0003 — Three-tier time commitment model
Date: 2026-04-14 Status: proposed (Claire proposed ~50% as a middle point; this ADR extends that into a three-tier model for Operating Council review)
Context
The initial COE proposal described cohort participation as "roughly 20% of their time." Claire's April 14 feedback flagged this as too light for some of the work, but also impractical if interpreted as six people at 100%. She proposed ~50% as a middle point, with the caveat: "keep it real and sustainable, with the flexibility to go deeper for a smaller set of owners as needed."
This tracks with a real observation from cohort work elsewhere: different roles in a cohort need different commitment levels. Treating everyone as a single tier either under-serves the core owners or over-asks the ring.
Decision
A three-tier time model, applied per cohort:
| Role | Time | Per cohort |
|---|---|---|
| Core owner | ~50% during an active cycle | 1–3 people |
| Participant | ~20% during an active cycle | 2–4 people |
| Adjacent ring | ~5%, office hours | 5–10 people |
During an active cycle (4–6 weeks), core owners are deeply in the work. After the cycle, they graduate to alumni status and return to their regular role.
Reasoning
Why three tiers instead of one:
- Cohort work has different jobs. The person driving the workflow change needs real depth. The person contributing a specific angle needs enough time to stay in rhythm. The person in the ring needs lightweight access.
- Forcing one level either makes the ring too expensive or makes the core too shallow.
- Explicitly naming the tiers lets sponsors plan backfill and protect time realistically.
Why 50% for core owners:
- Claire's suggestion landed on ~50% as realistic and sustainable.
- A cycle is 4–6 weeks. For that window, 50% creates enough depth to actually change how the workflow works.
- It is not permanent. Core owners move to alumni after the cycle.
- Anything less and the work becomes a workshop, not a cohort.
Why 20% for participants:
- One full day per week is enough to stay in the loop, contribute specific knowledge, and use what gets built.
- More than that starts competing with participants' actual jobs.
- Less than that and they fall out of rhythm and the cohort loses their input.
Why 5% for the ring:
- The ring is office hours and passive consumption. It's how the cohort reaches beyond the people in the cycle.
- 5% is roughly "I book a 30-minute slot most weeks."
- Larger commitment here would dilute participants; smaller and the ring disappears.
Why not fix the exact numbers:
- A cohort might have one core owner at 70% and two participants at 30%.
- A cohort with a less intense cycle might run at 40/15/5.
- The principle is deeper for fewer, lighter for more. The specific split gets decided per cohort.
Consequences
- The founding brief reflects the three tiers.
- The roles-and-time doc explains each tier in detail.
- Each cohort's roster specifies the tier for each member with rationale.
- Sponsors need to plan realistic backfill for core owners during active cycles. Not a marginal adjustment.
- Core owners' managers need to be in the loop. 50% of their time is a real cost that managers carry during a cycle.
- Alumni status is a real thing, not just a label. Expectations shift when the cycle ends.
Open items
- How do we handle a cohort where a core owner's manager won't release 50%? Surfaces as a sponsor escalation.
- Are there workflows where 50% is still insufficient and we need a full-time rotation model? Possibly — revisit after Cohort 1 if we see evidence.