Skip to content

The future is podular

The future is podular
One of the most difficult challenges companies face today is how to be more flexible and adaptive in a dynamic, volatile business environment. How do you build a company that can identify and capitalize on opportunities, navigate around risks and other challenges, and respond quickly to changes in the environment? How do you embed that kind of agility into the DNA of your company?

The answer is to distribute control in such a way that decisions can be made as quickly and as close to customers as possible. There is no way for people to respond and adapt quickly if they have to get permission before they can do anything.

If you want an adaptive company, you will need to unleash the creative forces in your organization, so people have the freedom to deliver value to customers and respond to their needs more dynamically. One way to do this is by enabling small, autonomous units that can act and react quickly and easily, without fear of disrupting other business activities – pods.

A pod is a small, autonomous unit that is enabled and empowered to deliver the things that customers value.

By value, I mean anything that’s a part of a service that delivers value, even though the customer may not see it. For example, in a construction firm, the activities valued by customers are those that are directly related to building. The accounting department of a construction firm is not part of the value delivery system, it’s a support team. But in an accounting firm, any activity related to accounting is part of the customer value delivery system.

There’s a reason that pods need to focus on value-creating activities rather than support activities. Support activities might need to be organized differently. More on that later.

Process to pod

Traditionally, it’s been the job of managers to coordinate activity across divisions or lines of business, because processes are usually complex and interdependent. Making changes in one part of the process might solve a problem for that unit but cause problems for others.

The goal of podular design is to reduce interdependency by enabling autonomous pods to focus on clear outcomes that deliver value to customers. Pods can coordinate with each other via clear cultural, behavioral and technical standards.

Chains vs. nets

You can think of any business process as a chain – a series of steps that people go through to get things done. Processes don’t depend on the intelligence or creativity of the people who run them, so much as their consistency and ability to perform a specialized task. The manager of the process is responsible for the intelligence of the system.

A process is a step-by-step set of instructions that’s designed to deliver repeatable results and avoid failure. This is just fine, as long as you want to achieve the same result every time. But processes are also very brittle when it comes to change and innovation. If you are responsible for a part of a complex process, it’s hard to try something new.

Processes are like chains

If you get one step wrong, there is a cascading effect, and everything downstream from that change is affected. Small changes at the beginning of a process can have devastating effects elsewhere in the system.

A chain, as the saying goes, is only as strong as its weakest link. Break one link and the whole chain fails.

Podular systems work like nets
A podular system is like a net. It distributes the work load across a wider area by allowing each pod to focus on goals rather than steps or stages. If one strand breaks, the system can still carry the load.

In a podular system, the burden of creativity and intelligence is on the people in the pod. In a pod, your focus is on solving problems and delivering value rather than executing previously-defined steps. You can no longer pull the levers, move the dials and say you did your job, even though the customer didn’t get what they wanted. Giving the customer what they want is your job.

If processes are fool-proof, then pods are fail-proof.

Standards and protocols

Even without a traditional command-and-control hierarchy, autonomous pods still need to make decisions and coordinate their activity in order to deliver value to customers. The secret of coordination is to make those exchanges as frictionless as possible.

Technical standards
Technical standards are simply interfaces that allow you to connect things at will. For example, the electrical socket in your wall uses a common standard that allows you to get electricity when you plug in a device. When your electrician installed that socket in the wall, you didn’t have to know in advance what you might want to plug in to it. And device-makers can be confident that if their plugs follow a common standard, you will be able to plug it into your wall.

Those of us who travel a lot wish that the world had a common electrical standard, but alas it does not. And, sadly, these kinds of standards are not as common in business as you might think. But things have come a long way in the last ten years or so.

Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) and Software as a Service (SaaS) are ways to bundle small pieces of functionality into pods that anyone can access. PayPal, for example, handles payments securely and quickly via standard connections with other companies. Any web service or company can easily link in PayPal for payment processing, which means they don’t have to build that function for itself. But even such a simple thing as a standard protocol for email addresses (first initial, last name, for example) can help people connect with less friction.

Cultural standards
Cultural standards, put simply, are the kind of values and behaviors you can expect in a given company. A strong culture reduces the friction in making decisions as well as connections.

Decisions: If you’re in a pod and you need to make a decision, common values can help you make that decision autonomously, without the need to check with superiors. This means you can act more quickly than competitors who need to “check with the boss” before they can proceed. Common cultural standards give you confidence that your behavior will be consistent with those of other units.

Connections: If your pod needs to connect with other pods, it’s easier to link up and collaborate when you know what kinds of behavior to expect – when you speak the same language and work in the same way. Pattern languages are collections of common standards that allow teams to more easily connect and collaborate. Gamestorming, for example, is a pattern language for cross-disciplinary design.

Culture can be as simple as a set of shared values, or it can be codified in rules and policies. The important thing is that the values and rules are understood and the behavior is consistent with them. If the culture says everyone is equal, the CEO better not have a reserved parking spot. Culture is built by establishing behaviors that the whole organization can and will adhere to consistently.

Pods are flexible, pods are fast

When pods are autonomous, they can try new things without worrying about a “ripple effect” that will disrupt the activities of other units. They can adopt new tools and practices quickly, without having to ask permission. They can be flexible in the ways that they choose to respond to customer requests. This means that each pod can be free to innovate, try new things, adjust its work process, and so on.

Even though most innovations will happen at the pod level, innovation doesn’t have to be contained to one pod. Since linking up with other pods is realtively friction-free, an innovation in one pod can be quickly adopted by other pods.

Pods can fail

When a step in a complex process fails, the entire process comes to a halt. In a Toyota plant, workers have the power to stop the entire process when they see a problem or opportunity. This is great in the sense that it enables a process to continually improve, but it doesn’t solve the problem of interdependency – the whole process still must stop in order to accommodate the change.

In a podular system however, each pod can make adjustments without disrupting its neighbors, and even when a pod fails, there is enough redundancy in the system that those services can most likely be found elsewhere.

A recent New York Times article describes how Volvo is reinventing the automotive assembly line to make it more podular. Quality and productivity have soared. According to the article, Volvo’s approach has led to 20% pre-tax profitability and 25% return on capital, making it one of the most profitable car companies in the world.

Pods can scale up fast

Since pods are inherently modular, it’s easier to scale them up to meet increases in demand. There’s a huge amount of tacit experience in each pod, because each pod is like a tiny fractal snapshot of the entire business – focused on customer value instead of a specialized task or functional process step.


This means that when it’s time to scale up a particular service, a pod that has, for example, seven people, can reproduce itself by dividing into two pods which can bring on new members with minimal growing pains.

This kind of growth system is not new. It’s been a standard practice in knowledge-intensive professions for hundreds of years. When a job requires a lot of experience and creativity, people learn by apprenticing themselves to others who are more experienced, and they learn by doing. Think of a medical intern in a hospital, or the patrol cops in your favorite police drama. They always team up the rookie cop with the experienced veteran so the new cop can learn the ropes.

A podular system needs a platform

Podular backbone

For a podular system to work, cultural and technical standards are imperative. This means that a pod’s autonomy does not extend to choices in shared standards and protocols. This kind of system needs a strong platform that clearly articulates those standards and provides a mechanism for evolving them when necessary.

For small and large companies alike, the most advantageous standards are those that are most widely adopted, because those standards will allow you to plug in more easily to the big wide world – and the big wide world always offers more functionality, better and more cheaply than you can build it yourself. Platform architecture is about coordination and consistency, so the best way to organize it may not be podular. When it comes to language, protocols, culture and values, you don’t want variability, you want consistency. Shared values is one of the best ways to ensure consistent behavior when you lack a formal hierarchy. Consistency in standards is an absolute requirement if you want to enable autonomous units.

Platform decisions can be dictated from above (for example, the way Apple dictates standards for its App Store) or agreed by consensus (for example, the way Web standards are developed). What’s most important about platform decisions is that they focus on the connections between pods rather than within pods In other words, a pod can do what it likes internally, but when it shares or receives information it needs to speak the same language as other pods.

But to truly enable the pods, platforms should be as lightweight as possible. Consider this: The U.S. military will be using standard internet protocol as the backbone for its net-centric warfare strategy, a podular approach to military operations. If internet protocol is secure enough for the U.S. military, it’s probably secure enough for you.

A podular system trades flexibility for consistency

Pods don’t answer every business problem. Like any other strategic decision, the choice to go podular involves inherent risks and tradeoffs. A podular system is certainly not the most efficient or consistent way to conduct business. There is more redundancy in this kind of system, which usually means greater cost. When units are autonomous, activity will also be more variable, which means it will be less consistent.

The bet you are making with a podular strategy is that the increase in value to customers, paired with increased resiliency in your operations, will more than offset the increases in costs. It’s a fundamental tradeoff and thus a design decision: the more flexible and adaptive you are, the less consistent your behavior will be. The benefit, though, is that you unleash people to bring more of their intelligence, passion, creative energy and expertise to their work. If you’re in an industry where these things matter (and who isn’t), then you should take a look at podular design.

In times of stability, the world belongs to those in power. In times of change, it belongs to the bold, the bright, the brave. Seize the day!

Next post >> Give pods a chance.


Further reading:

The view from the pod: Personal Kanban: Mapping Work, Navigating Life by Jim Benson lays out a framework for podular work teams.

The company view: Rethink: A Business manifesto for Cutting Costs and Boosting Innovation by Ric Merrifield gets into greater detail about how companies can make the shift from process to podular, with examples from Amazon, Procter & Gamble, JetBlue and others. (many thanks to @jcsteels for pointing me to that one!)

The market view: The Origin of Wealth by Eric D. Beinhocker takes a deep dive into the nature of economies and the arguments for more podular organizations.

You can also check out the entire Connected Company reading list, join our email discussion group, or read the original Connected Company article.


Thank you to Larry Irons for pointing me to the New York Times article about Volvo podular approach.

As always, your comments, thoughts and feedback are much appreciated.


Keep in touch! Sign up to get updates and occasional emails from Dave.


  1. I’ve enjoyed your posts increasingly since the original connected company post. Great stuff here: ‘If processes are fool-proof, then pods are fail-proof.’ So even though the outcome may lack ‘consistency’ it will never fail. This is ideal for a company that values innovation over consistency; which is a bold cultural position. I’d rather be bold and somewhat inconsistent than work with a bunch of fools.

    Audaci Favet Fortuna

    Monday, April 18, 2011 at 8:27 pm | Permalink
  2. Hello,

    POD seems to be a very interesting concept, visual, logical.

    I wonder how it is related to enterprise competences, resources, capabilities concepts which are popular in strategic analysis.

    Another thing, I am not sure that any manager see practically his organisational issues as complex things. He may acknowledge to encounter difficulties from relationships, lobbying or getting leadership.

    Organisational complexity may be perceived by CFOs when budgeting through non linear costs planning which require to cap production volume. Other executives will just see complexity in Business markets not internally.

    So, Why and how Pods ? when their purpose is to solve problems that executives do not even see ? I suggest to start promoting idea that is valuable for exectives to manage enterprise internal complexity to solve business problems.

    Best regards

    Jerome Capirossi

    Monday, April 18, 2011 at 10:16 pm | Permalink
  3. Leonard Kish wrote:

    Great points, Dave. We are moving from a linear and hierarchical view of organizations to a codified, networked and emergent view. Beihnocker’s book is one of my favorites.

    One rule to add around standards that I’ve run into recently working on modular approaches to health care with “Simple interfaces with simple rules allow for rapid scalability.” (I ran into this quote on @bblfish’s presentation here: Too often we (particularly in health care) get into situations where we try to be way to inclusive on standards and try to fix every problem and every use case when even a little bit of progress will go a long way to improve things for the majority. The 80/20 rule. We’re seeing it now in the XML vs JSON ( many sites are making, but, generally, simplicity will win. It reduces friction. and you can always add complexity in another layer.

    Avoid complexity up front and go for the simple win. Complexity can lead to confusion, and confusion means you need to spend a lot of time and resources to make things work.

    Tuesday, April 19, 2011 at 8:18 am | Permalink
  4. My first comment, to re-rehearse a point I feel I’ve made before, is that I think we need to reject the either/or proposition in our view about the defects of chains vs. the virtues of pods.

    To poke at your analogy to nets and chains, for example, the ties between nodes in nets are often chain-linked or braided forms, which implies that these structures may be able to co-exist.

    In fact, it is not clear that the chain vs. net analogy pans out other than rhetorically. The failure of a link in the chain as against the fail point in a net suggests an analogy to structural integrity, but the impact of a failure in either place is really dependent on what is going on at that particular point of linkage. It does not follow that podular structures form nets in which all pods have equal and proportionate impact and importance to the system.

    Douglas Hoftstadter here ( provides powerful insight into the nature and limits of analogy. My gloss is that analogy is essentially a cognitive mechanism rather than a rhetorical one. Hoftstadter says that “analogy is the motor in the car of thought”.

    I think this is important because I agree that chains and nets are good and useful metaphors, but they may be less sound to rely on as analogies.

    I LOVE the idea here that by surfacing patterns, delineating the primitives of a language of design, we are making it possible for people to play a role in the design of systems. And I think that the the power of a collection of patterns like “gamestorming” is precisely that they create a design language that allows people to more easily connect and collaborate, rather than is the proposition that it provides either a definitional of exhaustive resource.

    I think there is a big clue here to the potential of the language that is emerging from the Connected Company posts.

    So if, as you say Dave, Gamestorming is a a pattern language for cross-disciplinary design, what is the goal of the pattern language of the Connected Company?

    Tuesday, April 19, 2011 at 12:03 pm | Permalink
  5. dgray wrote:

    Thanks Austen! Anything that is consistently improving is also by nature inconsistent. But that’s not a bad thing :)

    Tuesday, April 19, 2011 at 2:25 pm | Permalink
  6. dgray wrote:

    Hi Jerome, Thanks for the comment. Any company needs to evaluate its resources and capabilities when developing a strategy.

    I think many executives DO see their companies as complex things. CEOs expect more complexity in the years ahead. They expect customer demands to increase. Ninety-one percent of CEOs say they will need to restructure the way their organizations work.

    IBM CEO study here:

    Tuesday, April 19, 2011 at 2:38 pm | Permalink
  7. dgray wrote:

    I love this idea and it’s a great point. I agree 100% that the 80/20 rule is a good approach.

    Tuesday, April 19, 2011 at 2:39 pm | Permalink
  8. dgray wrote:

    Hi Michael, I see that you are thinking about language today, and I do believe that language is very important. I think we are suffering a hangover from our industrial-age binge on hierarchy and process. As a community, thanks to the rise of networks, we are now gaining a greater appreciation and understanding of systems, complexity, interdependence and networks. As we grapple with new concepts, our traditional uses of language have the potential to constrain our thinking and hold us back. If there is a goal in my choices of language in the Connected Company project, it is not to be bound by the language and thought structures of the industrial era, while being as simple and clear as possible in expressing ideas. Pictures seem to help in that regard. We are in a transition. It’s difficult (and maybe dangerous) to describe the future using the language of the past, but we don’t have a lot of choices if we want to be understood.

    I don’t see an either/or dichotomy between chains and nets, although I would not try to catch fish with a chain, nor would I tow a car with a net. The difference in structure between the two is significant. I can also see circumstances where I might use a chain and a net in combination, say, for attaching something to the top of my car. You seem to be reacting to points I’m not making.

    I hope my ideas will become clearer to you in further posts.

    Tuesday, April 19, 2011 at 4:59 pm | Permalink
  9. Great post, Dave. Really enjoyed reading it. I’ve written about this topic as well (or at least I tried). What I like about your post is the fact that you combine process/lineair thinking with network concepts. The thing that intrigues me is that most business and IT take an either-or approach. They say: everything is a process or everything’s a network (or a pod). To me it’s both. Organizations can have processes and some of them can be supported by (old) IT. But most of the organization (yes, 80%) consists of networks and can’t be supported by old IT. And I think that’s where social tools can help. At least these tools relate more to human interactions, human ways of organizing, etc. It’s not perfect. It’s not completely human. But it’s a good step forward.

    Wednesday, April 20, 2011 at 6:03 am | Permalink
  10. dgray wrote:

    Thanks for pointing me to your post, I really enjoyed it. You might enjoy this video chat with Tim O’Reilly where he talks about how Amazon has enabled pods (well he doesn’t call them pods) by giving them a single number that is their sole focus, for example, the buy button.

    Wednesday, April 20, 2011 at 6:17 am | Permalink
  11. Matthew Milan wrote:

    Dave, if you haven’t been introduced to the thinking of Dee Hock yet (I didn’t see his book referenced in either of the reading lists), you should check him out. His reflection on what he calls “charodic organizations” would be a valuable input in to the stuff you’re exploring – especially his work with Visa in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.

    Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 6:44 pm | Permalink
  12. Really enjoy these posts. Other people have been thinking along similar lines. The idea of the Atomic Corporation was written about by a couple of Brits is very similar in concept to pods.
    I’m convinced this organisational model hasn’t taken off because large organisations struggle to collaborate across their internal boundaries (how do I get this company to talk to itself?), let alone across market boundaries. They don’t know how to switch from a command & control mindset to a network centric, self-organising mindset.

    The Cluetrain Manifesto sums it up nicely;

    A word to the wise. Decentralise.

    Thursday, April 28, 2011 at 7:11 pm | Permalink
  13. Jason wrote:

    Fantastic articles. Just want to say the Volvo article isn’t exactly that ‘recent’, its dated 1987!

    Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 12:12 am | Permalink
  14. Dave Gray wrote:

    True enough!

    Saturday, May 26, 2012 at 12:01 am | Permalink
  15. stu wrote:

    Pods are nothing more then adding more managers to the mix and creating a mess not all things can be set to a pod one you are thinking all people have the same learning curve this is where it fails…..

    Thursday, July 26, 2012 at 8:47 am | Permalink

35 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. The Connected Company › Give pods a chance on Tuesday, May 3, 2011 at 10:22 am

    […] if it’s such a great idea to go podular, why aren’t more companies doing […]

  2. Give pods a chance « Dachis Group Collaboratory on Monday, May 9, 2011 at 4:07 am

    […] if it’s such a great idea to go podular, why aren’t more companies doing […]

  3. The Connected Company › The future is podular | Serve4Impact on Sunday, November 27, 2011 at 11:22 am

    […] Via Share this:LinkedInTwitterFacebookStumbleUponEmailMoreDiggRedditPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in Because i like to share again and again. Bookmark the permalink. […]

  4. Speed to Market on Sunday, November 27, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    […] really caught my eye today was an article on The Connected Company website with several illustrations to visually capture their […]

  5. The Podular Tube Map « Peter Bakker on Saturday, March 17, 2012 at 12:58 am

    […] my new goal is to sketch dynamic Tube Maps in Processing which can help us understand the the podular future and to write about this whole idea and its progress in this weblog. The Connected Company: A […]

  6. The Future Of Work | Yammer Blog on Thursday, April 19, 2012 at 12:47 pm

    […] a huge battleship vs. a small lifeboat. Dave Gray talks about organizations of the future becoming podular – made of pods, which Gray defines as an “autonomous unit that is enabled and empowered to […]

  7. Steps to Cultivating Employee Engagement | Yammer Blog on Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 10:20 am

    […] deliver the desired product or service to the market. Dave Gray of Dachis Group calls these units pods and believes that this kind of setup is imperative to thriving in a dynamic and volatile […]

  8. Quora on Tuesday, June 12, 2012 at 8:12 am

    What organizational structures best support successful UX teams? What are the pros and cons of UX being part of Marketing, being part of IT?…

    User Experience needs to be considered separately from marketing and IT. In order for UX to truly succeed, it needs to be a desired outcome recognize throughout an organization, no different than profit, or quality. Given that, if there is going to be …

  9. […] we need to move from command and control, hierarchical, waterfall-style organizations to agile, “podular”, learning organizations. A tall order, but the alternative is to fade […]

  10. Can social technology improve employee productivity? on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 at 12:53 am

    […] his article “The future is podular” Dave Gray suggest that business needs to move towards a ‘podular’ networked […]

  11. […] his article “The future is podular” Dave Gray suggest that business needs to move towards a ‘podular’ networked business instead […]

  12. […] you got this far and found it even remotely interesting, Dave Gray‘s article “The future is podular” is much better! var dd_offset_from_content = 40; var dd_top_offset_from_content = 0;Related […]

  13. The fallacy of endorsing command and control leadership | So what? on Wednesday, September 26, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    […] If Jim Collins work is about great leadership, modern software organizations are demonstrating new ideas in great organizational design and behavior.  Marc Andreessen famously observed on Why software is eating the world.  There’s a larger truth in that.  Software firms are also teaching organizational  design and behavior to firms entrenched in industrial economics based structure.  Firms like Github and 37 signals are setting the tone for how a collaborative flat meritocracy can be a self governing, profitable firm.  Last week I attended a Lean Software Austin Meet Up for the topic – Self-Determination in Software Development Organizations.  The discussion in the meeting was instructive.  The organizations being discussed were successful because they empowered their rank and file employees to make important decisions that “management” would be normally expected to make.  In fact it was part of their founding ethos to empower all employees.  I’ve been reading Dave Gray’s new book The Connected Company.  He talks about how the best performing firms are hierarchy busting, employee empowering firms and based on a firm design he calls “the podular organization“. […]

  14. Connected Companies & Coupled Canoes – 100%Open on Wednesday, November 14, 2012 at 1:48 pm

    […] to be much more agile, responsive and ‘podular’. He describes podular system [ref] as distributing power to pods which are small, autonomous units that are enabled and empowered to […]

  15. […] into each other’s resources. POD System is a popular recommended Multi-Tenant Model – – PaaS script will automatically roll out new resources …  its a mini-combo of […]

  16. […] business nimbleness by adopting more modular and networked structures (to become what Dave Gray calls podular companies), and empower the individual creativity and intrapreneurial spirit of their […]

  17. […] plus agiles en adoptant des structures en réseau, plus modulaires, (et devenir ce que Dave Gray appelle des entreprises podulaires), stimuler chez leurs employés la créativité individuelle et […]

  18. […] business nimbleness by adopting more modular and networked structures (to become what Dave Gray calls podular companies), and empower the individual creativity and intrapreneurial spirit of their […]

  19. […] plus agiles en adoptant des structures en réseau, plus modulaires, (et devenir ce que Dave Gray appelle des entreprises podulaires), stimuler chez leurs employés la créativité individuelle et […]

  20. […] systems—isn’t a cure-all, no. We won’t turn businesses from stuck-in-their-ways factories to podular, connected companies overnight. But what tackling these content challenges will do is get us talking. It’ll get us […]

  21. Give pods a chance - Dachis Group on Monday, July 8, 2013 at 8:46 am

    […] if it’s such a great idea to go podular, why aren’t more companies doing […]

  22. The Structure of Schools | Monkeymagic on Saturday, July 27, 2013 at 5:55 am

    […] A podular alternative So how else could we structure schools and what would the advantages (and disadvantages) be? There are a number of options – I have yet to work my way through Mintzberg – but as an example, one alternative might be to mimic what Dave Gray has called “podular” organisations. […]

  23. […] we need to move from command and control, hierarchical, waterfall-style organizations to agile, “podular”, learning organizations. A tall order, but the alternative is to fade […]

  24. The Future Of Work - The Yammer Blog | The Yammer Blog on Wednesday, September 18, 2013 at 4:33 pm

    […] a huge battleship vs. a small lifeboat. Dave Gray talks about organizations of the future becoming podular – made of pods, which Gray defines as an “autonomous unit that is enabled and empowered to […]

  25. […] deliver the desired product or service to the market. Dave Gray of Dachis Group calls these units pods and believes that this kind of setup is imperative to thriving in a dynamic and volatile […]

  26. Holacracia, diga adiós a su jefe | Ibermatica Social Business on Monday, February 3, 2014 at 12:20 am

    […] The Connected Company […]

  27. Change is hard. But it’s our job. on Saturday, February 15, 2014 at 8:29 am

    […] systems—isn’t a cure-all, no. We won’t turn businesses from stuck-in-their-ways factories to podular, connected companies overnight. But what tackling these content challenges will do is get us talking. It’ll get us […]

  28. […] aspects of it. Over the years these have included Enterprise 2.0, social business, wirearchy, podularity, holacracy, to name just a few of the more well-known […]

  29. […] months about ways of organising work and structuring organisations in future enterprises – Podularity, Holacracy, Wirearchy, Post-Shifting , at a conceptual level Umair Haque and what I call […]

  30. 26 January 2010 | amazon featured products on Saturday, March 8, 2014 at 7:03 am

    […] The future is podular. […]

  31. […] because of new digital tools, along with important new supporting concepts that they enable (see podularity, Holacracy, […]

  32. The baroudeur | In the Flow on Wednesday, April 30, 2014 at 3:18 am

    […] of baroudeurs, willing to cooperate with one another, are the ideal advance party. The experimental pod assembled for time-bound, financially-constrained exploration and testing. The skunk works team not […]

  33. Revisiting the Connected Agency | Being: Peter Kim on Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at 5:01 am

    […] Coincidentally, four years later my colleague Dave Gray wrote a book called The Connected Company. His take on why the future is podular: […]

  34. Communitys und die Arbeitsorganisation « on Wednesday, July 2, 2014 at 4:11 am

    […] Leistungen über sich hinauswachsen. Es funktionieren die Prinzipien des Entrepreneurships. In der Connected Company von Dave Gray und Thomas Vander Wal nennt man diese Netzwerke auch Podular Organisation. In diesen […]

  35. […] cambios rápidamente si antes de poder hacer nada tienen que pedir permiso.  En este artículo “The future is podular” (enlace en inglés), el autor propone una manera de hacerlo a través de unidades autónomas […]