Holacracy Community of Practice Archive, 2015-2019 Community Holacracy Web Site

Hi Georgiy,

reading the case you describe I have a couple of suggestions (shooting from the hip, happy to jump on a skype call to elaborate a bit more)

1- keep it simple. holacracy allows you to take organizational design iterative. There is typically little need to design the full solution upfront. What you currently need from the Braincenter can be different from the needs in a couple of months. So with Holacracy just make sure you get current needs met, and act on what will emerge afterwards when it is about to happen. What would go wrong if you didnt create a Braincenter? If nothing: dont create it. If something: just create that.

2- start with the "brain center" as its own sub-circle. focused on being an "advisory board". you can experience then if the influx of ideas from different stakeholders as you envision it really works.

3- within the space of self-organization Holacracy belongs to the analogy with the human body is often made. Where in the traditional management hierarchy the believe is that there is a central control system (ie the Brain) where decisions are coordinated vs the self-organized entity where every internal organ has its own function and it makes its own decisions (ie trust the Liver to act as the Liver, the Lungs will do a terrible job at that...). The two accountabilities you describe for the Braincenter it reads like you create a traditional hierarchy within your Holacracy... I would suggest to reconsider those. Potentially the second accountability could go to the production circle because that is probably accountable for process execution and improvement. And the Braincenter is more an "advice circle". And you could make explicit which VIP decisions require advice from the Braincenter. For example investment/divestment decisions above EUR x.

Hope this helps!

Koen