Subscribe! It's free.

Join >690 folks who use these tools and ideas (everything here requires registration; it’s your call if you want a newsletter about it).

How Internal Capabilities Evolve
By Clay Parker Jones profile image Clay Parker Jones
4 min read

How Internal Capabilities Evolve

Platform teams are an alternative to matrix orgs and siloed, repetitive SBUs.

Yesterday I wrote about how activist investors dislike matrix structures.

They're right to dislike them, especially if you take a surface view, and/or view them as one of two outcomes: we can be decentralized or centralized, and orgs swing between decentralized free-market entrepreneurship and centralized bureaucratic integration.

I think this misses the point of the matrix (as does the idea of striking a balance between SBUs and matrices with jumbo shrimp Center-Led Empowered BUs.

There's a third option: see matrixed capabilities as a waypoint on the journey toward an operating system where capabilities produce tooling for BUs to do their thing. Where the center isn't in charge but rather a set of highly specialized internal consultancies that make the organization more competitive.

I've been able to watch this journey play out in a few organizations where capabilities were created, grew into Global Functions™, and then transitioned into this Third Thing.

Phase One: Capabilities as Optional Business Investments

By Clay Parker Jones profile image Clay Parker Jones
Updated on
Organization Design