82,387
edits
Scale: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
But ''O, Paradox'': the COO unit ''itself'' can become so complex that it presents its own scale opportunities. Beyond a point, it becomes so complex, so inefficient, that one should appoint a [[chief operating officer]] ''for the chief operating officer’s office'', tasked with consolidating all the diaspora of COO functions groups, initiatives and change managers into a single function. | But ''O, Paradox'': the COO unit ''itself'' can become so complex that it presents its own scale opportunities. Beyond a point, it becomes so complex, so inefficient, that one should appoint a [[chief operating officer]] ''for the chief operating officer’s office'', tasked with consolidating all the diaspora of COO functions groups, initiatives and change managers into a single function. | ||
As you know the [[JC]] is principally concerned with the management of in-house legal. Once upon a time the [[legal department]] itself | As you know, the [[JC]] is principally concerned with the management of [[in-house legal]]. Once upon a time, the [[legal department]] was itself a kind of operating office, there not to dispense its own legal advice so much as manage the outsourcing of legal advice from law firms... and, of course, check the firm’s name was spelled and punctuated correctly on the [[football team]]. That’s “Wickliffe Hampton S.A., acting through its London Branch”, everybody! | ||
So it is some irony that its scale has become such — bigger operations may have the thick end of a thousand lawyers in-house — that firms are forming operations teams to manage the legal teams. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Redundancy]] | *[[Redundancy]] | ||
*[[Scale paradox]] | *[[Scale paradox]] | ||