The limits to growth structure is based on the basic growth structure. And, as should be obvious, nothing grows forever as growth requires resources. Those required resources become a limits to growth. See also Archetypes.

There are about fifteen known archetypes with an interesting set of relationships among them.

There is a new version of this model at

Frequently Recurring Structures

A Tragedy of the Commons situation exists whenever two or more activities, each, which in order to produce results, rely on a shared limited resource. Results for these activities continue to develop as long as their use of the limited resource doesn't exceed the resource limit. Once this limit is reached the results produced by each activity are limited to the level at which the resource is replenished. See also Archetypes.

From William E. Novak and  Linda Levine CMU SEI Sept 2010 Success in Acquisition: Using Archetypes to Beat the Odds paper and webpage

The Exponential Growth Archetype is a reinforcing structure which promotes exponential growth. This is one of the two foundation archetypes. The other being the goal seeking structure. See also Archetypes.

When deferred requirements pile up and underestimated complexity surround a project, managers end up riding a bow wave of schedule and delivery complications.  From William E. Novak and  Linda Levine CMU SEI Sept 2010 Success in Acquisition: Using Archetypes to Beat the Odds paper and see webpage

Success to the successful archetype represents two reinforcing structures which may be in a delicate balance though as soon as one gains a small advantage the resource allocation favors the more successful and the result is then rapidly skewed in the direction of the more successful. See also Archetypes.

An indecision structure results whenever there are two interacting goal-seeking structures which provide goals for each other. There is the potential of creating oscillations because of the inherent delays in the structure. See also Archetypes.

Video

This model is part of

And? Understanding Relationships & Their Implications.

We often set out to solve a problem or accomplish some particular result and things seem to go as planned. As time progresses it seems that progress becomes more and more difficult, if not impossible, and things may actually become worse than when we started. When this happens it is typically a Fixes that Fail structure that's operating. See also Archetypes.

Video

This model is part of

And? Understanding Relationships & Their Implications.

The goal seeking structure endeavors to bring a balance between a current state and a desired state. This is one of the two foundation archetypes. The other being the growth structure. See also Archetypes.

Applying more pressure on staff can temporarily increase productivity, but burnout soon sets in. From William E. Novak and  Linda Levine CMU SEI Sept 2010 Success in Acquisition: Using Archetypes to Beat the Odds paper and see webpage

See similar CLD IM-641 and Simulation IM-333

When problems are detected in programs, it's time for everyone to listen and work toward a solution. Shooting the messenger only delays the process, and hurts program morale. From William E. Novak and  Linda Levine CMU SEI Sept 2010 Success in Acquisition: Using Archetypes to Beat the Odds paper and see webpage

What happens when a program chooses to ignore Brooks' Law? This archetype explains the dynamics behind Brooks' Law and why it applies to most programs. From William E. Novak and  Linda Levine CMU SEI Sept 2010 Success in Acquisition: Using Archetypes to Beat the Odds paper and see webpage

Two goal seeking structures attempting to resolve and based on the delay one may tend to settle for less. See also Archetypes.

An Addiction structure is the same as the Shifting the Burden structure though with the annoying aspect that one becomes addicted to the side effect ensuring that Fundamental Solution won't get implemented and the Symptomatic Solution will be applied repeatedly, and likely with greater frequency. See also Archetypes.

An escalation structure results from two or more competing entities with the competition taking them to somewhere none of them want to be. See also Archetypes.

Video

This model is part of

And? Understanding Relationships & Their Implications.

An escalation structure results from two or more competing entities with the competition taking them to somewhere none of them want to be.

It's relatively well understood that you can't be all things to all people. Somewhere one has to make choices. An Attractiveness Principle Systems Archetype is essentially a Limits to Growth Systems Archetype with multiple limits, all of which can not be addressed equally. See also Archetypes.

A Growth and Underinvestment structure is simply an elaborated Limits to Growth structure where the growth inhibitor is part of another Balancing Loop with an external standard and some delay. The real nasty thing about this structure is that the two Balancing Loops form a single Reinforcing Loop which inhibits growth.

With two different ways to address a situation with one being easier and faster which do you think gets implemented? The problem is that taking the easy path makes it harder to take the longer term solution.

Reinforcing Loop/SFD Simulation allow one to experience the explicit implications of the interactions.

A Tragedy of the Commons situation exists whenever two or more activities, each, which in order to produce results, rely on a shared limited resource. Results for these activities continue to develop as long as their use of the limited resource doesn't exceed the resource limit. Once this limit is reached the results produced by each activity are limited to the level at which the resource is replenished.