3 ms·
Designing and growing are different things because design implies having a preconceived plan. Whereas growing entails starting out with broad strokes and then o
by wenc 6y ago
Designing and growing are different things because design implies having a preconceived plan. Whereas growing entails starting out with broad strokes and then organically iterating.
The classic example is that of a combustion engine. Historically an engine was not designed, but “grown” ie iterated upon through trial and error. The heat transfer characteristics and thermodynamics were (are?) too complex to model, so engineers started out with a basic concept and iterated until they got the desired results.
I believe organizations work the same way. Instead of designing an organization from the ground up (clean sheet), most organizations actually start out organically and roles either expand or contract depending on needs and goals. There’s typically a lot of trial and error because it’s impossible to account for every variable that might affect the outcome. A heavily designed organization is liable to be very rigid, so the pragmatic path is align on shared principles and let each part of the organization organically grow according to its needs and goals.
- systemvoltage 6y agoIs a Bonsai tree a combination of designing and growing? Iterative design? This is all very imprecise terminology. Grown things can be designed. Designed things can be grown. Designed things doesn't always have to be grown. And lastly, Grown things doens't have to be designed. All this sounds like Deepak Chopra's lectures.
- wenc 6y agoI don’t know why Deepak Chopra is relevant here. I agree that design and grown are not mutually exclusive but I merely sought to demonstrate that they are different things.
- systemvoltage 6y agoI just see how organizations grow (as per the definition we are implying here). I've never seen anything "designed" per se. May be something like Microsoft org chart? Curious if you can concretely note an example to exemplify the ambiguity.