How I managed UX complexity by championing an org-wide simplicity model
Contribution
Introduced a “complexity budget” to reduce UX friction and anchor scope decisions in measurable user effort
Role
Led in partnership with with product
Scope
Cross-Functional System Implementation & Process Optimization
Takeaway
Made complexity measurable, enabling teams to act earlier, reduce scope bloat, and simplify with intent
The Challenge
Our core features weren’t delivering. We responded with feature improvements. Yet each one had to honor the expectations set by earlier designs. There was no clear process for reevaluating what still mattered. Every addition carried the weight of legacy edge cases, regressions, and integrations.
Research was used to justify features, not reduce complexity. Teams tried to add value from their own vantage points, but without a shared model for complexity tradeoffs, forked flows, overlapping logic, and edge-case coverage became our operating model.
Everyone agreed simplicity mattered. But we lacked a shared way to prioritize what was essential or measure what users could reasonably absorb. Instead of questioning what belonged, we focused on organizing it through layout, hierarchy, and visual polish. Simplification became a late-stage clean-up effort. It was well-intentioned, but too late to change what shipped.
My Response
I realized we couldn’t reduce complexity without first making it measurable. So I led the creation of a shared framework that redefined simplicity as a cross-functional constraint—not a design aesthetic. We grounded it in cognitive effort and user behavior, translating friction into guidance teams could act on.
The core of the framework was a complexity budget—a constraint model that treated complexity like technical debt: it accumulates quietly, erodes the experience over time, and can only be reduced through better decisions earlier in the process. It defined how far a flow could push before it became too much to absorb—too many decisions, too many clicks, too many places to go. By translating that burden into a shared vocabulary, we gave teams a way to stop debating how things felt and start asking what kind of load they were introducing, how much of it, and whether it was justified.
The framework changed how teams scoped. We stopped debating polish and started questioning cost. What friction were we adding? Was it worth it? The questions shifted—and so did the outcomes. We built the model into planning cycles. Researchers surfaced recurring friction patterns. PMs mapped effort and alternatives. Designers used the budget to prioritize, challenge scope, and make reductions defensible. What used to be gut feel became structure—visible, shared, and open to debate.
The Win
The complexity budget gave teams a credible way to recognize when scope had gone too far—and a shared language to scale it back. Simplicity stopped being a design preference and became a strategic constraint. Teams could justify reduction not by opinion, but by impact. Simplification happened earlier, and we shipped leaner.
Key Outcomes
Reframed simplicity as a measurable constraint across product decisions
Standardized how teams evaluated scope, tradeoffs, and user effort
Equipped teams to identify scope bloat and defend reductions with impact
Shifted simplification upstream, reducing late-stage rework and overbuild
Strategic Insight
Making complexity measurable unlocks earlier, better decisions:
Simplicity became a shared constraint embedded in planning systems
Tradeoffs were weighed by estimated user effort, not visual heuristics
Friction became an early-stage lever for shaping and testing scope
systemic thinking