Holacracy: A Practitioner's Guide to Self-Organization

Holacracy is a self-organization framework that distributes authority through a system of roles, circles, and governance processes. Instead of traditional management hierarchies, Holacracy enables dynamic, consent-based decision-making. The framework was developed in 2007 by Brian Robertson at Ternary Software and has since been adopted by companies worldwide, from startups to large organizations like Zappos.

At SI Labs, we have practiced Holacracy in our daily work for over ten years. We have experienced the highs and lows of implementation, refined our governance processes, and learned how self-organization works in an innovation-driven company. This guide shares that experience.

Unlike most Holacracy resources that offer either abstract theory or superficial summaries, this article goes deep. It is based on our practical experience as a company that does not just consult on self-organization but lives it. We will show you the mechanisms, the challenges, and the solutions we have found.

Holacracy implementation lessons from a decade of practice: that is what this guide offers.

Why Self-Organization at All?

Before diving into the details of Holacracy, it is worth asking: what is wrong with traditional hierarchies?

The Problem with the Pyramid

Classic corporate hierarchies were designed for a different era. They emerged in a time when information was scarce, markets were stable, and change was slow. Managers were necessary because they had access to information that others lacked.

Today, reality looks different:

Decision bottlenecks emerge when every decision must be escalated upward. The manager with twenty direct reports becomes a bottleneck for twenty different issues. Decision quality suffers because context is lost.

Information silos form when departments hoard their data. Knowledge becomes power, and sharing knowledge supposedly diminishes influence. The result is redundant work, missed synergies, and a culture of distrust.

Adaptability suffers because changes must travel the hierarchical approval path. By the time a market shift is recognized, analyzed, approved, and implemented, the market has shifted again.

Talent becomes frustrated because their ideas often go unheard in hierarchies. People with high initiative leave companies where they cannot shape outcomes. Those who remain are those who accommodate the status quo.

Research Insight: A study with 81 citations shows: flatter structures improve idea generation and creative success, but above 250 employees they can lead to “haphazard execution” if clear governance does not exist. The key is not abolishing structure but redesigning it. (Source: “The myth of the flat start-up”, Strategic Management Journal, 2021)

Why Hierarchies Persist Nonetheless

Hierarchies did not emerge without reason. They offer clear responsibilities, unambiguous escalation paths, and a familiar ordering principle. The question is not whether hierarchies are bad, but whether alternatives exist that preserve the benefits while avoiding the drawbacks.

Holacracy is such an alternative. It creates structure without hierarchy, clarity without centralization, and order without micromanagement.

The Building Blocks of Holacracy

Holacracy consists of three fundamental elements: roles, circles, and links. These building blocks replace the classic organizational structure of positions, departments, and reporting lines.

Roles Instead of Job Titles

In traditional organizations, every employee has a job title and a job description. The job title defines status; the job description defines tasks. The problem: job titles are static, but work is dynamic.

In Holacracy, job titles are replaced by roles. A role consists of three elements:

The Purpose describes why the role exists. It provides direction and helps with prioritization. An example: the purpose of the “Content Creator” role might be: “Creating relevant content that makes our expertise visible.”

Domains define what the role has exclusive control over. Others can only intervene in these areas with permission. For the Content Creator, a domain might be: “Blog publication calendar.”

Accountabilities describe the ongoing activities for which the role is responsible. They are formulated as “doing X” and describe processes, not outcomes. For example: “Creating and publishing blog articles according to content strategy.”

The crucial point: a person can hold multiple roles, and roles can change. When the organization recognizes new challenges, new roles can be created. When roles are no longer needed, they disappear. This dynamic role evolution is one of the core benefits of Holacracy.

Roles vs. Job Titles is a fundamental distinction: a job title defines who someone is. A role defines what someone does. This separation enables flexibility without loss of identity.

Research Insight: In holacratic organizations, employees typically hold 3-7 roles simultaneously. This multiple assignment enables specialized expertise while maintaining flexibility. (Source: Multiple case studies, 2016-2024)

Circles as Organizational Units

Circles are the structural equivalent of departments, but with one essential difference: they are self-organizing and nested within each other.

A circle is a group of roles pursuing a common purpose. The circle has its own governance, its own meetings, and its own decision-making authority. A marketing circle might contain roles like Content Creator, Social Media Manager, and Brand Guardian.

Every circle has four structural properties:

1. Purpose: The goal the circle pursues
2. Domains: Areas the circle controls
3. Accountabilities: Ongoing activities of the circle
4. Roles: The roles that exist within the circle

Super-circles and sub-circles form a nesting structure. The organization-wide circle (Anchor Circle or General Company Circle) contains sub-circles for different functional areas. These sub-circles can in turn have sub-circles. This creates a fractal structure that enables both specialization and integration.

A practical example: the Anchor Circle might have three sub-circles: Delivery, Business Development, and Operations. The Delivery circle might in turn have sub-circles for different client teams. Each circle organizes itself but follows the purpose defined by the parent circle.

The purpose of a circle is defined by the parent circle. The sub-circle then has the authority to decide how it fulfills that purpose. This is the core of self-organization: autonomy within clear boundaries.

This nesting solves a fundamental organizational problem: how can you enable specialization without creating silos? In Holacracy, circles are not isolated units. Through link roles, information flow between levels is maintained.

Links as Connecting Elements

Circles are not isolated units. They must coordinate with other circles and fit into the overall organization. For this, Holacracy has special link roles that form the organization’s communication network:

Lead Links represent the parent circle in the sub-circle. Their accountabilities include:

• Assigning roles to people and removing these assignments
• Allocating resources for the circle
• Defining priorities and strategies for the circle
• Setting metrics for the circle

The Lead Link is not a manager in the classic sense but a specific role with defined accountabilities. A Lead Link does not decide the content of work but the allocation of capacity. People in the circle decide for themselves how they fulfill their roles.

Important: the Lead Link cannot circumvent the circle’s governance. Structural decisions are made in governance meetings, not dictated by the Lead Link.

Rep Links represent the sub-circle in the parent circle. They are elected by the members of the sub-circle, not appointed by the Lead Link. Their accountabilities include:

• Bringing tensions from the sub-circle to the super-circle
• Removing blockages that hinder the sub-circle
• Bringing the sub-circle’s perspective into the super-circle’s governance

The Rep Link is the counterweight to the Lead Link. It ensures that information flows not only from top to bottom but also from bottom to top. This bidirectionality is essential for functioning self-organization.

Cross Links connect circles horizontally. When two circles must work closely together but have no hierarchical relationship, a Cross Link can be established. The Cross Link has voting rights in both circles and ensures direct coordination without the detour through higher levels.

An example: the Delivery circle and the Marketing circle must coordinate their activities because marketing campaigns affect delivery capacity. A Cross Link between both circles ensures this coordination happens directly.

Governance: How Decisions Are Made

The heart of Holacracy is the governance process. It defines how the organization’s structure is changed: how roles are created, how domains are assigned, and how policies are made.

The Holacracy Constitution

Every Holacracy organization adopts a constitution, a rulebook that establishes the basic principles. The HolacracyOne constitution (currently version 5.0) is publicly available and serves as the standard. Organizations can adapt it, but the core remains: clear rules for governance and operations.

The constitution is structured into five articles:

Article 1: Organizational Structure defines how roles and circles work. Here the concepts of purpose, domain, and accountabilities are established.

Article 2: Distribution of Authority describes what rights every role holder has. This includes the right to make decisions autonomously, as long as they do not violate another role’s domain.

Article 3: Governance regulates how the structure is changed. Here the governance meetings and the IDM process are described.

Article 4: Operational Processes defines daily collaboration: duties, tactical meetings, and how projects are handled.

Article 5: Adoption Mechanisms explains how an organization introduces Holacracy and how changes to the constitution itself can be made.

Adopting the constitution is a formal act. The previous authority holders (typically founders or executive management) sign an adoption document that transfers their authority to the system. From this moment, decisions are no longer made by individuals but by the rules of the constitution.

This moment is often described as a “transfer of power.” That is not quite accurate: power does not disappear; it is redistributed. Every role holder gains authority over their domains. The overall organization gains the ability to change itself through governance processes.

Governance Meetings

Governance meetings are where the organization’s structure is changed. They take place regularly, typically monthly. Each circle has its own governance meetings.

The procedure follows a fixed process:

1. Check-in Round: Each participant briefly shares what is on their mind. This creates presence and clears distracting thoughts.

2. Administrative Concerns: Logistical questions are clarified: when does the meeting end? Are there time constraints?

3. Agenda Building: Anyone can put items on the agenda. Items are named only with keywords, not explained. This prevents premature discussions.

4. Integrative Decision Making: Each agenda item is processed individually. The proposer makes a proposal, followed by clarifying questions, reactions, and finally the integration of objections.

5. Closing Round: Everyone briefly shares their reflection on the meeting.

Integrative Decision-Making

The core of the governance process is integrative decision-making. It differs fundamentally from consensus or majority decisions.

With consensus, everyone must agree. This leads to endless discussions and watered-down compromises.

With majority decisions, the majority wins, but the minority is overridden. This creates losers and resistance.

With integrative decision-making, a proposal is improved until no one has a valid objection anymore. An objection is only valid if it identifies concrete harm to the organization, not if someone simply dislikes the proposal.

The process in detail:

1. Proposal: The proposer makes a concrete proposal.
2. Clarifying Questions: Everyone can ask questions for understanding. No discussion, only clarification.
3. Reaction Round: Everyone shares their reaction. The proposer only listens.
4. Amend & Clarify: The proposer can adjust their proposal.
5. Objection Round: Anyone can raise objections. The facilitator checks whether objections are valid.
6. Integration: Valid objections are integrated. The proposal is adjusted until no valid objections remain.

Objections vs. Concerns: An objection must describe concrete harm that the proposal would cause. “I don’t like it” is not an objection but a concern. Concerns are heard but do not lead to blockage.

Research Insight: A meta-analysis of 15 companies shows: 70% of organizations implementing Holacracy realize measurable benefits. The average performance improvement is 30%, with effects strongest in the tech sector and in companies under 500 employees. (Source: “Holacracy and Organizational Performance”, 2024)

Policy Creation

In addition to structural changes, policies can also be created in governance meetings. Policies are rules that apply to all members of a circle.

Example: a policy might specify that all external publications must be reviewed by the Brand Guardian before release. This policy limits the autonomy of other roles, but only within the defined area.

Policies should be used sparingly. Every policy reduces autonomy. The rule of thumb: only create policies when a concrete problem exists, not preventively.

Meeting Structures

Holacracy clearly distinguishes between different meeting types. This separation prevents strategic and operational topics from being mixed.

Tactical Meetings

Tactical meetings serve operational coordination. They occur more frequently than governance meetings, typically weekly. While governance changes the structure, tactical operates within the structure.

The procedure follows a clear structure:

1. Check-in Round: Everyone briefly shares what is on their mind. This creates presence and helps park distracting thoughts. Typical duration: 1-2 minutes per person.

2. Checklist Review: Recurring activities are checked off. Has everyone completed their weekly tasks? No discussion, only “yes,” “no,” or “not applicable.”

3. Metrics Review: Relevant numbers are shared. Revenue, project progress, customer satisfaction, depending on the circle. Here too: no discussion, only data.

4. Project Updates: Everyone briefly reports on their active projects. The focus is on changes since the last meeting. “No news” is a valid answer.

5. Triage Issues: The heart of the tactical meeting. Tensions are brought up and processed. Not every tension must be fully resolved. Often it is enough to identify the next step.

6. Closing Round: Everyone shares a brief reflection on the meeting.

The triage process is particularly important and distinguishes Holacracy from other meeting formats. When someone brings up a tension, the facilitator asks: “What do you need?” The possible answers structure the further proceedings:

• Information: “I need a status on Project X.”
• Next Action: “I need someone to do Y.”
• Project Request: “I need someone to take on Project Z.”
• In-Meeting Processing: “I need us to discuss this now.”

The focus is on the next step, not the complete solution. This prevents tactical meetings from devolving into endless problem-solving discussions.

A common mistake: the tactical meeting becomes a strategy discussion. Strategic topics belong in separate meetings or in governance. Tactical is for operational coordination.

Governance vs. Tactical

The separation between governance and tactical is essential:

Governance meetings change the structure. Here roles are created, domains assigned, policies established.

Tactical meetings operate within the structure. Here coordination happens, priorities are set, problems are solved.

If a structural problem emerges in a tactical meeting, it is noted and moved to the next governance meeting. This discipline prevents meetings from getting out of control.

Meeting Frequency

The optimal meeting frequency depends on the organization. A rule of thumb:

• Governance meetings: Monthly to quarterly
• Tactical meetings: Weekly
• Check-ins: Daily (optional, brief)

Too many meetings are a sign of unclear structures. If constant coordination is needed, clear domains or accountabilities are probably missing.

The Implementation Path

Introducing Holacracy is a significant change process. It requires commitment, training, and patience.

Readiness Assessment

Not every organization is ready for Holacracy. Before you start, examine:

Leadership Commitment: Leadership must be willing to transfer their authority to the system. Half-hearted commitment leads to half-hearted implementation.

Cultural Readiness: Is there already a culture of personal responsibility? Or do employees expect decisions to come “from above”?

Resources: Holacracy requires investments in training, tools, and time. Do not underestimate the effort.

Problem Understanding: What problem is Holacracy supposed to solve? If the answer is unclear, the implementation will also be unclear.

Constitution Adoption

The formal adoption of the constitution is the official start. The previous leadership declares that from now on the rules of the constitution apply.

This moment is symbolically important. It marks a clear break with the past. There is no “a little bit of Holacracy.”

Initial Role Mapping

The first practical step is mapping existing work to roles. This does not translate job titles but analyzes activities. This is an important distinction: it is not about turning “Marketing Manager” into a role but understanding what work the Marketing Manager actually does.

A proven process:

1. Inventory work: Everyone lists what they actually do (not what the job description says).
2. Cluster: Similar activities are grouped.
3. Define roles: For each cluster, a role with purpose and accountabilities is defined.
4. Assign domains: Where does a role have exclusive control?
5. Assign: Roles are assigned to people.

Typical questions:

• What recurring activities exist?
• Who is responsible for what?
• Where are there overlaps or gaps?
• What decisions are regularly made?

The initial role mapping is never perfect. It is a starting point that evolves through governance. The mistake many organizations make is striving for perfection. Better: start quickly and iterate.

Facilitator Training

Governance meetings require trained facilitation. The facilitator holds the process, ensures rules are followed, and prevents meetings from derailing.

The facilitator role requires specific skills:

• Knowing the IDM process by heart
• Being able to distinguish between clarifying questions and discussion
• Separating valid from invalid objections
• Maintaining neutrality even when having an opinion
• Enforcing the process in a friendly but consistent manner

Facilitator training should not be underestimated. A poor facilitator can sabotage the entire process. A meeting that devolves into discussion leaves the impression that Holacracy does not work, when only the facilitation failed.

Pilot vs. Full Rollout

Some organizations begin with a pilot in a single circle. This reduces risk and enables learning. Others start fully.

A pilot has advantages: it allows experiments and adjustments. It has disadvantages: the pilot circle must interact with non-holacratic circles, which creates friction.

Timeline Expectations

Holacracy implementations take time. Expect:

• 3-6 months until the basics are in place
• 12-18 months until the organization works fluidly
• Ongoing improvements and adjustments

Those who give up after three months have never really tried Holacracy.

Common Challenges and Solutions

After years of practice, we know the typical stumbling blocks. Every organization goes through similar challenges, and there are proven solutions. Here are the most common and how we deal with them.

Research Insight: Our analysis of 655 academic papers shows: 50 studies document implementation successes, 38 describe challenges. The ratio shows: success depends heavily on context. Cultural readiness and leadership commitment are particularly decisive factors. (Source: SI Labs Meta-Study, 2026)

“We Miss Our Managers”

The problem: Employees feel lost without someone telling them what to do. They complain about missing leadership and do not know whom to turn to.

The cause: Years of habituation to hierarchical structures has created the expectation that someone else bears responsibility. Self-organization requires a mindset shift that does not happen automatically.

The solution: Lead Links provide orientation without micromanaging. They set priorities and are points of contact. The difference: they do not make all decisions, only those that fall within their role.

Additionally, clear accountabilities help. When someone does not know what to do, it is often a sign that roles are not clearly enough defined. The solution lies in governance, not in more leadership.

At the same time, employees must learn to take responsibility themselves. This is a learning process that can take months. Coaching and patience are required.

”Meetings Take Too Long”

The problem: Governance meetings stretch over hours because everyone wants to discuss everything. Energy drops, frustration rises.

The cause: Lack of facilitation and missing understanding of the process. People confuse clarifying questions with discussions and reactions with counterproposals.

The solution: Strict facilitation. The facilitator must enforce the process, even when uncomfortable. Concretely this means:

• Interrupting clarifying questions when they turn into statements
• Stopping reactions when they become debates
• Carefully checking objections for validity

Over time, meetings become shorter because everyone has internalized the process. A practiced team can conduct a governance meeting in 30-45 minutes.

”This Is Too Much Process”

The problem: The constitution seems bureaucratic. Everything must be formally processed. Spontaneity is lost.

The cause: Misunderstanding about what must go through governance and what does not.

The solution: The constitution is a framework, not a prison. Many decisions can be made informally, as long as they lie within defined authorities. Only structural changes must go through governance.

Practically: if a role has the authority, the role holder can decide. Governance is only required for changes to roles, domains, policies, and circle structures.

”People Do Not Change”

The problem: Some employees cling to old patterns. They wait for instructions instead of acting autonomously. They seek blame instead of solutions.

The cause: Not everyone is suited for self-organization, and some need more time than others. This is not a weakness but different preferences.

The solution: Gradual habituation combined with clear expectations. Coaching for those who need support. Also important: giving honest feedback when someone does not meet expectations.

And sometimes: acceptance that not everyone is suited for self-organization. This is not a judgment but a fit. Some people work better in hierarchical structures, and that is legitimate.

Research Insight: A comparative study with 95 employees in holacratic companies in Switzerland and Germany shows: employees with high openness (Big Five personality trait) show better person-organization fit. Holacracy is not for everyone, but those who fit report fewer “illegitimate tasks” and higher satisfaction. (Source: “Holacracy, a modern form of organizational governance”, 2023, 22 citations)

Why Implementations Fail

Half-hearted leadership commitment: When leadership returns to old patterns during conflicts, the signal is clear: Holacracy only applies when convenient.

Lack of training: Without training, people do not understand the process. They become frustrated and give up.

Too-fast scaling: Before one circle works, more are added. Problems multiply.

Lack of patience: Holacracy shows weaknesses immediately but strengths only after time. Those who give up after the first difficulties never see the strengths.

Holacracy in Practice at SI Labs

We have practiced Holacracy for over ten years. In that time, we have learned much, made mistakes, corrected them, and found our own way. Our experience is not generalizable, but it offers insights that do not appear in theory.

How We Started

Our adoption began from a concrete frustration: we preached innovation and agility to our clients, but internally we worked with classic structures. That felt dishonest. If we help companies transform, we should be transformed ourselves.

The decision for Holacracy was not unanimous. There were skeptics who feared that lack of hierarchy would lead to chaos. There were enthusiasts who expected immediate improvements. Both were wrong.

The first months were bumpy. Governance meetings lasted three hours instead of the planned one. Roles overlapped because we had not cleanly analyzed the work. Some team members missed clear hierarchies and felt disoriented.

What We Learned

Tensions as fuel for improvement: In Holacracy, tensions are not seen as problems but as indicators of improvement potential. A tension is the difference between what is and what could be. This perspective has changed our culture. We see tensions as signals that something can be improved, not as failure.

Perfection is not the goal: The initial role mapping does not have to be perfect. Governance processes correct over time. We have learned to use “good enough for now, safe enough to try” as a standard instead of “perfect from the start.”

Facilitation makes the difference: A good facilitator is worth their weight in gold. We invested early in facilitator training and never regretted it. Without competent facilitation, governance meetings become endless discussions.

Surviving the first structural crisis: After about six months, we had a crisis. Some team members wanted to give up, return to “normal” leadership. We persevered and emerged stronger. This crisis is normal and almost inevitable.

Our Adaptations

We do not blindly follow the HolacracyOne constitution. Over the years, we have made adaptations that work for our situation:

Shorter, more frequent governance meetings: Instead of monthly marathon sessions, we hold biweekly short meetings. This keeps tensions fresh and prevents accumulation.

Asynchronous governance for simple proposals: We use a Slack channel for uncontroversial governance changes. If no one objects within 48 hours, the proposal is considered accepted.

Flexible cross-links: We have made cross-links temporary and project-based instead of permanent. This reduces meeting load and enables needs-based coordination.

Integrated retrospectives: We combine Holacracy with regular retrospectives to also reflect on the meta-level: how is our Holacracy working?

These adaptations are the result of years of iteration. For the start, we recommend staying with the standard constitution. Only after one to two years should adaptations be made, when the basics are solid.

Impact on Our Innovation Work

Self-organization for innovation companies has a special advantage: we live what we consult on. When we talk to clients about agile structures, we can report from experience. This creates credibility that no PowerPoint can achieve.

At the same time, Holacracy enables rapid adaptation to customer needs. New roles emerge when new competencies are needed. Teams form around projects, not department boundaries. We can create a new role in a governance session and fill it immediately.

Self-organization has also changed our client relationships. We do not offer classic consulting where consultants give recommendations and then disappear. We work collaboratively, at eye level. Our internal culture makes this authentic.

Is Holacracy Right for You?

Holacracy is not suitable for every organization. Before investing the implementation effort, an honest assessment is worthwhile. Here are some guidelines.

Signs That Holacracy Might Fit

• You already have a culture of personal responsibility: People take initiative without being asked. They do not wait for permission.
• Decisions regularly get stuck in the hierarchy: Even small decisions must be escalated. Managers become bottlenecks.
• Your employees are frustrated by lack of creative freedom: Talent leaves the company because they cannot shape outcomes.
• You work in a dynamic industry with rapid change: Markets, technologies, and customer needs change quickly. Agility is a competitive advantage.
• Your leadership is willing to give up authority: The management or founders are ready to transfer their power to the system. Not just theoretically, but practically.
• You have a moderate size: Organizations between 10 and 200 people are the sweet spot. Larger is possible but more complex.

Signs That Holacracy Might Not Fit

• Your culture is strongly hierarchical and that works: Not every hierarchy is bad. If your organization functions well, change may not be necessary.
• You have many employees who need clear instructions: Some people work better with clear guidelines. Holacracy requires self-direction.
• Your leadership wants to try “a little bit of Holacracy”: Half-hearted implementation does not work. It leads to confusion and frustration.
• You expect immediate results: Holacracy needs months to years to take effect. Short-term improvements are the exception.
• Your organization is very large and complex without prior self-organization experience: Introducing Holacracy to 5,000 people who have never worked in a self-organized way is extremely ambitious.
• Your industry requires strict compliance: In heavily regulated industries (medicine, finance, aviation), Holacracy’s flexibility can conflict with compliance requirements.

Alternatives to Holacracy

Holacracy is not the only self-organization framework. Several alternatives offer similar principles with different approaches:

Sociocracy is older than Holacracy and significantly influenced it. Sociocracy relies on consent decisions and double linking between circles. It is more flexible than Holacracy and leaves more room for organization-specific adaptations. For a detailed comparison, see our article Holacracy vs. Sociocracy.

Sociocracy 3.0 (S3) is a further development that combines elements from Sociocracy, Holacracy, and agile methods. S3 offers modular patterns that can be introduced individually rather than a complete framework.

Teal Organizations (according to Frederic Laloux) is less a concrete framework than a developmental stage of organizations. Teal describes organizations that practice self-management, wholeness, and evolutionary purpose.

Custom Frameworks: Some organizations develop their own systems that combine elements of different approaches. This requires more design work but enables maximum fit.

The choice of framework is less important than the commitment to self-organization. A well-implemented alternative system is better than a poorly implemented Holacracy. The principles of distributed authority, clear accountabilities, and transparent governance are framework-agnostic.

Next Steps

If you want to explore Holacracy:

1. Learn the basics: Read the constitution, watch videos, attend a training.
2. Talk to practitioners: Theory is important, but experience reports are more valuable.
3. Do a pilot: Start small, learn, scale.
4. Invest in facilitation: Good facilitation is not a nice-to-have.
5. Have patience: Holacracy takes time.

Holacracy is not a panacea. It is a tool for organizations that are ready to distribute authority and take responsibility. If you have that readiness, Holacracy can be transformative.

Beyond the Holacracy hype lies real work. The work is worth it if you seriously want your organization to become more agile, more adaptive, and more human.

---

This is part of our series on self-organization. Further articles: How to Implement Holacracy, Holacracy at SI Labs, Holacracy vs. Sociocracy, Why Holacracy Fails.

The Research Insights in this article are based on an analysis of 655 academic papers on Holacracy and self-organization (2012-2025). Learn more about our methodology in our Holacracy Case Studies Overview.