Simple Is Beautiful — Complex Is Ugly
Those of us who believe in the 80/20 Principle will never
succeed in transforming industry until we can demonstrate that
simple is beautiful and why. Unless people understand this,
they will never be willing to give up 80 per cent of their current
business and overheads. So we need to go back to basics and
revise the common view of the roots of business success. To
do so, we must get involved in a current controversy over whether
size in business is a help or a hindrance. By resolving this
dispute, we will also be able to show why simple is beautiful.
For something very interesting, and unprecedented, is happening
to our industrial structure. Since the Industrial Revolution
companies have become both bigger and more diversified.
Until the end of the nineteenth century, nearly all companies
were national or subnational, having the vast bulk of their
revenues confined to their home country; and nearly all were
in just one line of business. The twentieth century has seen
a series of transformations, changing the nature both of business
and of our daily lives. First, thanks largely to Henry Ford’s
sensationally successful quest to ‘democratize’ the automobile,
there was the burgeoning power of the assembly line, multiplying
the revenues of the average firm, creating mass branded consumer
goods for the first time in history, slashing the real cost
of those goods and giving more and more power to the largest
enterprises. Then there was the emergence of so-called multinational
enterprises, that initially took the Americas and Europe, and
later the whole world, as their canvas. Next came the conglomerates,
a new breed of corporation that refused to confine itself to
one line of business and rapidly spread its tentacles across
many industrial sectors and a myriad of products. Then the invention
and refinement of the hostile takeover, fuelled equally by management
ambition and the financial lubrication of leverage, gave further
impetus to size.
Finally, in the last 30 years of the century, the determination
of industrial leaders, mainly from Japan, to seize global leadership
in their priority markets and as much market share as feasible
provided the final reinforcement to the cult of corporate size.
For various reasons, therefore, the first 75 years of the twentieth
century witnessed a progressive and apparently unstoppable expansion
in the size of industrial enterprise and, until recently, in
the proportion of business activity taken by the largest firms.
But in the past two decades, the latter trend has suddenly,
and dramatically, gone into reverse. In 1979, the Fortune 500
largest US firms accounted for nearly 60 per cent of US gross
national product, but by the early 1990s this had slumped to
just 40 per cent.