018


ILDS / LIGHTING DESIGN SURVEY


TIME TO REFLECT...


The same 50 lighting design practices that took part in the 2009 survey were again approached to provide year on year statistics to give an idea about the current state of the profession. The overall conclusion must be that, although there has been a slight downturn, it is not as bad as first feared...


Average Employees Per Practice


0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0


EMPLOYEES MALE FEMALE


2009 2010


US$


200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 1,800,000


- Revenue $ Average $ Revenue


2009 2010


Revenue Per Head US$


113,800 114,000 114,200 114,400 114,600 114,800 115,000 115,200 115,400


Rev/Head


2009 2010


Down but not out... Overall revenue has decreased but not by as much as first feared and revenue per head has actually increased meaning employees are working harder. However, their reward has been a cut in staff numbers per practice - a measure to keep the wolves from the door. Adversely, the number of offices have actually increased from from 83 to 87 with some practices increasing their presence in Asia and the Middle East. It is this global approach that has most been embraced by lighting design firms in an attempt to increase revenue streams with a downturn in their own market area.


This year’s survey took place in a climate of trepidation. Based on conversations with anyone in the industry that wanted to bend my ear, the doom and gloom had continued unabated due to the economic crisis. Once all of the numbers were in and crunched a huge sigh of relief could be heard here at mondo*arc. For, while practices have indeed had to cut their cloth accordingly, it seems that this was a necessary action in order to avoid the disaster that many had predicted. While many practices reported a reduc- tion in revenue, projects and employees, no companies had gone into administration (one had been taken over by a larger or- ganisation) and virtually all were confident of a bright future.


An average annual turnover of US$1,508,378 represents a 5.73% decrease from last year’s


figures - well below the 20% downturn mooted by many. Of course there were ex- ceptions and several companies performed exceptionally well due to new markets with many citing more international work as their saviour.


The good news came in the form of revenue per head which actually increased from US$114,286 to US$115,143. Unfortunately some job losses were inevitable with women taking the brunt of the cuts. The average employees per practice decreased from 14 to 13.1 with the 50:50 split of men and women changing to 52:48. Not much movement but movement nonetheless. As expressed by the word clouds opposite there is hope for the future after a tough year for many. This response from Schuler Shook was typical: “We remain optimistic


and passionate about our work. The future will be more focused on energy savings. Lighting designers will continue to be chal- lenged to create functional and visually compelling spaces while using less and less energy to do so. Daylighting, and energy efficient technologies will be considered a given rather than an option. Controls will play an increasingly important role in sustainability and user comfort.” On the other side of the coin Kevan Shaw responded with: “Survival is difficult and we are facing increasing legislation that limits our design options. I believe we will see some businesses fail in the next twelve months and some more if there is not some recovery in the building market particularly in the UK by 2012.” Aspects of both maybe? You decide.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112