Customer Value Proposition –The Basis of an Organization’s Strategy

 By Peter Ndaa

A common challenge for organizations is knowing when and how to shift the emphasis of their value proposition at different stages of their product or industry life cycles. Successful organizations consciously factor the need to adapt their strategy over time.

https://tinyurl.com/3r2k5rdb

Reinventing Organizations

 

By Gennaro Cuofano

“Reinventing Organizations,” a groundbreaking book by Frederic Laloux, has sparked a transformative movement in the world of work. This book introduces a new paradigm for organizational design and management, one that goes beyond traditional hierarchies and seeks to create more purpose-driven, self-managing, and adaptive organizations.

Understanding “Reinventing Organizations”

The Essence of “Reinventing Organizations”

“Reinventing Organizations” presents a compelling vision of a new way of organizing and leading in the 21st century. At its core, this book introduces three breakthroughs in organizational thinking:

1. Self-Management: Organizations in this paradigm replace traditional hierarchies with self-managing teams or circles. Decision-making is distributed, and authority is devolved to those closest to the work.
2. Wholeness: “Reinventing Organizations” emphasizes the importance of individuals bringing their whole selves to work. It encourages authenticity, personal growth, and a holistic approach to employee well-being.
3. Evolutionary Purpose: These organizations are guided by a sense of purpose that transcends profit. They seek to fulfill a higher calling or mission that aligns with their core values.

The book’s framework is informed by extensive research and case studies, showcasing real-world examples of organizations that have successfully embraced these principles.

Origins of “Reinventing Organizations”

The ideas presented in “Reinventing Organizations” emerged from Frederic Laloux’s research, where he explored various organizations that were operating on the leading edge of management practices. He noticed a recurring pattern among these organizations that went beyond the traditional management hierarchy. This research culminated in the publication of the book in 2014.

Key factors that contributed to the emergence of this new organizational paradigm include:

• Dissatisfaction with traditional hierarchical structures and their limitations in addressing the complexity and rapid change of the modern world.
• Advances in communication technology that enabled more decentralized decision-making and information sharing.
• A growing awareness of the importance of personal development, self-awareness, and well-being in the workplace.

Key Concepts in “Reinventing Organizations”

1. Teal Organizations:

• The term “Teal” is used in the book to describe organizations that embrace self-management, wholeness, and evolutionary purpose. These organizations are seen as the pinnacle of the organizational evolution described by Laloux.

2. Self-Management:

• Self-management is a core concept where teams or circles have a high degree of autonomy and make decisions collectively. Traditional hierarchical structures are replaced by more fluid, decentralized forms of governance.

3. Wholeness:

• Wholeness refers to the idea that individuals should bring their full selves to work, including their emotions, intuition, and authentic personalities. This promotes personal growth and well-being.

4. Evolutionary Purpose:

• Evolutionary purpose suggests that organizations have a sense of purpose that evolves over time. It is not fixed but adapts to the changing needs and aspirations of the organization.

5. Organizational Stages:

• Laloux outlines a developmental progression of organizations from Red (traditional command-and-control), to Amber (hierarchical), to Orange (performance-driven), to Green (collaborative), and finally to Teal (self-managing).

Case Studies and Examples

“Reinventing Organizations” provides numerous case studies and examples of organizations that have successfully embraced the Teal paradigm. Some of the most notable examples include:

1. Buurtzorg:

• A Dutch home healthcare organization that operates with self-managing teams of nurses. It has achieved remarkable efficiency and patient satisfaction levels.

2. Morning Star:

• A California-based tomato processing company with no traditional hierarchy or managers. Employees negotiate their roles and responsibilities, leading to high levels of engagement and productivity.

3. FAVI:

• A French manufacturer of brass products that transitioned to self-management. FAVI’s success is attributed to its focus on employee well-being and autonomy.

4. AES Corporation:

• A global power company that adopted a self-managing structure. AES has seen improvements in safety, employee engagement, and financial performance.

These case studies illustrate how organizations across various industries and regions have successfully implemented Teal principles to achieve outstanding results.

Principles and Implementation

Implementing the principles outlined in “Reinventing Organizations” requires a systematic approach:

1. Embrace a Higher Purpose:

• Organizations should identify a purpose beyond profit, one that resonates with the core values and aspirations of the organization.

2. Self-Management:

• Transition to self-managing teams or circles where decision-making authority is decentralized.

3. Wholeness:

• Create a culture that values and encourages the authenticity and well-being of individuals.

4. Evolutionary Purpose:

• Continuously revisit and adapt the organization’s purpose to stay relevant and aligned with changing circumstances.

5. Distributed Leadership:

• Leadership roles should emerge naturally and be based on expertise and interest rather than formal titles.

6. Transparency:

• Foster open and transparent communication to ensure that information is accessible to all members of the organization.

Benefits of Embracing “Reinventing Organizations”

Organizations that adopt the principles outlined in “Reinventing Organizations” often experience several benefits:

1. Enhanced Employee Engagement:

• Self-management and a focus on wholeness contribute to higher levels of employee engagement and job satisfaction.

2. Increased Innovation:

• Decentralized decision-making and a culture of experimentation foster innovation and adaptability.

3. Improved Organizational Resilience:

• Organizations become better equipped to respond to changing circumstances and disruptions.

4. Greater Fulfillment:

• Individuals experience greater fulfillment and purpose in their work, leading to improved well-being.

5. Higher Productivity:

• Autonomy and self-management often lead to higher levels of productivity and accountability.

6. Attracting and Retaining Talent:

• Embracing the Teal paradigm can make organizations more attractive to top talent seeking purpose-driven workplaces.

Transformative Impact

“Reinventing Organizations” has had a transformative impact on various aspects of work and management:

1. Organizational Culture:

• The book has inspired a shift towards more open, transparent, and values-driven organizational cultures.

2. Leadership:

• Leadership in organizations that embrace Teal principles becomes more distributed and adaptive.

3. Decision-Making:

• Decentralized decision-making empowers employees at all levels to take ownership of their work.

4. Well-Being:

• The emphasis on wholeness and personal development contributes to improved well-being among employees.

5. Purpose-Driven Work:

• Organizations are increasingly recognizing the importance of aligning their purpose with addressing societal and environmental challenges.

Broader Implications

The concepts introduced in “Reinventing Organizations” have broader implications for the future of work:

1. Organizational Evolution:

• Traditional hierarchical organizations are reevaluating their structures and practices in response to the success of Teal organizations.

2. Leadership Development:

• Leadership development programs are evolving to prepare leaders for the distributed and purpose-driven nature of Teal organizations.

3. Education and Training:

• Education institutions are exploring how to prepare students for the changing landscape of work, which increasingly includes Teal principles.

4. Social Impact:

• Teal organizations often have a positive social impact, aligning their purpose with addressing societal challenges.

Conclusion

“Reinventing Organizations” has emerged as a seminal work that challenges conventional thinking about how organizations are structured and managed. Its core principles of self-management, wholeness, and evolutionary purpose offer a compelling vision of a more human-centered, purpose-driven, and adaptable approach to work. As the world continues to grapple with unprecedented challenges and opportunities, the ideas presented in this book are reshaping the way we envision and create organizations. “Reinventing Organizations” serves as a beacon for those seeking to foster more meaningful, innovative, and resilient workplaces in the 21st century.

Creating a Market Oriented Ecosystem (MOE)

 

This is my third post on Arthur Yeung and Dave Ulrich’s new book, Reinventing the Organization.

My insights in my last two MOE related posts do create a few issues with Arthur and Dave’s suggested framework or process for designing a Market Oriented Organisation (MOE) which is shown above. (But please note that my posts always criticise rather than endorse, particularly as I use my blog to develop my own thinking, and therefore tend to focus on things I disagree with, or don’t understand, in order to work out what I do believe for myself. So like most of my reviews, this one will read more negatively than it should. Reinventing the Organization a great book, and if you’re interested in new opportunities in organisations reinvention, you should definitely read it.)

I think the first issue arises from studying three digital companies in Silicon Valley and four near equivalents in China (as well as Supercell). There’s a definite opportunity to use network effects to gain a monopolistic advantage in digital technology and the use of digital platforms lie at the heart of these easily scalable exponential organisations. But is that what we really want to recommend? Becoming a monopoly is a sensible commercial objective but it’s not going to provide a wonderful result for the global economy or society as a whole.

A second issue results from extrapolating the above examples to various other sectors and geographies. The extended, non-digital model will still work best for companies with lots of similar operations, eg retail stores like Walgreens. Platforms work best for relatively simple work which can be divided into tasks rather than more complex work which needs to pull people together into organisations. IT is a great example of this of course, which is why digital platforms work best of all.

Network effects also doesn’t work in the quite the same way outside technology. Competitive advantage is not going to automatically follow a MOE strategy, especially if a company’s competitors are also developing as MOEs. Where network effects don’t apply, more boringly traditional competitive advantage comes from choice and differentiation.

Plus there’s not that much room for that many ecosystems to exist. And even if ecosystems become the prevailing economic model, most companies are going to be ecosystem participants rather than orchestrators. There’s going to be a lot of wasted effort if every company now starts to develop their own ecosystem from scratch.

And there is still lots of valid choice:

• Eg, I still think internal ecosystems can provide a lot of the benefits of their multi-organisation counterparts.
• Or there are other options for developing more decentralised ecosystems that don’t depend on a platform, or where the orchestrator’s platform is a basis for a distributed ecosystem, but where the orchestrator doesn’t play a role in the ecosystem itself .
• Or perhaps for becoming a blockchain based digital autonomous organisation (DAO) which if some predictions become true could blow the platform based organisation apart.
• Or in lots of areas, hierarchical functional organisations can still rule!

For all these reasons, I think an evolved organisation design process needs to enable an organisation to choose the form it should take, rather than starting from the premise that it needs to be a MOE. So, for me, the sequence in any OD framework should read as something like:

• Environment - all sectors and geographies are different - what is going on that your organisation needs to respond to, and if possible, inform? (“Create the future by anticipating what the market will be”)
• Strategy and capability - these should both go together still for me. The capabilities need to support the strategy, but ideally needs to inform it too. Eg if you are, or are going to be a MOE, then your existing capabilities will indicate whether you are likely to be most successful as a creative, technology based or efficiency oriented one. This also provides the opportunity for creating value (“Strategy follows people”).
• These then impact the nature of the potential ecosystem, and of the systems and structure of the ecosystem and your particular organisation.

It’s the selection of the right capabilities and principles, linked to the environment and strategy, which provides basis for choice in organisation design as well as the opportunity for more traditional competitive advantage. And information, customer, innovation and agility are clearly going to be useful capabilities but they may not be the right capabilities for your organisation. (Just as Amazon actually focuses on customer obsession, Tencent on user experience and Google on technology based innovation.)

In addition, these are all capabilities required by the ecosystem rather than capabilities required by the organisations participating in an ecosystem. I’d actually suggest the main capability required by any participant, including the orchestrator, is likely to be cooperation and collaboration. These are partly provided and automated by the platform, but they also always needs to be embedded in the people and their relationships, which is why I focus on social capital in The Social Organization (TSO).

Collaboration and other more human centred capabilities also have an important advantage alongside market orientation or other work based capabilities. Innovation doesn’t just originate through better alignment with external opportunities - it also comes from developing the inherent potential of people working for the business. Together with the two-way links between the environment and the strategy, and the strategy and capability, this also helps the MOE to create value.

For example, another type of ecosystem (perhaps not a market oriented one, and perhaps not even one operating a very technologically based platform) might include communities alongside horizontal teams in order to build relationships and insights and support the people involved.

However, even with these changes I still worry slightly that this MOE creation process looks a bit like strategic planning, whereas Arthur and Dave suggests MOEs need to develop strategic agility instead. I agree, although actually, I think strategic planning can still be performed within organisations, as long as it’s done at a high enough level and with a sufficiently inclusive approach. But I don’t think this will work for a whole ecosystem. Developing this has to be an incremental and emergent approach.

This is about making external connections with other organisations which might become partners later even if you can’t see exactly how. And it’s about preparing your own organisation to be more open to working with others, and more cellular and platform based internally too (through the use of horizontal teams, communities and networks, as in TSO). So designing your organisation and designing potential interfaces with other organisations rather than designing the whole ecosystem. I still think this fits with Arthur and Dave’s suggestion to “see the whole, but get started on only part of the transformation” too. And it works for any organisation, regardless of whether you want to, or are able to become the ecosystem orchestrator or not.

See the previous articles:

Dave Ulrich: The Market Oriented Ecosystem https://bit.ly/41lDYwk

Dave Ulrich: Reinventing the Organization https://bit.ly/4gkISPy

https://tinyurl.com/38a74xhy

Working ‘on’ or ‘in’ your organisational culture

 

Organisational Culture – Part 1

When we read about an association’s or charity’s culture in the media, all too often it is not a ‘good news’ story.

They don’t generally give out Walkley or Pulitzer awards to journalists for stories about innovative, caring, or ethical cultures. The news focus, therefore, skews towards corrupt, risky, toxic, or greedy cultures, and the directors and managers on whose watch that culture was created or allowed.

‘Organisational culture’ is an ephemeral concept. It means different things to different people, but also different things to any one of us depending on the circumstances.

We will have a different view about it as a ‘new hire’ than we have after years of service. We will also hold different perspectives within the same organisation depending on our role or ‘position’ within the organisation.

Working ‘on’ your culture

For some, culture is like the weather. It exists independently of anything we say or do, and we operate as best we can within it, whether it is ‘stormy’ or ‘fine’. Directors and managers however are held accountable for the effects of culture, especially if something goes wrong or someone gets hurt. It is therefore preferable that they work together to deliberately nurture their best possible organisational culture.

Both internal and external stakeholders know that what we pay attention to is what we care about. That is the true expression of our values – not what we say in glossy publications or online. Paying the right kind of attention to the right things is the key.

When reflecting on how to work on your ‘organisational culture’ (not just in it), it will be helpful first to ‘map the territory’ by coming to a shared view on your present culture compared with your desired one, and how this analysis relates to your organisation’s effectiveness. Understanding the elements, characteristics, and dimensions of your NFP culture is merely a first step in the process of exerting a positive influence.

Defining organisational culture

‘Organisational culture’ is commonly defined as the set of underlying values, beliefs, assumptions, and ways of acting and interacting which create the unique social and psychological environment of an organisation (Source: GothamCulture).

Daniel Coyle, the author of The Culture Code, offers another version:

“Culture is a set of living relationships working towards a shared goal. it is not something you are, it’s something you do.”

Elements of Culture

Johnson and Scholes devised the cultural web model (included in the header image above) to outline the complex interaction of the major dimensions through which culture is expressed. In their model, those cultural elements which interact to create a paradigm, or prevailing climate, are:

• Stories
• Symbols
• Power structures
• Organisational structures
• Control systems, and
• Rituals and routines

The values, beliefs, and assumptions of the individuals and groups within the organisation, and their behaviour, are not highlighted in this model, but rather implied.

Cultural orientations

The cultural ‘climate’ can also be modified by shifting the emphasis placed on certain attitudes, or orientations, as suggested in the work of O’Reilly et al, and Hofstede et al. These shifts will be designed to promote certain behaviours and sanction others.

The key domains in which the attitudes of the board and management can affect the culture of an organisation (set the tone) have been identified as follows:

• Innovation (Risk Orientation).
• Attention to Detail (Precision Orientation).
• Emphasis on Outcome (Achievement Orientation).
• Emphasis on People (Fairness Orientation).
• Teamwork (Collaboration Orientation).
• Aggressiveness (Competitive Orientation).
• Stability (Rule Orientation).

These orientations are based on factors explored in:

O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. (1991). People and Organizational Culture: A Profile Comparison Approach to Assessing Person-Organization Fit. Academy of Management Journal. 34. 487-516, and

Chatman, J., & Jehn, K., Assessing the Relationship between Industry Characteristics and Organizational Culture: How Different Can You Be? The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Jun., 1994), pp. 522-553

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions, offer an alternative set of focal areas in which directors and managers can set the orgaisational ‘tone’. In their model, calibration can be achieved within a spectrum of possibilities for each of the featured domains.

• Power distance
• Collectivism Vs Individualism
• Uncertainty Avoidance
• Femininity Vs Masculinity
• Short-term Vs Long-term
• Restraint Vs Indulgence

These two sets of orientations provide the other two faces of the Organisational Culture Cube in the header image above.

Model mashups

The header image juxtaposes three organisational culture models related to the elements and dimensions of culture, each of which refers to somewhat different cultural factors or orientations.

Traditional cube charts seek to suggest specific relationships ‘inside the cube’ between each of the factors or variables identified on the three outer faces. In the case of the cube in the header image, and the two below, the implied relationships between factors and variables are not so much a matter of locating points of intersection between three specific criteria or factors (one from each set). Instead, the ‘mashups‘ offer potential catalysts for reflection on how quite different perspectives might need to be accommodated when seeking to improve culture via governance and management measures.

The three model mashups selected here involve just nine of the many cultural models and frameworks that have been devised over the years to help practitioners and academics better understand organisational culture, and to engage with it more constructively. As a thought experiment that seeks further insights for your organisation, you could try juxtaposing these nine models in different combinations, or in combination with other models you are familiar with.

The organisational culture series

This introductory post is the first in a series on organisational culture (and behaviour), which is a vast and complex field. Future posts will include reflections on:

• the various lenses through which culture may be viewed
• some of the metaphors (in addition to ‘the weather’) we use to characterise organisational cultures, and
• some insights offered by ‘anthropo-morphising’ the organisation.

See also:

Multi-focal Views of Organisational Culture

Choosing an organisational metaphor? Choose wisely!

Organisational mindfulness

Golden means or ends?

What? So What? and Now What? – your reflective practice guide

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, GJ., and Minkov, M., Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind, McGraw Hill, 2010

Coyle, D., The Culture Code: The secrets of highly successful groups, Cornerstone Digital, 2018

https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/program/Robbins-Organizational-Behavior-Plus-2019-My-Lab-Management-with-Pearson-e-Text-Access-Card-Package-18th-Edition/PGM2703216.html

https://www.pearson.com/uk/educators/higher-education-educators/program/Mullins-Organisational-Behaviour-in-the-Workplace-12th-Edition/PGM2586147.html

https://tinyurl.com/yck3b8eu

Dave Ulrich: The Market Oriented Ecosystem

 

This is my second post reviewing and providing my insights on Arthur Yeung and Dave Ulrich’s new book, Reinventing the Organization.

My last post on this suggested that Dave’s new organisational logic means that we need to think about what happens outside of an organisation before we look at its internal arrangements.

However, for me, my logic from The Social Organization (TSO) still applies, ie we need to understand the capabilities an ecosystem will provide and the principles it uses in doing this in order to identify the most optimal organisational solution for a particular environmental context.

For Dave and Arthur, the key thing about the external environment is that it is uncertain and fast changing - or superdynamic. This means organisations need to be more market oriented, and they suggest the key ecosystem capabilities an ecosystem needs to provide are information, customer, innovation and agility.

Josh Bersin - network of teams

They also suggests some ecosystem principles (which provide a basis for an ecosystem’s common shared values / style) to respond to the new environment:

• Establish a consistent set of priorities
• Create the future by anticipating what the market will be
• Win through a focus on growth
• Stay a step ahead of the market by anticipating targeted and future customers
• Effectively use different options to execute a growth pathway: buy, build or borrow
• Seek and inspire agile employees
• Use scorecards and data to drive a growth mindset
• Always reinvent strategy because strategy is never finished.

In this environment, and with these capabilities and principles, they suggests the best organisational solution for any company is a Market Oriented Ecosystem (MOE).

The book reviews seven main case studies of this organisational form - Amazon, Facebook and Google in Silicon Valley and their digital cousins - Alibaba, DiDi, Huawei and Tencent  in China (as well as Supercell in Finland, which is a bit of an outlier, organisationally as well as geographically, as explained below).

The MOE is first of all, an ecosystem (generally defined to mean a network which extends beyond an individual firm). Given the logic reviewed above, a MOE is deliberately designed to involve external allies - partners providing staff, skills, structures and systems and stakes in the ecosystem.

Niels Pflaeging - value creation structure

But the MOE resembles an ecosystem within the orchestrating organisation too, with autonomous teams (cells) working alongside each other through a network rather than as a result of hierarchical coordination. Amazon’s single threaded teams is a great example. And I think this logic works - if an organisation is cellular internally, it also makes it easy to work with cells which are outside. It also provides the customer focus required by the MOE (see TSO on horizontal teams).

The other distinguishing feature of the MOE is that this uses a digital platform to support the operating network. As I noted in TSO, it’s quite hard to scale a network without a common platform, so this makes good sense too. It also provides most of the required information and agility, and together with the cells, innovation. The use of a platform makes the MOE a highly centralised ecosystem though. (Work is done autonomously within the cells, but the leadership of the ecosystem is centralised under the platform owning part of the MOE.)

Note, however, that I don’t think Dave and Arthur are referring to what I would call a platform based organisation where a digital platform enables autonomous groups to work together without hierarchical management or other forms of co-ordination. (I think the best example of a platform based organisation is Haier who also presented at the Drucker Forum last year. If you’ve not seen it, then Gary Hamel has provided a great case study of this company / platform / ecosystem in HBR recently. I particularly like this example because Haier’s platform treats internal and external micro enterprises in just about the same way, so it’s much more similar to a biological ecosystem than a MOE.)

Dave Gray - podular organisation

Instead of this, MOEs just use platforms to support the network (rather than the network being constructed on the platform). For example, Facebook’s internal use of Workplace is included as an example. Workplace as a product is a digital platform as it provides apps through the system, and it’s also an organisational platform as it enables cell based and multi-company networking, but it’s not a platform based organisation platform (!).

My favourite case study is Tencent as I think this makes Dave and Arthur’s ideas about platforms very clear. “Tencent shares its expertise and resources in technology, legal affairs, government affairs, and talent and organisation management with its strategic partners. For instance, Tencent offers technological and service infrastucture through Tencent Cloud…” In addition, Arthur's in-house consulting team “offers consulting, training, and coaching support to help key strategic partners upgrade their leadership, key talent, and organisational capabilities”.

Therefore, although the platform fits mainly within the structure element of an organisational systems model, there can also be an aspect which is more about the style that people work in, within and across their organisations, too.

Of course, none of this that new. That's not a criticism of the idea or the book, in fact it reinforces the suggestion that this is happening, and it is important.

Michael Arena - adaptive space

However, if you've not come across some of these examples of platform enabled organisation, then firstly, it already exists in Dave and Arthur’s case study organisations, even if this is largely limited to two main geographies.

But it’s also not that new in terms of the ideas being articulated as an organisation form. Eg the book's platform enabled organisations are similar to the following models which I have illustrated throughout this post:

Josh Bersin's network of teams (though this doesn't demand a platform)

• Niels Pflaeging's value creation structure (with the informal network formalised through the platform)
• Dave Gray's podular organisation (with a more formalised version of the technological part of his backbone making up for a less significant cultural aspect) 
• Michael Arena's entrepreneurial teams and communities (once again, with the adaptive space network formalised through the platform)
• McKinsey's agile organisation
• BCG's dynamic platform structure
• My own melded network organisation, from TSO.

In TSO, I focus internally within organisations so I only touch on external ecosystems. (I also don’t put much focus on internal platforms as I wanted to write about organisational management rather than the use of market mechanisms. In fact, for me, this is the best thing about Dave’s book - it’s packed full of case study evidence about platform enabled organisations and closely linked organisation forms.)

McKinsey - agile organisation

I agree, and do state, that internal and external are becoming more blurred. But for me, the best thing for most organisations to do is sort out their internal organisation - before they grapple with the additional complexity outside. These organisations can still create internal networks of teams, and use internal platforms.
 
In fact, although Dave’s organisational logic suggests we need to look externally, beyond a single organisation, before we look internally, most of the book’s examples focus on their internal networks of teams, not the way their ecosystem involve allies from outside the organisation.

In particular, the book’s other main case study, Supercell in Helsinki, is a great example of a network of teams approach. However, this company doesn’t really do much externally. Yes, it has partners with shared resources, as most organisations do these days, but I don’t see any evidence of an external ecosystem. And the company’s website provides interesting points about its team focus but says nothing to suggest it followed Dave’s new organisational logic in developing this.

Dave also suggests Amazon first created its capabilities within the organisation and only later magnified this throughout its ecosystem.

BCG - dynamic platform structure

Dave’s case studies also demonstrate that the model is fairly flexible in the way it is applied and suggests that it can be extended to other, non digital sectors, including retail, manufacturing, healthcare, finance, consulting and other professional services. For example, Walgreens / WBA’s stores and organisational management systems are seen as MOE cells and platform too. Now I’ve worked with Boots here, which is a great company, but not what I would understand as an ecosystem or even less so, a platform enabled organisation. But then if the model is going to potentially extend to any organisation I think you do need to interpret it quite loosely.

My insights from this are:

• I do think it will be useful to look externally at potential parters and the opportunities for creating an ecosystem before focusing on internal organisation design (see TSO for how to do this internal piece). I’m fully persuaded of this evolution in organisational thinking.
• This won’t always result in creating a MOE or even an external ecosystem and that is fine.
• Regardless of this, creating an internal network of teams is an increasingly good idea. It provides many of the benefits of an MOE with less bother, and provides a great basis to extend externally later on as well (and one again, see TSO for how to create this internal network of teams, or other melded network options).

Jon Ingham - melded network organisation

https://tinyurl.com/49bzch4u