I've been struggling lately with the fact that it seems like every model of success, either personal, professional, or economic, seems to view growth as positive... Publicly traded companies without the prospect of growing market shares get punished by Wall Street, and politicians and planners frequently cite growth of local businesses in a given area as support for their policies working.
I understand that in many ways growth is inevitable (e.g. population, barring catastrophic global changes... perhaps a poor example), and in others it is genuinely beneficial (e.g. increases in literacy rate). I'm not necessarily anti-growth, but it seems that our default reaction is that growth = success, and I'm not sure that's true.
Many of the ideals of sustainable or biomimetic design theory move us back towards a model of stasis (i.e. net-zero buildings, balancing carbon output with sequestration, how natural ecosystems generally find a balance between inputs and outputs)
I pose two questions.
1. Are there any industries or specific companies that exemplify a non-growth model of success that come to mind?
2. If the world moves towards a model that favors balance over growth, what does that mean for architecture? ...time to amp up the remodeling/renovation portfolio?
My first reactionary response would be that in order to escape death, you make choices to live. In order to live, you need to have or gain the competitive advantage. And in order to gain, you need to learn, adapt in effect, grow. I believe this idea is applicable to both living organisms and organizations. (assuming you believe in natural selection and evolution).
If anyone has a valid and current example of anything that is successful with a non-growth model, I would love to hear it.
By increasing the efficiency of a company you can increases profits, which will add value for shareholders. We are seeing a lot of that right now.
The entire economy works like this. Until our population stops, we will continue to advance technology, work on better lifestyle for everyone, from health to new iPods.
It is just our nature to keep moving forward, to always look for something better. I would think that the environmental progress is just another part of that equation.
What is 'successful' is subjective, too. Someone might have a small business and be fine with it being the same size forever. That person could be making millions and never wish to expand. I'd call that person/business successful without any growth.
It might be possible to create or find business models that do not have growth as the main quantifier of their success, but only if you nullify or minmise risk.
If you eliminate risk, you eliminate the potential for gain or loss. The question is, can you eliminate risk? If risk is not present in a proposed transaction or model, whats the point of pursuing it?
You could argue that the Not For Profit Mode is subsidised by other risk-based models. For example, a charity based on philanthropy is reliant on money earned by others at risk.
Yes, RMI is a non-profit organization. You might check out "Natural Capitalism" by RMI founders Amory and Hunter Loving + Paul Hawken.
afrdzak: I believe in many ways this starts with an entity (oneself, an organization, government) providing a holistic account of the qualitative and quantitative consequences (intended, unintended/externalities) of ones actions (social equity, ecological, economic).
In more practical terms, this is known as full-cost accounting (life cycle costing, externalities, etc.)
Success, equality and balance is like that old engineering formula of cost, time, and quality: If it's cost effective and quick, it's not a quality result; if it's quality you want, it will take time and cost more; no deadlines? then make it work at any cost. - you can't have all three. Success is based on advantage over the status quo (balance?) so that means evolving (growth - a.k.a. competitive edge) undermines equality.
Build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis.
–Patagonia's Mission Statement
"In 1991, after years of 30 to 50 percent annual growth, Patagonia faced crisis. The United States had entered a recession, and the growth stopped. Patagonia’s primary lender was in financial trouble, and it sharply reduced its credit line. To bring its borrowing within the new limits the company had to drastically reduce spending. The owners were forced to rethink priorities and institute new practices.
Chouinard came to the conclusion that uncontrolled growth put at risk the values that had made the company succeed so far. Now Patagonia takes many steps to control its growth, such as drastically limiting its catalog distribution and not taking the company public in an IPO. Chouinard even encourages his customers to buy less and focus on their needs rather than their wants. He insists that every time Patagonia invests in the environment, he sees an increase in the company's bottom line." http://www.good2work.com/article/6039
Small Giants, Companies that choose quality instead of growth. It consists of case studies of companies that are successful by nearly all standards, but have decided to stay small, some as small as one or two people.
Growth does not necessarily mean more efficiency. Most businesses have a size where you can take advantage of efficiencies like shared equipment, enough staff to overcome scheduling problems etc., but not big enough to have overhead like an HR department. I think for architecture firms, that size is around 25 to 30.
Regarding the definition of balance, I was thinking along the lines that right now world births are exceeding world deaths by a ratio of about 2.3 to 1. Assuming static world resources (i.e. assuming we don't start colonizing other planets), eventually there will not be enough resources to sustain the people alive.
The most obvious stop-gap measure is to increase efficiency, but we can only cut our consumption of materials per capita so much. There is a lower threshold under which we can no longer rely on efficiency, as further reductions would be below the sustenance we need to survive.
My concept of balance then, is a notion of a world that strives for equilibrium. This does not mean that change will not occur, but instead requires that anything new must be offset by a reduction of use of something existing. At the most drastic level this could potentially (or perhaps necessarily?) mean population control, but I'm more interested in what this means from an architecture and urban design standpoint.
Assuming a level population, there should presumably mean no need for further expansion away from our cities. Sprawl would presumably become a much lesser issue, yet perhaps the knowledge of a 'fixed' environment would spur
How would renewal take place? Do we assume that technological advances (say, increased ability to reduce energy use in buildings freeing up resources for other endeavors) would support a planned obsolescence model of design and construction (i.e. continual renewal) or would design increasingly lean towards ultra longevity (i.e. 1000 year buildings and a much more static built environment)? While the former would likely result in a higher quality built environment (based on the assumption that design skills inevitably increase as society progresses, and notion with arguable justification), it seems like the latter would result in a far more efficient use of resources.
What I find more interesting about a stable population is that it stands to reason that economic markets stabilize as well. There may be a need for only 50,000 architects worldwide across time. I have a hard time picturing a capitalist, free-will based employment scheme functioning in this environment. What if a disproportionate amount of people want to be architects? How does our system of education where you can essentially choose what you want to learn after high school function? It seems to me more likely that professions would be assigned rather than chosen.
I'm pretty much rambling here, and there's no real reason for me bringing it up, but what the hell... theory's fun some times. Thanks for all the great responses.
"yet perhaps the knowledge of a 'fixed' environment would spur" a drive to stake out one's territory in a way that more equally subdivides land resources among all people yielding a far more dispersed (but self-sustaining) pattern of land use.
I have been listening to the Book "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell this past week while traveling between meetings at job sites. I would say it is a good listen even more so than a read. He has a nice voice and it is kind of a story telling kind of book with alot of facts and figures which seem to stay with me longer than when I'm reading them. He does layout one thought of how success is reached, but than again I may be the exception.
the guy who wrote Edge Cities - which described in great detail the social patterns of the 80's and 90's -- also wote a book called: Radical Evolution: The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies -- and What It Means to Be Human
dsc_arch: I'm not fully convinced that the small businesses that you refer to are permanently sustainable at their present size. As a business they will continue to be successful only if they manage to sustain their competitive advantage and if the market allows it. If, for example, the market gets saturated (this happens all the time) with the same service then in order for that business to continue to be as successful they will need to change in some form or fashion. Coming from an IT industry, this is very common. But I guess I can't generalize this over all industries. Also, change doesn't necessarily equate to growth, or does it?
Antishthenes: good examples, but I think those are outside the scope of this conversation.
Growth does not necessarily mean size. As people grow they change.
our project mix did not allow us to be sustainable at 12 people. the crash happened and now we adapted and are four. I don't know if I'd ever want to be 12 again.
I may want a second office someplace warm.
Aug 11, 09 10:23 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Is success really dependent on growth?
I've been struggling lately with the fact that it seems like every model of success, either personal, professional, or economic, seems to view growth as positive... Publicly traded companies without the prospect of growing market shares get punished by Wall Street, and politicians and planners frequently cite growth of local businesses in a given area as support for their policies working.
I understand that in many ways growth is inevitable (e.g. population, barring catastrophic global changes... perhaps a poor example), and in others it is genuinely beneficial (e.g. increases in literacy rate). I'm not necessarily anti-growth, but it seems that our default reaction is that growth = success, and I'm not sure that's true.
Many of the ideals of sustainable or biomimetic design theory move us back towards a model of stasis (i.e. net-zero buildings, balancing carbon output with sequestration, how natural ecosystems generally find a balance between inputs and outputs)
I pose two questions.
1. Are there any industries or specific companies that exemplify a non-growth model of success that come to mind?
2. If the world moves towards a model that favors balance over growth, what does that mean for architecture? ...time to amp up the remodeling/renovation portfolio?
My first reactionary response would be that in order to escape death, you make choices to live. In order to live, you need to have or gain the competitive advantage. And in order to gain, you need to learn, adapt in effect, grow. I believe this idea is applicable to both living organisms and organizations. (assuming you believe in natural selection and evolution).
If anyone has a valid and current example of anything that is successful with a non-growth model, I would love to hear it.
the cycle of water on earth
the law of thermodynamics
By increasing the efficiency of a company you can increases profits, which will add value for shareholders. We are seeing a lot of that right now.
The entire economy works like this. Until our population stops, we will continue to advance technology, work on better lifestyle for everyone, from health to new iPods.
It is just our nature to keep moving forward, to always look for something better. I would think that the environmental progress is just another part of that equation.
What is 'successful' is subjective, too. Someone might have a small business and be fine with it being the same size forever. That person could be making millions and never wish to expand. I'd call that person/business successful without any growth.
I had year-long class on this at UW.
There's a geography professor who has though about it this quite a bit...
I'll look.
Some thoughts:
It might be possible to create or find business models that do not have growth as the main quantifier of their success, but only if you nullify or minmise risk.
If you eliminate risk, you eliminate the potential for gain or loss. The question is, can you eliminate risk? If risk is not present in a proposed transaction or model, whats the point of pursuing it?
By increasing the efficiency of a company you can increases profits, which will turn your workforce in meth-addicted zombies.
Fix'd that for you! ;)
I have pimped for this book a lot. It goes to the point of staying small and being successful.
http://www.amazon.com/Staying-Small-Successfully-Architects-Professionals/dp/0471407739
I don't think I paid that much for it, but it was worth every penny.
Can someone else actually read it and discuss?
However you always need the act of constant renewal and personal growth.
Another book i would recommend that talks about success as defined by you is: http://www.amazon.com/E-Myth-Revisited-Small-Businesses-About/dp/0887307280
My first thought is the work being done by the Rocky Mountain Institute.
While still predicated on growth, they also bring balance back into the dialogue as it pertains to human ecology, built environment, etc.
They are a nonprofit organization, though.
Thanks for the link, interesting things on there.
how about the Not For Profit mode?
You could argue that the Not For Profit Mode is subsidised by other risk-based models. For example, a charity based on philanthropy is reliant on money earned by others at risk.
Define balance.
Yes, RMI is a non-profit organization. You might check out "Natural Capitalism" by RMI founders Amory and Hunter Loving + Paul Hawken.
afrdzak: I believe in many ways this starts with an entity (oneself, an organization, government) providing a holistic account of the qualitative and quantitative consequences (intended, unintended/externalities) of ones actions (social equity, ecological, economic).
In more practical terms, this is known as full-cost accounting (life cycle costing, externalities, etc.)
*Lovins not "Loving"; but then again, loving is all we need :)
...or is it McLovin?
RealLifeLEED: My apologizes for slightly diverting the conversation. You pose some excellent questions.
Success, equality and balance is like that old engineering formula of cost, time, and quality: If it's cost effective and quick, it's not a quality result; if it's quality you want, it will take time and cost more; no deadlines? then make it work at any cost. - you can't have all three. Success is based on advantage over the status quo (balance?) so that means evolving (growth - a.k.a. competitive edge) undermines equality.
success=growth?
Build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis.
–Patagonia's Mission Statement
"In 1991, after years of 30 to 50 percent annual growth, Patagonia faced crisis. The United States had entered a recession, and the growth stopped. Patagonia’s primary lender was in financial trouble, and it sharply reduced its credit line. To bring its borrowing within the new limits the company had to drastically reduce spending. The owners were forced to rethink priorities and institute new practices.
Chouinard came to the conclusion that uncontrolled growth put at risk the values that had made the company succeed so far. Now Patagonia takes many steps to control its growth, such as drastically limiting its catalog distribution and not taking the company public in an IPO. Chouinard even encourages his customers to buy less and focus on their needs rather than their wants. He insists that every time Patagonia invests in the environment, he sees an increase in the company's bottom line."
http://www.good2work.com/article/6039
Another book to look at
http://www.amazon.com/Small-Giants-Companies-Choose-Instead/dp/1591840937/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250010593&sr=1-1
Small Giants, Companies that choose quality instead of growth. It consists of case studies of companies that are successful by nearly all standards, but have decided to stay small, some as small as one or two people.
Growth does not necessarily mean more efficiency. Most businesses have a size where you can take advantage of efficiencies like shared equipment, enough staff to overcome scheduling problems etc., but not big enough to have overhead like an HR department. I think for architecture firms, that size is around 25 to 30.
afrdzak,
Regarding the definition of balance, I was thinking along the lines that right now world births are exceeding world deaths by a ratio of about 2.3 to 1. Assuming static world resources (i.e. assuming we don't start colonizing other planets), eventually there will not be enough resources to sustain the people alive.
The most obvious stop-gap measure is to increase efficiency, but we can only cut our consumption of materials per capita so much. There is a lower threshold under which we can no longer rely on efficiency, as further reductions would be below the sustenance we need to survive.
My concept of balance then, is a notion of a world that strives for equilibrium. This does not mean that change will not occur, but instead requires that anything new must be offset by a reduction of use of something existing. At the most drastic level this could potentially (or perhaps necessarily?) mean population control, but I'm more interested in what this means from an architecture and urban design standpoint.
Assuming a level population, there should presumably mean no need for further expansion away from our cities. Sprawl would presumably become a much lesser issue, yet perhaps the knowledge of a 'fixed' environment would spur
How would renewal take place? Do we assume that technological advances (say, increased ability to reduce energy use in buildings freeing up resources for other endeavors) would support a planned obsolescence model of design and construction (i.e. continual renewal) or would design increasingly lean towards ultra longevity (i.e. 1000 year buildings and a much more static built environment)? While the former would likely result in a higher quality built environment (based on the assumption that design skills inevitably increase as society progresses, and notion with arguable justification), it seems like the latter would result in a far more efficient use of resources.
What I find more interesting about a stable population is that it stands to reason that economic markets stabilize as well. There may be a need for only 50,000 architects worldwide across time. I have a hard time picturing a capitalist, free-will based employment scheme functioning in this environment. What if a disproportionate amount of people want to be architects? How does our system of education where you can essentially choose what you want to learn after high school function? It seems to me more likely that professions would be assigned rather than chosen.
I'm pretty much rambling here, and there's no real reason for me bringing it up, but what the hell... theory's fun some times. Thanks for all the great responses.
"yet perhaps the knowledge of a 'fixed' environment would spur" a drive to stake out one's territory in a way that more equally subdivides land resources among all people yielding a far more dispersed (but self-sustaining) pattern of land use.
Just stumbled on this interesting statistical clock.
I don't know anything about the accuracy of the figures or who this guy is, but there's some interesting ratios to be found.
Forest cut vs. forest replanted - about 2 to 1
bicycles produced vs. cars produced - about 3 to 1
etc...
I have been listening to the Book "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell this past week while traveling between meetings at job sites. I would say it is a good listen even more so than a read. He has a nice voice and it is kind of a story telling kind of book with alot of facts and figures which seem to stay with me longer than when I'm reading them. He does layout one thought of how success is reached, but than again I may be the exception.
growth i think is a conceit of modernism. to make things better seems more contemporary.
the guy who wrote Edge Cities - which described in great detail the social patterns of the 80's and 90's -- also wote a book called: Radical Evolution: The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies -- and What It Means to Be Human
http://www.amazon.com/Radical-Evolution-Promise-Enhancing-Bodies/dp/0767915038/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1
I have yet to read it but it moves toward the concept of "the technological singularity" Wickpedia describes it well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
my thought that is that if we achieve balance it will only be through this AI called skynet.
the four possibilities:
http://www.garreau.com/docs/upload/wilson%20quarterly%20infrastructure%2020081.pdf
dsc_arch: I'm not fully convinced that the small businesses that you refer to are permanently sustainable at their present size. As a business they will continue to be successful only if they manage to sustain their competitive advantage and if the market allows it. If, for example, the market gets saturated (this happens all the time) with the same service then in order for that business to continue to be as successful they will need to change in some form or fashion. Coming from an IT industry, this is very common. But I guess I can't generalize this over all industries. Also, change doesn't necessarily equate to growth, or does it?
Antishthenes: good examples, but I think those are outside the scope of this conversation.
Growth does not necessarily mean size. As people grow they change.
our project mix did not allow us to be sustainable at 12 people. the crash happened and now we adapted and are four. I don't know if I'd ever want to be 12 again.
I may want a second office someplace warm.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.