Simply perfect

Starting from its core principle, that is the progressive reduction of waste in the production process considered as “anactivity” that adds costs without adding value”, kaizen’s philosophy may be equated with the principle of simplicity and simplification, two distinct modes of the same outlook.
Can such a concept, originally developed in an economic and industrial context, be applied to the sphere of the imagination, and if so to what extent? To what point can simplicity apply to mechanisms governing a process that may be termed “creative”?
We’ve asked one of the major theorizers of the principle of simplicity to answer some of these questions and more, so as to better understand in what way concepts such as efficiency, creativity and simplicity may be mutually compatible.

Is the concept of simplicity related to the products and the outcomes, or also to the whole working process?
Simplicity can be applied at the point of a result; or it can be applied as part of the process. “Simplicity” can even be the entire process itself. Whether that is a good strategy or not will depend upon the person’s state of mind.
If he spends the entire year making clean, white, simple objects he is bound to get bored. In this case he will eventually go and make something wickedly complex. It is human nature to want to do something different.
So if he’s spent the entire year making complex, unmanageable objects he is bound to want to purify himself. Therefore he will make something simpler and feel better in the process. He will likely look for a complex process to achieve simplicity. In the end, the result will be simpler. But the process by which it is achieved will not be simple at all.
Does the fact of having a method in a creative process restrict its expressive possibilities?
I think the point of a conventional MBA education is to teach that a process can exist for all manners of activities for producing objects/services. Once the process is defined you can optimize it to reduce costs, or otherwise, to increase revenue. Creative processes, however, are different. They are usually indifferent to good business practices. They are about passion usually, not about making money. If you aren’t worried about making money, you don’t need to have some rational process in order to improve or optimize. So having “a method” to be creative would be against the whole point of being free in the creative sense.

Does that mean you would be more restricted in how you can express yourself?
Definitely. Because having a method implies you are creating limitations. Would the result be necessarily bad? No. As we know, often by setting limitations on a problem, we can come up with excellent solutions because the constraints are clear. When the constraints are not clear, it can be terrifying for most. But the truly creative person relishes having no constraints. Being able to do absolutely anything is the most fearful situation to be in; this is because they also recognize that they can do absolutely nothing if they are not careful.

Simplicity and complexity are related to each other. Is it possible to simplify a process without losing efficiency?
Efficiency is an objective measure of improvement that can also be subjective in nature. If the process of baking biscuit is made more efficient and simplified, but does not produce delicious biscuits then the process is certainly meaningless. Efficiency is thus overrated, as it can kill the most important qualities of an experience in the name of optimization.

Does the fact of simplifying a working method make it more humane or, on the contrary, does it risk making it more mechanical?
I like this question. It depends again on your situation. If you want to “make love” to the work, then you want it to be complex and drawn out and intricate. If you just want to get it over with, then you want to keep it simple. Less emotional. Just a basic transaction. In. Out. Done.