When systems become flexible, they often become harder to explain.
That's what we ran into after working with configuration-heavy workflows for a while. Nothing was broken. Outputs were correct. But it was getting harder to explain why certain choices were made, or how small configuration changes affected later steps.
At first, we treated this as normal complexity. Eventually, we realized the issue wasn't how complex the system was.It was how much of that complexity was invisible.
When configuration knowledge lives only in people's heads
Highly configurable workflows depend on many small, unwritten decisions.
Some options are technically allowed but rarely used. Some combinations work only under specific conditions. Others exist because of historical decisions no one fully remembers anymore.
This isn't unusual.
The problem starts when this knowledge lives mostly in people's heads. New team members ask the same questions. Experienced team members give slightly different answers depending on context. Over time, the "right way" to do things becomes unclear.
The confusion didn't come from missing tools or lack of capability. It came from assumptions that were never written down.
What actually breaks when decisions aren't documented
Missing documentation didn't cause major failures. Instead, it created small but constant friction.
Work would pause while someone waited for confirmation.
For example, a configuration might be delayed simply because no one was sure whether a specific option was acceptable in that situation—even though similar setups had been approved before.
Decisions were revisited because their original reasoning wasn't clear.
Sometimes this meant reopening old conversations just to answer a simple question: "Why did we choose this last time?"
Each moment felt minor. Together, they added up.
More importantly, they created uncertainty. When people aren't confident about how a system is meant to be used, they either overthink every decision or avoid changing anything at all. Neither works well in complex workflows.
Why our first attempts at documentation failed
Our first reaction was to document everything.
That didn't help.
Early documentation was too abstract. In many cases, it explained what components did, but not when or why someone should choose one option over another.
Technically, the documentation answered questions—just not the ones people were asking during real work.
Timing also mattered. Much of the documentation was written after problems occurred. By then, some context was already lost, and the documentation reflected ideal behavior rather than actual workflows.
The shift that made documentation useful
Things improved when we changed how we thought about documentation.
Instead of treating it as a static reference, we treated it as a record of decisions. Rather than listing every possible option, we focused on explaining why certain choices made sense in specific situations.
Examples became more useful than rules. Real configuration paths replaced theoretical ones. Edge cases were documented not to be exhaustive, but to explain why they were edge cases.
This didn't remove complexity, but it made complexity easier to reason about.
What improved once documentation matched reality
Once documentation reflected real workflows, changes happened quickly.
Questions became more focused. Discussions moved faster. Decisions felt more consistent, even across different people. There was less back-and-forth just to confirm basic assumptions.
Most importantly, documentation stopped feeling like a chore. People relied on it because it helped, not because they were told to use it.
Closing thoughts
Complex systems don't become simple just because they're documented.
But when documentation explains intent—not just structure—it gives teams shared clarity about why things work the way they do. That alone removes a surprising amount of friction.
For us, documenting configuration workflows didn't eliminate complexity. It made complexity visible. And once complexity is visible, it becomes manageable.
Top comments (0)