritance and polymorphism can limit the need for revalidation.

Last words

These past two posts have provided four examples of mechanisms that cause system maintainers to choose to add components to the systems they maintain. They add these components even though they recognize that alternative subtractive approaches can yield superior outcomes. I hope that those who argue that these additions are evidence for the effects of additive bias can provide quantitative analysis to support their positions.   First issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Workplace Politics:

How to Undermine Your Subordinates

People write to me occasionally that their bosses undermine them, but I know there are bosses who want to do more undermining than they are already doing. So here are some tips for bosses aspiring to sink even lower.

How Pet Projects Get Resources: Cleverness

When pet projects thrive in an organization, they sometimes depend on the clever tactics of those who nurture them to secure resources despite conflict with organizational priorities. How does this happen?

Not Really Part of the Team: I

Some team members hang back. They show little initiative and have little social contact with other team members. How does this come about?

The Power and Hazards of Anecdotes: II

Anecdotes are powerful tools of persuasion, but with that power comes a risk that we might become persuaded of false positions. Here is Part II of a set of examples illustrating some hazards of anecdotes.

Surviving Incompetence: II

When your organization undertakes a misguided effort that will certainly fail, you have options. One is to head for the exit. To search for a new position in such circumstances requires some care. Example: an internal transfer might not really be an exit.

See also Workplace Politics and Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming January 22: Storming: Obstacle or Pathway?

The Storming stage of Tuckman's model of small group development is widely misunderstood. Fighting the storms, denying they exist, or bypassing them doesn't work. Letting them blow themselves out in a somewhat-controlled manner is the path to Norming and Performing. Available here and by RSS on January 22.

And on January 29: A Framework for Safe Storming

The Storming stage of Tuckman's development sequence for small groups is when the group explores its frustrations and degrees of disagreement about both structure and task. Only by understanding these misalignments is reaching alignment possible. Here is a framework for this exploration. Available here and by RSS on January 29.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info