I will say that _as a coo_ I really like this first sentence:
You think you need a COO. What you really need is an operating philosophy.
I don't like the world "philosophy" but perhaps I'm just playing to type since COO's are known for not liking the hyperbolic :-)
The point is that lots of teams assign operational discipline to an individual leader or later a team. Irrelevant of the specific methodology ingraining the idea of "create a plan, report on plan" is really important. I don't think that the specific cadence or the nature of the plan matters anywhere near as much as simply having something and measuring yourself against it. That's something the whole team has to take on board - rather than just making it one person's responsibility.
The cadence thing is driven by how much forward view you have, how big the organisation is and how much resource you have available for planning/reporting. The goal is to do "just enough" to drive the business forward - your constantly trying to manage the goldilocks level of chaos (not too much, and not too little). As the business grows and there are more layers and complexity then the length of the planned cycle and the requirements of the cadence will increase.
I understand the point about difference cadence's, personally it's more complexity than I'd like to manage.
Last thing I'd mention is that it's a lot easier to add process than it is to remove it: the negative impact is that it will tend to slow-up the organisation. While adding more process and systems is needed as you grow - the organisation (and certainly the COO/Ops team) should regularly assess whether the whole system fits - process/systems tend to accrete - sometimes that means stopping doing things. The goal is to provide the conditions so the organisation can function well (generally meaning grow) - you need just enough scaffolding to support the organisations goal, as the shape changes you need to remove some bits of scaffolding and support other parts that are under pressure.
The point is that lots of teams assign operational discipline to an individual leader or later a team. Irrelevant of the specific methodology ingraining the idea of "create a plan, report on plan" is really important. I don't think that the specific cadence or the nature of the plan matters anywhere near as much as simply having something and measuring yourself against it. That's something the whole team has to take on board - rather than just making it one person's responsibility.
The cadence thing is driven by how much forward view you have, how big the organisation is and how much resource you have available for planning/reporting. The goal is to do "just enough" to drive the business forward - your constantly trying to manage the goldilocks level of chaos (not too much, and not too little). As the business grows and there are more layers and complexity then the length of the planned cycle and the requirements of the cadence will increase.
I understand the point about difference cadence's, personally it's more complexity than I'd like to manage.
Last thing I'd mention is that it's a lot easier to add process than it is to remove it: the negative impact is that it will tend to slow-up the organisation. While adding more process and systems is needed as you grow - the organisation (and certainly the COO/Ops team) should regularly assess whether the whole system fits - process/systems tend to accrete - sometimes that means stopping doing things. The goal is to provide the conditions so the organisation can function well (generally meaning grow) - you need just enough scaffolding to support the organisations goal, as the shape changes you need to remove some bits of scaffolding and support other parts that are under pressure.