%202.png)
The story of NASA's space pen and the Soviet pencil is a classic example of overengineering versus simplicity. During the 1960s space race, NASA developed a complex pen to work in zero gravity, while the Soviets used simple pencils. This story highlights the danger of overengineering in product management—creating overly complex, costly solutions when simpler options can be more effective. Product managers should watch for symptoms like feature creep, unnecessary complexity, and high maintenance costs, and apply principles like the KISS approach to focus on efficiency and user needs.
The drive to solve challenging problems is both a calling and a potential pitfall for product teams. Whether you're a new product manager just stepping into the world of product development or a seasoned veteran with years of experience, the urge to create intricate, "perfect" solutions is ever-present. Yet, complexity is not always synonymous with progress. The ability to identify when a simple solution is not only sufficient but preferable is a skill that distinguishes great product managers from good ones.
This article dives into a powerful lesson about solution simplicity from history. It's a reminder that complexity is not always a mark of quality, and that elegance often lies in simplicity. By examining the concept of overengineering, we aim to equip product managers with the tools to find clarity amidst complexity, helping us all progress from overcomplicating to delivering the straightforward, impactful solutions that users truly need.
It was the early 1960s and the height of the space race, USA vs Russia in an all out contest to achieve several significant milestones in space exploration. Both sides were making rapid progress, tackling challenges as they came, solving complex problems, and developing hugely innovative solutions.
In the early stages of the space race the Soviet Union had achieved several major successes, including: Sputnik 1 (1957), Sputnik 2 and Laika (1957), and the first human in Space (1961). It was these early Soviet successes that created the perception that NASA and the United States were lagging in space exploration capabilities.
It was Yuri Gagarin’s voyage aboard Vostok 1, becoming the first human to travel into space and orbit the Earth which prompted U.S. President John F. Kennedy announced on May 25, 1961, the ambitious goal of sending an American astronaut to the Moon and returning them safely to Earth before the end of the decade. Ultimately, this commitment led to the Apollo program and played a key role in allowing the United States to "catch up" and eventually surpass the Soviets, culminating in the successful Apollo 11 Moon landing in 1969.
It was during this race that NASA faced a very particular challenge. Astronauts needed a reliable way to write notes during space missions, whether it was logging observations, recording important data, or even jotting down emergency procedures. However, the issue was that the traditional ballpoint pens being used required gravity to work. The ink needed to flow down the cartridge in order to work, which is impossible in the zero-gravity condition of space. Naturally engineers at NASA were determined to find a solution to this significant problem, and fast!
To solve this challenge, NASA supposedly decided to develop a new kind of pen - one which could work not only in zero gravity but also in extreme temperatures (both high and low), and in a vacuum. It was said that they spent years of research and development, along with millions of dollars of taxpayer money, to create this space pen that would meet all of these criteria. The result was an engineering marvel: the Fisher Space Pen, which uses pressurised ink cartridges enabling it to write upside-down, in freezing cold, scorching heat, underwater, and, of course, in the vacuum of space.
Similarly to NASA, the Soviet space program faced the same problem - how to write in space without gravity. However, the Soviet team created a solution that was much simpler and more cost-effective. Rather than spending years developing a complex new technology, the Soviets reportedly gave their cosmonauts ordinary pencils. Pencils could easily be used in space without relying on gravity. This quick fix saved time, money, and effort, solving the problem almost immediately and allowing resources to be spent on other areas of the space race.
While an entertaining anecdote, the actual history of the Fisher Space Pen is a bit different—Paul Fisher, an independent inventor, developed the pen with his own funding, with both NASA and the Soviets later purchasing them - yet, the story remains a powerful parable. It illustrates a common problem in product management: the temptation to over-engineer a solution when a simpler, more practical approach might work just as well or better.
Solution overengineering refers to designing a solution that is far more complex than necessary for the problem at hand. The term is often used to describe the tendency to overcomplicate a product or process with unnecessary features or steps, which do not add significant value compared to the added cost or effort. If you’re worried about solution overengineering, here are some key symptoms that you may pick up on:
In product management, overengineering can result from a desire to solve multiple perceived edge cases all at once, making a product more difficult to use and maintain. This tendency often arises from a fear of missing out on possible future problems or requirements, leading to an unnecessarily broad approach. The mantra “keep it simple, stupid” (KISS) is often used as an antidote to solution overengineering, emphasising the value of simplicity.
Part of the product manager role is having enough strategic oversight to maintain a healthy balance between technical capabilities, business needs, and customer requirements. Having a deep understanding of the problem being faced by stakeholders and the range of solutions available is key. However it is easy to slip into overengineering, keeping a close eye out for the common symptoms above is a key part of the role, but how can product managers address solution overengineering once it’s already in motion?
It’s easy to see how NASA engineers could have spent countless hours and resources developing a pen which works in zero-gravity. When we spend hours every day solving complex problems in large organisations it can be really easy to jump straight into developing an overly complex solution, particularly when there is additional pressure around being ‘first-to-market’ or first to launch. For many it’s incredibly hard to step back from a technical challenge and assess the bigger picture. It’s still relatively easy to find examples of over-complification in the modern day, including the examples below:
The story of NASA versus the Soviet Union during the space race illustrates an important lesson for product managers: simpler solutions can often be more effective. While NASA developed an elaborate space pen, the Soviets simply used pencils, highlighting the potential pitfalls of overengineering. In product management, overengineering occurs when teams try to solve all edge cases, leading to overly complex products that are costly and difficult to maintain. This complexity often arises from feature creep—adding extra features that provide little value—resulting in bloated, less user-friendly solutions. Applying principles like the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) approach helps keep solutions efficient and focused on core user needs. Product managers should always assess whether a problem requires complexity or if there is a practical, more straightforward alternative.
Solution overengineering refers to designing a solution that is far more complex than necessary for the problem at hand. It is problematic because it leads to higher costs, increased maintenance difficulty, and potential user confusion. Simpler solutions often provide the same value with less effort and fewer resources.
Simplicity is crucial in product management because it leads to a better user experience, lower development and maintenance costs, and quicker time to market. Focusing on simplicity allows product teams to build solutions that are efficient, effective, and easier to manage, which ultimately benefits both the user and the business.
Common signs of overengineering include feature creep (adding unnecessary features), overly intricate workflows, and a lack of alignment with user needs. If a product or process feels bloated, resource-intensive, or difficult to understand, it could be a sign that the solution has been overengineered.
Common signs of overengineering include feature creep (adding unnecessary features), overly intricate workflows, and a lack of alignment with user needs. If a product or process feels bloated, resource-intensive, or difficult to understand, it could be a sign that the solution has been overengineered.
.png)
.png)
.png)