Not complex enough
The bias towards limiting complexity keeps you from exploring other valuable options. Let's face it, the pristine network or architecture just hasn’t been created yet. Elegant solutions to problems are always a goal but if you can’t point out at least one flaw in the plan, then it’s likely that the plan isn’t real or hasn't been tested yet.
However, there are those who hold tightly to the simplified environments that they know and love. A shop shuns Microsoft Windows Servers and waits until it has absolutely no choice but to implement a Windows server because the business finally insists upon it. A shop will sometimes use only Microsoft Windows even in its graphics department even though it would reduce problems and the need to rework by having the graphics department work on a Macintosh.
These environments are holding on to a simplicity that is too pure. Instead of the deciding factor being based on the best solution for the organisation, the question becomes what is the best solution for me and my familiar environment. This is just one way that we shun complexity in favour of what we know and understand.
Too complex
At the other end of the spectrum are the managers who try new things without a care for how much complexity they add to the environment. Their point of view is that if they know and understand the technology, then everyone should. They typically have different kinds of hardware and software scattered throughout their environment.
Their routers and switches are whatever was cheapest the day they bought them. They have added Linux to the mix of server operating systems to handle some trivial task like serving HTML pages to the Web. The added complexity of a new router, switch, or even an operating system doesn't scare managers whose environments end up too complex for anyone but them to run.
This condition is one part ego and one part job security. The ego part says, "I’m the only one who can do it." The security part asks, "How could they replace me? No one would be able to understand this the way I do." Of course, both are unhealthy responses to large systems. A more appropriate statement would be, "Anyone can do it." The key to large systems is sustainability, and that requires that more than one person can understand the system.
The appropriate response is to evaluate the additional training and support costs, and decide from there whether the additional complexity makes sense. Once you've made an evaluation, and made the decision to accept the complexity, you need to mitigate the risks and costs associated with that decision.
