I'm getting a little obsessed with "exponential change." We've been throwing the phrase around for long enough for it to have practically lost its impact. And that's dangerous, because it refers to some of the most exhilirating (and frightening) prospects for humanity over the next quarter century.
First, definitions. Our Wikipedia friends define exponential growth thusly:
...a quantity that grows exponentially is one that grows at a rate proportional to its size. This means that for any exponentially growing quantity, the larger the quantity gets, the faster it grows.
Simple enough.
Second, since the rate of growth is proportional to size, the rate of growth increases as size increases. The magic of compound interest is an example of exponential growth. So, growth, or change accelerates as the size of the quantity increases.
Third, exponential change is sneaky. Why do I say that? Look:
For the first few years, exponential change looks like nothin's happening. For several years after that, it looks like only a little bit's happening. Then, "suddenly," (to the eyes of the uninitiated), BANG! Big change. Now, geeks know the most famous version of this as Moore's Law, which said that the processing power of an integrated circuit would double about every 24 months. Anything that doubles every 24 months is a big deal. In fact, according to Ray Kurzweil's speech at Accelerating Change 2005, there have been 36 doublings of IC processing power over the last 24 years.
OK, but, what if the quantity is a quality; a characteristic? What if we are trying to enhance the frequency and quality of collaboration within a system, a company for example. Is it possible to design a methodology that would lead to exponential growth of collaboration?
Well, some organizational cultures seem to be successful in doing just that. If you read stories about WL Gore, Inc. (the Gore-Tex people) you'll find example after example of ways in which Gore has evolved a corporate culture built on collaboration. From their web site:
We've repeatedly been named among the '100 Best Companies to Work for in America,' and our culture is a model for contemporary organizations seeking growth by unleashing creativity and fostering team-work.
[Snip]How we work sets us apart. Gore encourages hands-on innovation, involving those closest to a project in decision making. Teams organize around opportunities and leaders emerge.
[Snip]Our founder, Bill Gore created a flat lattice organization. There are no chains of command nor pre-determined channels of communication. Instead, we communicate directly with each other and are accountable to fellow members of our multi-disciplined teams.
How does all this happen? Associates (not employees) are hired for general work areas. With the guidance of their sponsors (not bosses) and a growing understanding of opportunities and team objectives, associates commit to projects that match their skills. All of this takes place in an environment that combines freedom with cooperation and autonomy with synergy.
Everyone can quickly earn the credibility to define and drive projects. Sponsors help associates chart a course in the organization that will offer personal fulfillment while maximizing their contribution to the enterprise. Leaders may be appointed, but are defined by 'followership.' More often, leaders emerge naturally by demonstrating special knowledge, skill, or experience that advances a business objective.
Associates adhere to four basic guiding principles articulated by Bill Gore:
So, here's a company that has evolved a highly successful business culture (sales of over $1.5 billion with 6,000 employees) by improvising on four basic guiding principles.
I'd venture to say that somewhere during the history of that evolution, Gore reached an inflection point; a moment when the culture utilized collaboration in ways that were significantly different than they had before, perhaps unrecognizably so.
This idea of "unrecognizable" came up in another Accelerating Change 2005 talk on "singularity" by Vernor Vinge. (I purchased podcasts of all the AC2005 sessions from Doug Kaye's invaluable IT Conversations.) Interestingly, Vinge says that there are "incomprehensible consequences" after a singularity occurs. That is, it is impossible to imagine what things would be like after such an event. Even more interstingly, Vinge proposes two alternative scenarios a singularity: a "soft takeoff" (in which we see signs of the transition from the pre- to post-singularity state), and a "hard takeoff" in which, BANG, things are dramatically different almost overnight.
Now, I know I'm stretching the analogy beyond all reason, but, I'm intrigued by the possibility of a "cultural singularity," one in which dramatic changes (say in the quantity and quality of collaboration) transform a culture in ways incomprehensible to those in the pre-singularity environment.
A hard-takeoff cultural singularity...that's enough to keep me jazzed while I work on a major cultural transformation for a client over the next few months.
Tom, once again you have got my mind racing; thanks! A mind is a terrible thing to idle!
Great question: Is it possible to design a methodology that would lead to exponential growth of collaboration?
Gore is a great illustration; do you have examples from the retail store world?
Posted by: Michael Wagner | October 26, 2005 at 11:08 PM
Thanks, Michael. I've been involved in several good examples, but none I can share, unfortunately.
Posted by: Tom | October 28, 2005 at 05:48 PM
Interesting stuff! But would you want to have an exponential growth in collaboration? Mightn't that just end up being inefficient - i.e. if everyone collaborates with everyone (which is presumably the end result)?
Related, I suppose, is the idea of punctuated equilibrium. (Which as far as I understand it is: long period of calm, BANG, exponential growth, (exponential) decline, long period of calm ...)
If one of the lessons from complexity theory is that you can't sensibly predict the hard-take-offs, perhaps Gore's four-pointer makes sure that: a) they're in a position to make the most of the "incomprehensible consequences" in the world outside (by ramping up collaboration exponentially), and b) they're in a position to balance the ship/whittle down the sillier ways to deal with the consequences by ramping collaboration back to normal levels, at least normal levels for Gore.
Which are enviably high ;)
Posted by: Piers Young | November 01, 2005 at 06:48 AM
Thanks for your comments, Piers. I'd see exponential growth of a collaborative culture as including the ability to answer key questions: who needs to collaborate? about what?, when?, in what way(s)?, to make what decisions? Answering those questions keeps "collaboration" from being a euphemism for "everybody's always got to be involved in everything." I addressed that question obliquely in my 10/31 post about hitting the sweet spot: finding just that right level for the situation.
I think your punctuated equilibrium reference is right on.
Posted by: Tom | November 01, 2005 at 07:06 AM
As a designer with some years on me I see the color of choice for the this site is "institutional green". (as in "military hospital, institutional green", ca. 1968)
Any meaning to the color choice? ---L
Posted by: L. Hughston | February 08, 2006 at 05:42 PM
Very astute, L! I worked in a psychiatric hospital that had walls this color in 1968.
Really!
I certainly never thought of the association before, but you've jogged my memory with your comment.
Thanks!
Posted by: Tom | February 08, 2006 at 05:45 PM
japanese streetwear labels are highly efficient in the collaboration methodology in retail. see: mastermind japan, neighborhood, visvim, a bathing ape, undercover, hiroshi fujiwara, fragment design, etc etc etc
Posted by: alexander moh | May 24, 2007 at 04:37 AM
the droog design collective out of holland is perhaps another prime example?
Posted by: alexander moh | May 24, 2007 at 04:39 AM