The case for simpler networking – without oversimplifying the problem

There are more demands on business networks than ever. Cloud applications now dominate traffic patterns, workforces are more distributed, security expectations keep rising, and the network has quietly become critical to almost every part of the business.

At the same time, most IT teams haven’t been given more people, more time or often even better tools. In many organisations, you’re being asked to support a broader, more complex environment with exactly the same resources.

And that tension – between growing demands and finite capacity – is where much of the frustration comes from. It’s also fertile ground where conversations about simplicity can start.

What simplicity isn’t

Ironically, such a simple term as ‘simplicity’ is often misunderstood. It’s sometimes taken to mean fewer features, less control, or a one-size-fits all model. For organisations running complex, business-critical environments, that can feel unrealistic – risky even.

But modern networks haven’t become difficult because they’re too capable. They have become harder to operate, harder to adapt and harder to trust when change is required. And, for multiple reasons, change in business is accelerating.

So the real issue isn’t complexity itself, but unmanaged complexity. Layers of technology that have grown organically, tools owned by different teams, and networks that technically work but feel fragile when you need to make changes.

What a simpler network really means

When organisations talk about wanting a simpler network, they’re rarely asking for less capability. More often, they’re looking for practical improvements in how the network behaves day to day.

Things like clear visibility into how applications and sites are performing, confidence that changes won’t introduce unexpected issues, less time spent firefighting routine problems, and clear accountability when something goes wrong.

In short, they’re looking for operational simplicity. A network that is easier to live with, even when the underlying technology is sophisticated.

It’s a distinction worth making, because it really matters. Powerful networks don’t need to be dumbed down to be usable. But they do need to be designed, integrated and run in a way that reduces pressure on already stretched teams.

The right balance: different for every organisation

As wide area networking has evolved, so has the range of viable approaches. Organisations now have real choice across SD-WAN platforms, service models and architectural patterns, with each offering a different balance of control, flexibility and ease of use.

Some environments need deep customisation, granular policy control and tight integration with existing infrastructure. Others prioritise speed of deployment, consistency across sites and a more cloud-managed experience. Many sit somewhere in between.

There’s no single SD-WAN model that works best for everyone. What matters most is choosing an approach that aligns with your estate, your risk profile and your team’s capacity to operate it day to day.

The mistake is assuming that either maximum control or maximum simplicity is the right answer. That’s a false binary. In practice, the right fit depends on where complexity adds real value, and where it simply creates friction.

When complexity works – and when it doesn’t

Modern networks are made up of multiple layers: underlay connectivity, SD-WAN, local networks, WiFi, and an increasingly close relationship with security services and cloud platforms.

Handled well, this complexity enables resilience, performance and adaptability. Handled badly, it introduces silos, slows down change and increases operational risk.

The difference is rarely the technology itself. More often, it comes down to how those layers are brought together, who owns them, and how clearly responsibilities are defined. A network designed as a single, coherent service behaves very differently from one assembled piece by piece.

This is also where service models matter. Fully managed and co-managed approaches exist because not every organisation wants – or needs – to carry the full operational burden themselves.

A practical view from long-term network journeys

This becomes clearest when you look at organisations that have been evolving their networks over time. Businesses that began with private WANs, moved to support cloud applications, and later introduced SD-WAN to improve resilience and flexibility.

In our experience, success rarely comes from ripping everything out and starting again. It comes from evolving the network in a controlled way. By keeping what still works, modernising what doesn’t, and making sure each step reduces risk rather than adding to it.

Over time, that approach builds confidence. The network stops being something your teams worry about and becomes a foundation they can rely on.

Looking ahead

Networking and security are continuing to converge, and expectations around availability, performance and protection will only increase. In that context, the networks that perform best won’t necessarily be the simplest on paper. They’ll be the ones that are easiest to operate, adapt and extend as requirements change.

That starts with making clear choices, applying appropriate levels of complexity and focusing on outcomes rather than features. It also relies on experience – understanding how different approaches behave in real environments, not just how they look in diagrams or spec sheets.

With the right foundations in place, modern networks can deliver both the capability organisations need and the clarity that teams are asking for. And a good place to start is to find the right partner to help you on your journey.

If you’re exploring how your network can better support the way your business operates today, and how it will need to evolve, our networking pages are a great place to go deeper or start a conversation with our team.