Blog

Posted on

Branching out (and clash detection)

I read this in the Hidden Life of Trees.

In a woodland canopy, if two trees of the same species are growing near to each other, their branches won’t overlap.  

But when different species of trees grow side-by-side, they do compete and overlap. 

This incredible. When the tips of tree branches approach one another, they somehow know, and take the most appropriate action. Without drawings, without meetings and with BIM (building information modelling). They sense, respond and coordinate — in realtime and and mid-air. 

Contrast this with a modern, multidisciplinary design team trying to avoid clashes between all the interlacing systems in a building. Even with powerful computer models we find it difficult for one building system not to bump into another. 

The living world makes coordination look easy. 

Posted on

Cabin in the woods (a preview)

Tucked between Douglas Fir and regenerating birch, there’s a small green oak cabin at Hazel Hill Wood. From its windows and door, all you can see is woodland. 

The cabin was gifted to the Trust by our founder, Alan Heeks, and yesterday I worked with a group of volunteers to give it a spring clean. We’re hoping to bring it back to life — maybe as a writer’s cabin, maybe a solo retreat space.

I can vouch for it as a place to write. This is where I drafted the Critical Thinking training for Useful Simple Trust (some of which made it into the Pattern Book for Regenerative Design). It is also where I have written many blog posts. 

In time, I’d love to see team leaders or designers using the space — staying a night or two and putting their plans through a series of regenerative prompts. And they might not even need the prompts, as the wood seems to ask questions of you the more time you spend there. 

The cabin still needs a few upgrades, and we’re thinking of launching a crowdfunder to help make it happen. If a solo professional retreat in the woods sounds like your kind of thing, let me know.

Posted on

Don’t scale up — scale right

There are no factories in the living world. Or at least if there are, they are very well camouflaged. 

Humans, by contrast, are very attached to factories. By reducing variation and tightly managing the handover between every step of the process – in other words, the relationships – assembly lines can be optimised for throughput.

Profit is often linked to throughput. Both in terms of the per-unit mark-up on a manufactured item, and in terms of dividing fixed costs, the more you make the more money you make. 

And so standardisation becomes the driving factor. Standard inputs, standard processes, uniform outputs. Each variation brings costs and lowers profits. 

Looking out across the understory here at Hazel Hill Wood, I see a certain degree of standardisation. The only plants I see are birch, holly, Douglas Fir, bracken and bramble. But go to a different part of the wood and the variation and balance of species will be different, depending on the specific variations of that location. In each location, the wood finds the best way it can to grow harmoniously. And in each location, that is slightly different.

The regenerative designer seeks to work with that specific variation, not because of some nostalgia for smaller scale construction, but because they recognise the greater potential value that can be unlocked from working with variation. 

Variation does not work at scale. When large teams need be kept up-to-date and coordinated around changes, then the admin overhead quickly balloons. 

All this points towards construction models built around smaller, agile teams—able to turn the specific variations of place into an advantage. Creating designs that are more harmonious (and therefore with fewer hidden costs). And unlocking local, positive feedback loops that strengthen the local economy and ecology. 

If your goal is throughput, scale up. But if your goal is to maximise value across business, ecology and community — then find the scale that lets all these systems flourish.

Scale up for throughput, but scale right for thriving.

Posted on

On scale, specialisation and life beyond pins

One of the commonly-cited benefits of scaling-up an operation is to enable individuals to specialise

Adam Smith famously argued that a pin factory, where each worker focused on specific step of the pin-manufacturing process, far more pins could be made than if each worker made whole pins on their own. 

This example has become one of the key doctrines of classical economics. But I find the example disingenuous. 

Firstly, because it is not like before Adam Smith came along there were halls full of pin makers unproductively making pins on their own. More likely, there were people who could make pins — and they could also make a host of other ironmongery — because they skilled in metalwork and a broad range of related skills. 

Life doesn’t just need pins. 

Second, his pin factory only works under a specific set of conditions. 

To make the most of each specialised worker, there must be no bottlenecks from one step to the next. Workers must work in shifts to maintain flow. There can be no variation in output. Input materials must be reliably supplied. Environmental conditions must be tightly controlled. And there must be a constant supply of customers, all buying pins.

But meeting all of these requirements, this now large-scale enterprise starts to exert a gravitational pull of its own. It shapes when, how and for how long people work. Like a giant magnet, supplies of iron are sucked into it. And it shapes what people consume — more pins. 

Scaling up does enable specialisation. And specialisation can increase productivity. But we mustn’t leave the wider costs of specialisation out of the denominator on the productivity equation. 

The regenerative designer asks, not how can I scale up, but how can I find the scale of operation that enables the most parts of the system to benefit?

Posted on

The maths of too many meetings

Do you ever feel that all you do is sit in coordination meetings?

If two people work together, then there is one relationship to manage.

By manage, I mean checking in with each other, setting goals, coordinating activity, giving feedback etc.

If three people work together, there’s three individual relationships to manage.

If four people work together, there’s six relationships.

If ten people work together, there’s 45 relationships to manage.

You get the picture. The number of relationships in a group of people quickly blows up as the group size grows.

For a group of n people, the number of individual relationships is n(n-1)/2. In other words, it’s a squared relationship.

And if the number of relationships goes up, so does the number of coordination meetings.

Of course, the reason for growing the number of people in the team is usually to gain productivity. But the gain in productivity has to outweigh the admin burden of coordination.

Doubling the team size means quadrupling the amount of coordination. But does doubling team size really increase output by a factor of 4? If the admin overhead is going up quicker than the output, then productivity is going down.

It’s no wonder that people complain that they are in back-to-back meetings and can’t get any work done.

Perhaps the system has got too large — the means no-longer justify the ends.

Posted on

Ultra-processed information

It’s super quick to absorb. 

Cheaply available. 

It bares little resemblance to its source. 

Its ingredients can come from anywhere. 

The growers are anonymous. 

Put together using processes you don’t understand.

It is optimised for what you crave rather than what you need.

And like other ultra-processed things:

It doesn’t quench your hunger.

It’s addictive. 

Easy to binge on.

But can be strangely unsatisfying. 

But we don’t just think with our heads — we think with our whole bodies. 

We process information by moving through the world, interacting with the environment, relating to other people, remembering through different neural centres in the body. Thinking has physical and emotional dimensions alongside the cognitive that are part of how we have evolved to make sense of the world.

When we are more active seekers of information rather than passive consumers:

  • We have to seek out what we need, creating relationships with sources, with people, with places. 
  • The process takes time, which gives us time to think.
  • We give the opportunity for our full range of bodily thinking circuits to participate. 
  • The inputs require chewing on, and this gives us time to discern what need.

The process is slower but the outcome is more nourishing.

Posted on

Non-fungible Tree

This dying tree is outside London Euston station. It desperately needs water.

It sits next to the stump of the enormous London Plain that was recently felled to make way for the construction of the new station.

It symbolises so much about the relationship between construction and the living world. 

How efficient we can be at destroying life. And incompetent at creating it. 

Posted on

Just-in-its-own-time delivery

We’ve become used to just-in-time delivery. The antithesis of stockpiled inventory. 

But when the living world delivers its abundance, it happens all at once. Anyone engaged in community fruit growing in the south of England will know that this season, it has all come at once. 

This is inconvenient — but living systems don’t exist for our convenience. Rather we have the chance to benefit from their surplus. 

Forcing a cyclical system to produce a continuous output diminishes it, reduces quality and stresses the system. The healthier option for the ecosystem is for us to work with abundance when it arrives. 

This applies whether we are gathering fruit or harvesting materials from buildings that awaiting demolition. 

When it comes, we need to drop everything to harvest, distribute and prepare for storage until it is needed in the leaner months.

Posted on

What do they grow?

I recently revisited a childhood film favourite, The Young Einstein. It begins on a cider farm in Tasmania. One evening, our hero tells his parents, 

“I want to be a physicist.”

Dad responds, “That’s great son. What do they grow?”