Continuous vs Periodic Restriction
Use when designing your company's operating model and growth strategy.
A decision framework for choosing between always operating below maximum capacity (continuous restriction, like Basecamp/Patagonia) or alternating between feast and famine periods (periodic fasting, like Google's 20% time).
When to Use Continuous vs Periodic Restriction
Use when designing your company's operating model and growth strategy. Critical for founders choosing between bootstrap and VC paths, and for leaders deciding how to structure innovation time.
How to Apply
Assess Your Primary Goal
Longevity goal (optimize for decades) favors continuous restriction. Innovation goal (need breakthrough products) favors periodic fasting.
Questions to Ask
- Are you optimizing for 20+ year survival or rapid innovation?
- Is steady compounding or breakthrough products more important?
Evaluate Your Market Type
Stable markets (no land-grab opportunities) favor continuous restriction. Dynamic markets (opportunities come in waves) favor periodic fasting.
Questions to Ask
- Is your market mature or emerging?
- Are there winner-take-all dynamics?
- Do opportunities come in predictable waves?
Consider Your Funding Model
Self-funded companies can sustain continuous restriction. VC-funded companies may need periodic growth spurts between fasting periods.
Questions to Ask
- Do you have investor growth pressure?
- Can you control your own timeline?
- What's your path to profitability?
Choose and Implement
Continuous: Always operate 20-30% below maximum. Periodic: Alternate 12-18 month growth phases with 6-12 month efficiency phases.
Outputs
- Operating model choice
- Phase timing if periodic
- Metrics for each mode