Organisational Structure and Principles

  • This can be seen a very specific raison d’etre for the Core Team level, whose primary responsibility it is to initiate reviews and ensure continual dialogue across the organization.
  • The regular interface of people across teams also acts as a corrective to possible abuse of flexibility.
  • The fluidity of such an organizational structure also demands that decision-making processes must be frequently reconstructed — they cannot simply be “read” from an organogram. The answer to the question “who to go to?” is decided more by the nature of the problem, less by positions of power. Deciding how to decide or what may be termed “meta-decision-making mechanisms”, are evolved through cross-divisional and cross-level committees (inspired by the example of a Shell-Sarnia plant in Canada).
  • The functioning of an organization like SPS is summed up in one much-abused word: process. Carefully defined and understood, this has stood the test of time for us, as for so many corporate giants across the world. Our process has 3 essential elements:
    • Bringing together stakeholders
    • Creating a dialogue
    • Achieving consensus on a path forward
  • Each of these is an extremely challenging task but this is what characterizes all of SPS work, internal, as well as external, such as the one followed in our watershed (water use agreements) or SHG work (forming federations), or in the networking with our NGO partners (SVO)
  • An effective process ensures the ability to make binding decisions without authority being vested in permanent offices. Rather than evoking the authority of a fixed office or position, it brings together those with knowledge and interest (stake) in a problem, to work out an agreement on the way forward. The ultimate decision is