Less, but Better Complexity has a cost

Businesses tend to accumulate.

Over time, new products are added, new suppliers appointed, new formats introduced and new variations created. Each decision may make sense in isolation. A new product answers a customer request. A new supplier solves an immediate problem. A different format accommodates the preference of one department or market.

Very little is removed.

The result is a business maintaining far more than it needs – multiple product variations, overlapping services, inconsistent specifications, duplicated materials and a long tail of items that contribute little but still consume time, money and attention.

Every additional variation carries a cost.

It must be purchased, priced, produced, stocked, explained, sold, distributed, updated or maintained. Employees must understand the differences. Customers must navigate the choices. Suppliers must accommodate smaller and less predictable orders. Systems must contain more data, while managers must make more decisions.

The cost of complexity is rarely captured in one place. It is dispersed across procurement, inventory, production, marketing, sales, logistics and administration. Because no single cost appears especially large, the total burden can remain hidden.

Design helps make that burden visible.

‍

Rationalisation is a design decision

Rationalisation is often misunderstood as simply cutting costs. Done poorly, it can remove useful products, weaken customer choice or reduce the quality of the experience.

Design-led rationalisation begins with a different question: what is the business really trying to achieve, and how much complexity is genuinely required to achieve it?

It examines the complete system – what the business buys, produces, sells and maintains – and looks for unnecessary variation. It identifies where multiple items perform essentially the same role, where formats can be standardised and where individual exceptions have gradually become permanent commitments.

The objective is not minimalism for its own sake. It is a more disciplined relationship between variety and value.

Some variation is important. Different customers may have genuinely different needs. A product range may require distinct price points, functions or formats. Local markets may demand different regulatory or cultural responses.

But every variation should justify the additional burden it creates.

If two products serve the same customer, occupy the same position and deliver similar value, both may not be necessary. If five teams purchase slightly different versions of the same item, a common standard may serve them all. If a low-volume format requires its own packaging, stockholding and production setup, its revenue may not compensate for the complexity surrounding it.

Rationalisation brings these trade-offs into the open.

‍

Look beyond the purchase price

Businesses often evaluate purchasing decisions by comparing the immediate price of individual items. But the cheapest unit is not always the lowest-cost solution.

A larger range of suppliers may appear to create competition, yet it also creates more relationships, agreements, invoices, ordering procedures and quality variables. Small differences between items can require separate storage, training, maintenance or production processes.

The real question is not simply, “What does this cost to buy?” It is, “What does this require the business to manage?”

This is the difference between purchase price and total cost.

A standard component may cost slightly more per unit but reduce setup time, simplify training and allow larger orders. A consolidated supplier base may sacrifice a marginal price advantage while improving consistency and reducing administration. A smaller product range may generate less headline choice but improve stock availability and make buying easier.

Design considers the performance of the whole system, not the apparent saving within one transaction.

‍

Simplify the offer

Complexity also affects customers.

Businesses frequently assume that more choice creates more value. Sometimes it does. But too much choice can make the differences between products difficult to understand and the decision harder to make.

A large range may contain products that compete more with one another than with the market. Minor variations divide sales, weaken purchasing power and occupy valuable retail, warehouse or digital space. Customers struggle to determine which option is right for them, while salespeople spend more time explaining distinctions that may have little practical importance.

Design can reorganise an offer around the decisions customers are actually trying to make.

This may involve removing weak or duplicated products, clarifying the role of each remaining option or creating a more coherent progression between them. The strongest range is not necessarily the largest. It is the one in which every product has a clear purpose.

Rationalisation can therefore strengthen choice by making it more meaningful.

‍

Create common standards

Standardisation is one of the most powerful outcomes of rationalisation.

When teams use common specifications, formats and components, the business can buy in greater volume, reduce duplication and simplify the movement of work. Employees spend less time deciding between near-identical options or adapting information to incompatible formats.

Common buying standards can apply across almost every part of a business – packaging, signage, uniforms, office materials, digital platforms, components, fixtures, equipment and documentation.

The principle is simple: where difference creates no meaningful value, consistency is more efficient.

Standardisation can also improve quality. Suppliers work to clearer expectations. Employees become familiar with the system. Errors become easier to identify because there are fewer variables. Replacement, maintenance and training become more straightforward.

Economies of scale are not created only by becoming larger. They can also be created by concentrating existing expenditure.

Ten small orders for ten slightly different items carry less purchasing power than one larger order built around a shared standard.

‍

Design the reduction carefully

Rationalisation requires judgement.

Sales data may reveal what performs, but numbers alone do not always explain why. A low-volume product may be strategically important, complete a range or serve a valuable customer group. An apparently duplicated item may fulfil a regulatory, operational or geographic requirement.

The process should therefore combine commercial analysis with observation and consultation. Employees can explain where variation creates genuine value and where it simply creates work. Customers can reveal which distinctions influence their choices and which confuse them. Suppliers can identify opportunities to combine specifications, production runs or deliveries.

The aim is to understand the consequences before removing anything.

A useful rationalisation process asks:

• What purpose does this item serve?
• Who values it, and how much?
• What revenue or operational benefit does it create?
• What does it cost the whole business to maintain?
• Does another item already perform the same role?
• Could a common standard deliver the same outcome?
• What would happen if it were removed?

These questions turn reduction into a deliberate design process rather than an indiscriminate cost-cutting exercise.

‍

Less creates leverage

A rationalised business can concentrate its resources.

Purchasing becomes stronger because expenditure is consolidated. Production becomes more efficient because there are fewer changes and smaller runs. Inventory becomes easier to manage. Sales teams can explain the offer more clearly. Customers can choose with greater confidence.

The business also becomes easier to change. Every additional product, supplier, specification or format creates another dependency that must be considered when prices, regulations, systems or market conditions shift. Reducing unnecessary variation makes the organisation more responsive.

This is the deeper commercial value of “less, but better”.

Rationalisation does not simply remove expenditure. It redirects attention and resources towards the products, suppliers and systems that contribute most.

The result is not an impoverished business. It is a more focused one – buying with greater leverage, producing with greater efficiency and offering choices with greater clarity.

‍