A new approach to software design prioritises removing friction over adding features, with artificial intelligence serving as a tool to streamline workflows rather than complicate them, argues Mohib Shabbar.
The most effective software often succeeds by removing work, not by adding more controls. That is the central argument of Mohib Shabbar’s essay, which says the real test of product design is whether a system can eliminate repetitive actions, decisions and checks rather than simply decorate them with extra screens. The article frames that idea as an antidote to feature bloat, a problem that other industry pieces also identify as a drag on usability, retention and delivery speed.
A common mistake in product teams is to treat every request as a licence to build another module. As the essay notes, a request for a daily sales update does not necessarily mean users want a dashboard with filters, exports and charts. It may mean they want the answer delivered automatically, in a form that is easy to scan and act on. That distinction matters because it shifts the goal from adding functionality to removing friction.
This is where simpler systems become more valuable. Articles from Artisan Growth Strategies and KISS-focused software design guides argue that unnecessary complexity raises costs, weakens maintenance and makes products harder to use. In practical terms, a cleaner workflow can be more competitive than a denser one, because users tend to prefer software that helps them finish a task quickly rather than software that exposes every possible option.
The same logic applies inside development teams. Exeditec and ValueCoders both argue that simplifying processes improves delivery speed, code quality and collaboration, while McKinsey has warned that poor software execution can leave firms at a strategic disadvantage. Netrom Software adds that developer experience is also part of the equation: if internal tools and processes are cumbersome, the cost of building and maintaining features rises as well.
Artificial intelligence makes the argument sharper, not weaker. Shabbar’s essay suggests that AI should move software from a user-led sequence of clicks towards goal-based automation, but only if the underlying process is already well understood. Otherwise, AI simply speeds up complexity. The better question, the article argues, is not what else can be built, but what can be made unnecessary: one less approval, one less screen, one less manual check. For many products, that is where real value begins.
Disclaimer: This content is intended for informational purposes only. Readers are advised to exercise their own judgement, conduct due diligence, or consult a qualified expert before acting on any information provided.
