To minimise risks, costs, effort, failures plan for an opportunistic transition that should introduce services when existing platforms or technology turn obsolete, need costly upgrades or the transition produces minimum disruption to operation.
Autonomy should work both ways, for both the enterprise and the unit. And interfaces are key for autonomy,
Autonomy empowers the enterprise departments to organise and govern themselves. Hence, an enterprise organised in autonomous units would promote motivation, stimulate initiative, manage resources and take ownership of deliverables more responsibly.
In a Service Based Enterprise, the organizational units would deliver services for which they are contractually bound to.
The enterprise would bother no more about the internal organization of the units or their inner governance as long as they do not …
The paradigm change is that the enterprise contracts and pays for a service rather than for the administration of a team/circle that delivers it. The enterprise signs a contract with a service delivering entity rather than separate contracts with team/…
Holacracy is at times over specified, over-prescribed. Is it really part of an organizational design method to establish rules for meetings as it is the case for Holacracy?
To the best of my understanding, there are no circle or team manager roles. All decisions are taken by the circle collectively.
Is then the circle working somehow like an Israeli kibbutzim collective farm?
Holacracy seems to be all for teams’ autonomy and distributed “authority and decision making” we all dream about. But is it so different from a hierarchical organization?