Design & Deliver Strategic Execution
Organization Design and Execution is about making sure the structure matches the work. The focus is on three things: making clear who owns which decisions and which work, removing the bottlenecks that slow capable teams down, and getting the operation ready for the workforce and technology changes already underway.
You already know what needs to move. The question is whether the organization is built to let it.
Most clients start with a conversation about what they already know is not working and what they want to be different. From there, the work becomes a project. We move at your pace. What we design, your team owns and runs. Most organizations at this scale see measurable value inside ninety days, in fewer escalations, faster decision cycles on critical work, and labor efficiency the CFO can see on the P&L.
What We Help With
Who Own the Work
Decisions keep stalling. The same calls land on the same two people every time.
Critical decisions bounce upward and wait. Everyone is busy. Nothing is moving. It is not that the team cannot decide. Nobody has ever gotten clear on who actually owns which decisions and which work.
How We Work Through It
- Map where decisions consistently stall or land with the wrong person
- Design decision flow around the speed the operation actually needs
What Changes for You
- Decisions made at the right level without constant escalation
- Accountability that holds when leaders or teams change
For leadership: every decision that escalates unnecessarily costs your team time and costs you attention.
This builds the structure that stops it.
Execution That Holds
Initiatives start strong. They slow in the middle and stall before they land.
Projects stall not because the team cannot deliver, but because nobody knows who unblocks it when it gets stuck. The gap between what was designed and what actually runs is almost always structural. Not a people problem.
How We Work Through It
- Identify where execution breaks down and the structural cause behind each point
- Redesign operating conditions so work flows without constant senior intervention
What Changes for You
- Visible improvement in execution speed within 90 days
- Fewer initiatives abandoned mid-stream for structural reasons
For leadership: every initiative that stalls in the middle is a budget line that did not deliver. This closes the gap between what was approved and what actually ran.
AI Accountability
The AI is already in. Nobody defined who owns what happens when it is wrong.
Tools are deployed and processes changed. But nobody defined who owns the exceptions, the oversight, or what happens when the output is wrong. That gap is not a technology problem. It is an accountability problem.
How We Work Through It
- Map which roles have changed because of AI tools already in use or being implemented
- Design the accountability structure for human-AI workflows before a failure forces the question
What Changes for You
- Clarity on who is responsible when an AI-assisted process needs review or reversal
- AI adoption that holds because people understand their place in it
For leadership: AI tool failures surface as operational incidents. This builds the ownership structure before the first one lands.
From the Field
Three situations where getting clear on structure changed what the numbers did next.
Foodservice Equipment Manufacturer - Decision Rights & Governance
EBITDA 2% to 14% · 100% leadership retention · governance model adopted by 2 of 14 operating companies
We kept missing our numbers and every program corporate sent in got waited out by the same team. Nobody had ever gotten clear on who owned what. When things went wrong, accountability had nowhere to land
Situation
A $140M division inside a Fortune 500 foodservice equipment company had missed its numbers three quarters in a row. Corporate needed visible progress before the next board cycle but could not impose a top-down restructuring. The semi-autonomous model was a core part of how the company operated across all twenty-three of its divisions.
Challenge
The division's leadership team had strong tenure but had never operated under a structured performance management cadence. Prior corporate programs had been launched and quietly abandoned, and the workforce had learned to wait them out. Nobody had ever built a governance structure the division actually owned. When things went sideways, there was nowhere for accountability to land.
Outcomes and Signs of Winning
EBITDA moved from 2% to 14%. Every leader on the division team stayed through close. Two of the other fourteen operating companies asked to use the same governance model without being asked. The board stopped wondering whether the people running the business had a handle on it.
PE-Backed Field Service Platform - Execution Architecture
Productivity +32% across 14 markets · at-risk contracts above renewal threshold · overtime -18%
Fourteen markets and a platform thesis. Productivity was 40 points apart between our best and worst operations. Five markets were at contract renewal risk and nobody had a baseline reliable enough to build a plan from.
Situation
A PE-backed commercial kitchen and HVACR service platform had been assembled through three acquisitions over four years, reaching $160M in revenue across fourteen markets. Each acquired business had kept its own dispatch system, its own technician standards, and its own pricing model. The sponsor had a platform thesis. The platform did not function as one.
Challenge
Field productivity varied 40% between the highest- and lowest-performing markets. Five markets were running below customer satisfaction thresholds that triggered contract renewal risk. The COO had clear financial targets for the next twelve months and no operational baseline reliable enough to build a plan from. The structure looked like a platform. It ran like a collection of separate businesses.
Outcomes and Signs of Winning
Productivity up 32%, at-risk contracts back above renewal thresholds, overtime down 18%, and a repeatable operating model the sponsor can now scale into future acquisitions.
Mid-Market Manufacturer - AI Accountability & Organizational Design
Turnover 34% to 19% · manual overrides -61% · productivity case met month 11
The automation was installed. The investment case was on paper. Eighteen months later the numbers had not moved, turnover in the automated plants was running higher than in the ones we had never touched, and the supervisors were manually overriding the systems to keep the lines moving. Nobody had defined who owned the human side of what the technology now required.
Situation
A mid-market manufacturer had installed automation across two production facilities with clear productivity targets in the investment case. Eighteen months after installation, the targets had not been met. Turnover in the automated facilities was running at 34% annually, higher than the manual plants. The CFO was asking hard questions. The technology vendor had finished their scope and left.
Challenge
Operators did not understand the new systems. First-line supervisors were reverting to manual overrides to prevent downtime. Nobody had defined who owned the human side of what the technology now required: the exceptions, the judgment calls, the oversight. The structure had been redesigned around the equipment. It had never been redesigned around the people running it.
Outcomes and Signs of Winning
Turnover dropped from 34% to 19%, manual overrides fell 61%, the productivity case was met in month eleven, and the two remaining IoT facilities now have a tested workforce and accountability model ready to deploy before a single line goes live.
If you already know where the work feels fragile, that is the best place to start.
In 30 minutes you will know exactly where your highest risk is and what a first step looks like.
That is useful whether or not we work together.
Buck Seward, JD, SHRM-SCP
Founding Partner & Practice Leader