The concept behind Garfield minus Garfield is pretty straightforward: erase the tubby orange cat from the comic strip that bears his name, but leave behind the props and other characters. The result is brilliant, fascinating, and poignant. On his site dedicated to “G-G,” Dan Walsh explains the edited comics are “a journey deep into the mind of an isolated young everyman as he fights a losing battle against loneliness and depression in a quiet American suburb.” If you have a taste for schadenfreude (and who doesn’t?), these comics can be super funny.

How does it work? Removing Garfield fundamentally changes the nature and message of each strip. It creates new space for the reader to explore, and introduces a wider variety of tones than the original comic ever displayed. For example, one G-G comic starts with a panel in which Garfield’s owner Jon says “These are troubled times.” For the remaining two panels, Jon sits and holds his coffee cup, without further comment, as if inviting the reader to join him in his thoughtful anxiety.

In a particularly dark comic, Jon says “Good night, I’ll attempt to, but fail to wake in the morning.” The final panel is completely empty, perhaps creating the impression that Jon not only died in his sleep, but predicted his own demise.

At other times the result strikes a joyful and hopeful note, as in the comic where the first panel shows a grinning Jon saying “Imagine what your life would be like if you had wings.” The following two panels are empty, granting the reader space to imagine flying like a bird.

G-G is a fascinating example of how “creation by subtracting” can work. As designers, coders, or engineers, we generally begin a design effort using additive tools, introducing new pieces, parts, and components to our creation. In fact, when we face a blank sheet of paper or an empty screen, adding is the only possible move. But as the design progresses and accumulates more parts, new design alternatives become available. Instead of being limited to additive methods (which I described in the previous 3-minute design lesson), we can eventually adopt reductive thinking models and subtractive techniques as a way to improve our design.

The diagram below uses the Simplicity Cycle framework to highlight a subtractive path. The thick line pointing down and to the right represents a design that is simultaneously becoming simpler and better. The slope and straightness of our specific path may vary, but if subtraction drives improvement, we’re basically heading in this direction:

Subtracting is a less obvious and less common approach to resolving a design problem than adding, so the techniques may feel unfamiliar at first. However, with a little experimentation and practice, we just might discover that taking things away is an even more powerful design approach than putting more things in. And it turns out we have several subtractive moves available to us, different approaches which allow us to improve a design by simplifying it.

Here are eight subtractive strategies to consider:

1. Delete. Remove an existing piece from the design. This deletion may be a piece that is redundant, extraneous or obviously unnecessary. In other situations, we may remove a piece that appears to be useful or even essential (i.e. take Garfield out of Garfield), and we just might discover that the design performs better without it.
2. Trim​. Remove a portion of an existing element. This strategy is subtractive in the sense that while the component itself stays in the design, it no longer contains all its original attributes or functions (i.e. Shut up, Garfield, a site that leaves the cat but removes Garfield’s speech bubbles).
3. Integrate​. Combine multiple elements into a single element. Rather than two or more distinct parts, they are synthesized into a unified component.
4. Shrink​. Transform an existing element into a smaller version.
5. Remove copy. Reduce redundancy. This strategy is useful if a design element is highly dependable and has an un-used backup, if the system’s performance is generally unaffected by the failure of a particular component which thus does not need a built-in backup, or if a replacement can be quickly introduced when a component fails.
6. Trust. Remove a piece that provides a check function and trust that the remaining components will perform as designed (see No. 5).
7. Polish. Reduces friction between components.
8. Delay. Introduce an element later in the process than planned. This is a form of time-shifted subtraction, where the element is always intended to be part of the design but is now included later than originally planned.

Subtracting can be a profoundly creative act, and when we remove the metaphorical Garfields from our own designs, we may find we have created something entirely new and entirely better. So give it a try — grab an eraser and see what you can create.

(This post first appeared on SmartBlogs)

Imagine Sherlock without Watson, chocolate without peanut butter, or an accelerator without a brake. In each case, we would have something good but incomplete. Sherlock may be brilliant at solving crimes but he lacks a humanizing bedside manner, which Watson provides. Chocolate is delicious on its own, but the sweet notes are improved and elevated by the addition of a slightly salty peanut butter. And the gas pedal is terrific at making the car go, but at some point we’ll want to slow down or perhaps even stop. Thus, the brake pedal. In each case, adding something (a partner, a complementary flavor, an opposing mechanism) improves the overall experience. The story gets more interesting, the dessert more delicious, the vehicle more drivable.

As designers, coders, or engineers, adding to a design is one of the first creative steps we take. In fact, when we face a blank sheet of paper or an empty screen, adding is the only move available to use. Of course, a single element is seldom sufficient, so we continue to add new pieces, parts, and components as the design matures and gets more complex. The theory is that these additions make our design better – and much of the time, that is the case.

During this early phase of a design, where we add new parts that make the design better, we can map our trajectory on the Simplicity Cycle diagram as a line that points up and to the right. The slope and degree of straightness may vary, but if the design is simultaneously becoming more complex and better, we’re basically heading in this direction:

It turns out there are many different additive moves available to us, different approaches which allow us to expand and improve a design. Here are eight additive strategies to consider:

1. Introduce: Insert a previously absent piece into the design. This addition might be a counter-point that performs the opposite of an existing function (i.e. a brake pedal to accompany a gas pedal), or a counter-weight to balance out an existing component.
2. Replace: Exchange an existing element with an alternative piece. This strategy is additive in the sense that it introduces a new component, but it also involves removing something from the design.
3. Divide​: Split a single element into multiple elements. Rather than one superhero with 10 powers, create a team of superheroes with one or two powers each.
4. Expand: Transform an existing element into a larger version of itself.
5. Add copy: Introduce redundancy. These could take the form of a hot-backup, ready to take over a function in the event of a primary system’s failure. Or the copy can perform its function alongside the original, as in the dual wheels on a semi-trailer.
6. Monitor: Insert a check function to confirm an existing element performs as designed. A monitoring function generally produces a signal to indicate status and may automatically trigger a switch-over to a back-up system (see #5 above).
7. Roughen: Increase friction between design elements, either in the form of a time delay or a more physical degree of friction. Friction can improve traction and prevent slippage.
8. Accelerate: Introduce an element sooner in the process than planned. This is a form of time-shifted addition, where the element was always intended to be part of the design but is now included earlier.

A word of caution: Because additive moves are most effective in the early stages of a design, they are also the easiest tools to over-use. Adding new pieces and parts is an essential and productive strategy — until it isn’t. We need to be sure we don’t flood Sherlock with too many Watsons, overwhelm the chocolate with too much peanut butter, or equip our car with too many brake pedals.

So, in addition to learning how to use additive strategies, we’ll need to add an additional method to our toolbox: subtracting. That is the topic for our next 3-minute design lesson, coming soon.

(This first appeared on SmartBlog)

In December of 2015, I was invited to testify to the Senate Armed Services Committee, on the topic of defense acquisition reform. The video is available on the Senate’s website, but here is a transcript of my opening statement.

My perspective on acquisition reform can be summed up in two words: constraints work.

That perspective is based on my 20 years of service as an Air Force acq officer and my research over the past decade. I’ve observed that small teams who embrace constraints tend to outperform large teams who adopt an expansive mentality of “take your time, spare no expense.”

I contend that if we want the acquisition community to deliver world-class, affordable systems at the speed of need, we must look to small teams with short schedules, tight budgets, and a deep commitment to simplicity. We should resist the urge to launch big, slow, expensive programs, which inevitably cost more, take longer, and do less than promised. As I explained in an article about technology lessons from Star Wars, we should build droids, not Death Stars. Droids work, Death Stars keep getting blown up. This does not just happen in the movies – it happens in real life.

The opening story in my book FIRE is about the Condor Cluster, a supercomputer developed by the Air Force Research Laboratory in 2010. At the time, it was the fastest supercomputer in the entire DoD. Remarkably, it cost less than one-tenth the price of a comparable machine. How did AFRL produce a best-in-class technology on a shoestring budget? They built the Condor Cluster out of 1,760 PlayStation 3’s, which makes it an interesting, funny story… but also an important story.

If the scientists and engineers at AFRL had a large budget for that particular project, they would have bought a standard supercomputer… which would have cost more and been slower than the system they actually developed. Their small budget forced them to pursue a different path – which not only saved a lot of money, it also outperformed every other supercomputer in the Pentagon’s inventory.

And that is a key point. A constrained approach helps save money, but that is a secondary objective. The primary objective is to ensure we deliver best-in-class capabilities, so that our men and women in uniform continue to enjoy unsurpassed technological advantages. As a person who has strapped on body armor and carried a loaded weapon in a warzone, I take this very seriously. The data is overwhelmingly consistent: we get better acquisition outcomes –programmatically and operationally – when we take a constrained approach.

That is what I mean when I say “constraints work.”

The question is how to build a culture that incentivizes constraint. The first step is to recognize that constraint is not a foreign concept. The armed forces are full of people who embrace constraints and take pride in doing the most when they have the least,

I had the privilege of leading one such team during my final year on active duty. There were six of us in uniform, along with a handful of civilian partners. Our $84M project was one of the smallest in our division – so constraints are relative. Outside experts said it should take seven years, but my predecessor wisely decided to do it in two years. Our first test flight was a month ahead of schedule, we flew twice as many tests as originally planned, and when the program ended I was able to go to my commander and report that we were $8M under budget.

This is not the typical outcome, but it is more common than you might think. If we want more projects to look like this – world-class technologies ahead of schedule and under budget – my suggestion is to seek, support, and celebrate these teams.

Take steps to find these high-performing innovators, and support them, and tell their stories. If prominent leaders tell the world “This is what right looks like, this is who we are when we are at our best,” that will help provide incentives for others to move in that direction as well.

The US military is fantastic at achieving its goals. Give us an objective, and we will do whatever it takes to satisfy that objective. Military innovators have proven we can deliver world-class capabilities ahead of schedule and under budget when that is the goal. But acquisition programs run into problems when that is not the goal, when concepts like speed and thrift are dismissed, viewed skeptically, or written off as impossible. Acquisition programs run into problems when big budgets are treated as signs of prestige, long timelines are treated as signs of strategic genius, and high degrees of complexity are treated as signs of sophistication.

We need to set better goals and incentivize the right things. If we are going to reform the acquisition system, we must take steps to emphasize and incentivize three things: speed, thrift, and simplicity. And we need leaders who will seek, support, and celebrate the teams who pursue these goals.

And we need to do these things for a very simple reason: constraints work.