{ "object_name": "Meeting Architecture", "object_slug": "meeting-architecture", "object_type": "LPM Knowledge Object", "version": "1.0", "last_reviewed_date": "2026-06-24", "owner": "LPM / Lapemo", "lpm_layers": [ "Communication Architecture", "Decision Architecture", "Information Ecology", "Governance Architecture", "AI Amplification" ], "connected_layers": [ "Ownership Map", "Decision Rights Model", "Decision Log", "Evidence Checklist", "Escalation Map", "Platform Structure", "Identity & Incentives" ], "purpose": "Define the enterprise meeting system by clarifying which meetings exist, what each meeting can decide, what evidence is required, what output artifact is created, and how meetings are reviewed or retired.", "intended_audience": [ "Executives", "Transformation leaders", "Product operations", "Chief of staff teams", "AI governance leaders", "Risk and control owners", "Portfolio leaders", "HR and operating model teams" ], "required_fields": [ "Meeting ID", "Meeting name", "Meeting type", "Purpose statement", "Allowed outcomes", "Accountable owner", "Decision maker", "Facilitator", "Required attendees", "Input artifacts", "Evidence standard", "Output artifact", "System of record", "Cadence", "Duration", "Pre-read owner and due time", "Escalation trigger", "AI involvement", "Human review rule", "Retention rule", "Health metric", "Review date", "Version" ], "optional_fields": [ "Not allowed outcomes", "Optional attendees", "Async alternative" ], "scoring_logic": { "scale": "0-4", "dimensions": [ "purpose clarity", "owner clarity", "decision rights", "evidence quality", "output artifact", "system of record", "AI review", "retirement trigger", "review cadence" ], "levels": { "0": "Meetings are informal, excessive, personality-driven, and disconnected from decisions, evidence, ownership, and systems of record.", "1": "Some recurring meetings have agendas, but decision rights, output artifacts, evidence standards, and retirement rules are unclear.", "2": "Key meetings are documented, but the architecture is not consistently linked to decision logs, owner maps, AI workflows, or governance controls.", "3": "Material meetings have owners, decision boundaries, evidence requirements, outputs, escalation paths, and review dates.", "4": "Meeting architecture is actively governed with AI-assisted prep, stale meeting detection, decision memory, output lineage, meeting load metrics, and executive visibility." } }, "meeting_types": [ { "type": "Executive operating review", "purpose": "Review enterprise performance, risk, dependencies, value, and decisions needing executive attention", "output": "Executive decisions, tradeoff calls, escalations, priority shifts" }, { "type": "Portfolio prioritization forum", "purpose": "Allocate capacity, funding, sequencing, and tradeoffs across product, transformation, or AI initiatives", "output": "Priority decision, capacity decision, defer or fund decision" }, { "type": "Decision forum", "purpose": "Make or ratify decisions that require explicit authority and documented evidence", "output": "Decision log entry and owner assignment" }, { "type": "Dependency review", "purpose": "Resolve cross-team blockers, platform dependencies, data dependencies, vendor dependencies, or timing conflicts", "output": "Dependency owner, date, escalation, and system record update" }, { "type": "Risk and control review", "purpose": "Review policy exceptions, audit findings, regulatory risk, security risk, model risk, or control gaps", "output": "Risk decision, exception, mitigation, or escalation" }, { "type": "AI governance review", "purpose": "Approve or monitor AI use cases, agents, models, controls, human review rules, and drift signals", "output": "AI owner update, risk tier, launch gate, or remediation action" }, { "type": "Incident / war room", "purpose": "Coordinate urgent operational, customer, technical, compliance, cyber, or AI incidents", "output": "Incident decision, communication plan, remediation owner, postmortem trigger" }, { "type": "Change and adoption forum", "purpose": "Coordinate rollout, training, stakeholder impact, enablement, adoption metrics, and feedback loops", "output": "Change decision, adoption action, risk issue, or communication update" }, { "type": "Team operating sync", "purpose": "Align near-term execution, blockers, handoffs, and commitments within a team", "output": "Action updates and work-system changes" }, { "type": "Learning / postmortem review", "purpose": "Convert outcomes, incidents, misses, and launches into durable learning", "output": "Lessons, control updates, operating changes, and owner changes" } ], "company_variants": { "500+ employees": { "profile": "Scaling company with founder-led or executive-led coordination beginning to break. Meetings are often the operating system because ownership, decision rights, and source systems are still maturing.", "design_goal": "Create a minimum viable meeting architecture that reduces tribal coordination and makes decisions visible without adding bureaucracy.", "must_have": [ "Executive operating review for priorities, risks, tradeoffs, and AI initiatives.", "Decision forum for material cross-functional decisions.", "Dependency review for blocked work across product, operations, technology, data, and support.", "AI initiative review for every material AI pilot, automation, vendor, model, or agent.", "Meeting kill list that removes recurring meetings without decisions, risk movement, or durable outputs." ], "anti_patterns": [ "Every decision still routes through founders or senior operators.", "Meetings exist because the work system is not trusted.", "Slack, Teams, and meetings become the source of truth.", "AI pilots are discussed in demos but not governed through owner, risk, and value records." ], "ai_rules": [ "AI may draft agendas and summaries, but human owners approve meeting outputs.", "Every AI-related meeting must update the AI Initiative Owner Register or Decision Log.", "Do not let AI-generated summaries become the official decision record without review." ] }, "5,000+ employees": { "profile": "Scaled enterprise with functional maturity but cross-functional drag. Meetings multiply across departments, portfolios, regions, and control groups.", "design_goal": "Create a federated meeting architecture that separates status, decision, governance, escalation, and learning forums.", "must_have": [ "Portfolio prioritization forums with explicit decision rights and capacity ownership.", "Cross-functional dependency forums linked to Jira, ServiceNow, product roadmaps, and enterprise platforms.", "Risk, control, and AI governance forums with evidence standards and audit-ready outputs.", "Meeting taxonomy that defines which forum owns which class of decision, issue, or escalation.", "Quarterly meeting hygiene review to consolidate duplicate forums and retire stale rituals." ], "anti_patterns": [ "Multiple councils debate the same decision without one accountable authority.", "Status meetings are mistaken for decision forums.", "Teams create shadow meetings to bypass slow governance.", "AI decisions move faster than risk, data, legal, compliance, and platform owners can respond." ], "ai_rules": [ "AI can classify meeting type, extract actions, compare decisions against policy, and detect duplicate forums.", "Material AI outputs must link to evidence, owner, decision, control, and review records.", "AI-generated meeting insights should flag stale decisions, unresolved actions, and missing owners." ] }, "10,000+ employees": { "profile": "Complex enterprise with regions, business units, shared services, regulated controls, platform ecosystems, and many AI use cases. Meeting architecture becomes a control layer issue.", "design_goal": "Govern meetings as an enterprise coordination system with clear tiering, authority, auditability, and AI-assisted operating intelligence.", "must_have": [ "Enterprise forum catalog with meeting tiers, decision rights, evidence standards, and ownership.", "Regional and business-unit forums that map to enterprise decision and escalation paths.", "AI control forums for agent activity, model risk, data lineage, value realization, drift, and human review exceptions.", "Meeting telemetry across time spent, decision cycle time, action closure, duplication, escalation rate, and forum effectiveness.", "Automated stale meeting detection and reauthorization for material recurring forums." ], "anti_patterns": [ "Enterprise governance creates more meetings than decisions.", "Global and regional forums conflict on decision rights.", "AI agents act across systems faster than meeting-based governance can see or correct.", "Executives receive meeting summaries without lineage to decisions, evidence, risks, and owners." ], "ai_rules": [ "AI may monitor meeting architecture health, summarize patterns, detect drift, and recommend consolidation.", "High-risk AI or regulated decisions require human-controlled forum outputs and audit-ready retention.", "Meeting architecture should feed an executive control plane showing where decisions, risks, and actions are stuck." ] } }, "ai_prompts": [ { "name": "Classify meeting", "prompt": "Given a meeting name, agenda, attendees, cadence, and output, classify the meeting type and determine whether it is status, decision, risk, dependency, governance, incident, AI, change, or learning." }, { "name": "Detect weak architecture", "prompt": "Review this meeting inventory and identify meetings with unclear purpose, missing owner, missing decision rights, no output artifact, duplicate scope, or no retirement trigger." }, { "name": "Recommend redesign", "prompt": "For each low-value recurring meeting, recommend whether to keep, merge, split, convert to async, move to a decision forum, or retire." }, { "name": "Validate decision meeting", "prompt": "Determine whether this meeting has the required authority, evidence, decision maker, source of truth, and logging path to make a material decision." }, { "name": "Generate agenda", "prompt": "Create a decision-ready agenda using the meeting purpose, decision rights, evidence checklist, known risks, blockers, and required outputs." }, { "name": "Extract outputs", "prompt": "From meeting notes or transcript, extract decisions, actions, owners, deadlines, evidence gaps, escalations, AI involvement, and records that need updates." }, { "name": "AI governance check", "prompt": "Identify whether AI was used to prepare, summarize, recommend, decide, route, or execute work, then apply the correct human review rule." } ], "validation_rules": [ { "rule": "Meeting purpose required", "description": "Every meeting must have a purpose statement that explains why it exists." }, { "rule": "Owner required", "description": "Every meeting must have one accountable owner for agenda quality, decision discipline, outputs, and review." }, { "rule": "Decision boundary required", "description": "If a meeting can make or recommend decisions, its decision rights and decision maker must be named." }, { "rule": "Evidence required for material decisions", "description": "A material decision cannot be logged without evidence source, owner, freshness, and confidence level." }, { "rule": "Output required", "description": "Every recurring meeting must produce or update at least one durable artifact." }, { "rule": "System of record required", "description": "Meeting outputs must be stored in an approved system of record, not only in chat, slides, or personal notes." }, { "rule": "AI review rule required", "description": "Any AI-generated agenda, summary, action, recommendation, or decision support must have a named human review rule." }, { "rule": "Retirement trigger required", "description": "Recurring meetings must define when they should be canceled, merged, converted to async, or reauthorized." }, { "rule": "Review date required", "description": "Meeting architecture records must have a review date and version owner." } ], "mapping_rules": [ { "target_object": "Ownership Map", "mapping": "Meeting owners, decision makers, evidence owners, action owners, and escalation owners must map to named roles." }, { "target_object": "Decision Rights Model", "mapping": "Meeting authority must align to the approved decision tier and escalation path." }, { "target_object": "Decision Log", "mapping": "Material decisions made or ratified in meetings must create or update decision records." }, { "target_object": "Evidence Checklist", "mapping": "Meeting inputs for material decisions must meet the required evidence standard." }, { "target_object": "Escalation Map", "mapping": "Blocked, high-risk, high-impact, or unresolved items must route to the correct escalation path." }, { "target_object": "Communication Map", "mapping": "Meeting outputs must trigger the right communication path, not rely on attendees to spread the message." }, { "target_object": "AI Initiative Owner Register", "mapping": "AI-related meetings must update AI owners, use cases, risk tiers, controls, evidence, and value metrics." }, { "target_object": "Platform Structure", "mapping": "Meeting outputs must update the systems where work, risk, data, or decisions are managed." } ], "render_targets": [ "DOCX template", "PDF guide", "Website Markdown", "JSON skill schema", "Lapemo guided workflow", "Meeting inventory import", "Executive meeting health summary" ], "automation_candidates": [ "Detect recurring meetings without outputs.", "Flag meetings with missing owner or decision rights.", "Compare calendar load against decision throughput.", "Identify duplicate forums by agenda, attendees, and decision scope.", "Recommend async replacement for low-value status meetings.", "Extract decisions and actions from notes into Decision Log and action records.", "Detect AI-related meetings that do not update the AI Initiative Owner Register." ], "human_approval_required_for": [ "Retiring governance or executive meetings", "Changing decision rights for a forum", "Approving AI-generated decision summaries", "Changing evidence standards", "Changing required attendee roles for regulated or high-risk forums" ], "website_card": { "title": "Meeting Architecture", "eyebrow": "LPM Knowledge Object", "summary": "A reusable template for designing meetings as part of the operating model, not as default coordination overhead.", "cta": "Download the Meeting Architecture template", "usage": [ "Audit current recurring meetings.", "Separate status, decision, risk, governance, incident, dependency, and AI forums.", "Define owners, decision rights, evidence standards, outputs, and systems of record.", "Retire meetings that do not create decisions, unblock work, surface risk, or produce durable artifacts.", "Connect meeting outputs to Lapemo onboarding, decision logs, owner maps, and AI governance workflows." ] } }