Logo
About CV

Jaguar Rebrand

A Lesson in System Evolution : Why radical overhauls often fail

Few weeks ago, Jaguar surprised everyone with an complete overhaul of its positioning as a brand. personally am not convinced and think it's stupid, and not just because I don't like it. (I don't, but I'm neither a branding expert nor the target audience.) Instead, it's stupid because of how it discards the brand's past.

I feel like it's a mistake. When faced with a suboptimal system, we scrap it altogether and try to start anew ( Something I regularly do with my portfolio :-) )

It's a common error. You see the tendency everywhere:

  • Proposals to replace the colonial-era Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) with entirely new codes rather than updating or reforming them incrementally.
  • Concerns about rote learning, exam-centric education, and lack of critical thinking skills in the Indian education system often lead to calls for entirely replacing existing curricula and frameworks.
  • The inefficiencies and corrupt practices in India's electoral processes occasionally spark demands for entirely new systems.

That's just plain stupid. From India's Emergency-era forced sterilizations to the chaos of demonetization, history is filled with examples of radical interventions that only made things worse. I mean I do understand the impulse. "Out with the old, in with the new" holds a strong allure. That empty notebook at the beginning of the school year promises a fresh start. So many possibilities! Surely you'll get it right this time. New year, new you. ( again, pointing fingers at myself )


But it's never that easy. Complex systems evolve to perform lots of primary functions – plus lots of secondary and tertiary functions that elude hot takes. Revolutionary "solutions" seldom offer workable replacements. At best, they impose ideals that fail to meet real-world conditions. That is, they violate Gall's Law.

Gall's law: A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working simple system.

The "chuck it" approach often fails because it's a moonshot:

  • There are aspects of the current system you don't understand.
  • You're discounting hard-won knowledge embodied in current structures.
  • You're underestimating how hard it'll be to restore seemingly unimportant features.
  • You want to accelerate changes that necessarily take time.

More obviously, when intervening in a system — even one that's operating sub-optimally – your motto should be borrowed from engineers. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. first goal should be to do no harm. But hubris plus ignorance plus impatience produces harm. A more conservative approach is often better.

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

Well then how do we actually understand 'the use of it' ?

  • Map the system. Research system components and actors. Talk with stakeholders to identify its main 'levers' and outcomes.
  • Identify key functions. Understand what the system does — and not just the outputs you can measure.
  • Model proposed changes. Build prototypes to test and iterate possible interventions.
  • Include feedback loops. Create mechanisms to measure IRL performance.
  • Build in flexibility. Assume interventions will be wrong; provide mechanisms to correct course.

Sure, it takes time and money and yes, iterative improvements aren't as sexy as complete reboots. But consider how much more it'll cost to correct course (and restore your reputation) should the flashy new system fail.

Intervening in complex systems requires humility. Do the research. Talk with stakeholders. Map the system. Understand its functions — and not just the superficial ones. Prototype and test replacements. Only then should you proceed — cautiously. Evolving a suboptimal system is often preferable to starting anew. Adaptation is better than replacement.