In my opinion the clarity brought by Holacracy to roles, makes it a good substrate onto which implement business process management. Before Holacracy, company processes were designed with theoretical roles mapped to process swim lanes, but those roles were often made up ad-hoc and limited to be process-relevant in scope, furthermore there was no standardized attribution mechanism.
With the advent of Holacracy that gap is automatically filled and the details of BPM seems to be compatible with the granularity of accountability definitions. I would assume that some accountabilities could be made more formal, when required, by mapping them directly to executable processes.
—>Accountability z: Interacting with role a, b and c in the xxx process (i.e. link to bpmn description in process engine) to bring yyy type of outcome
There are some processes that any company (especially bigger ones) may want to:
- describe formally
- repeat over and over
- scale out quickly on request
- "extrude" from email communication
and those are very good candidates for such an integration, whereas everything else, and certainly the more creative, casual, and less formally definable stuff could still be handled with the lower formal strictness of the accountabilities and interface definitions we are already accustomed to.
I wonder if anyone as ventured into "interfacing Holacracy with BPM" yet, and if anyone can mention any best practice or pitfalls of doing so , and above all if this approach is considered viable or it can be seen as undermining the immediateness of Holacracy.