Growth & structure
Faster decisions, lower overhead
We redesign how work gets approved and who reports to whom—so growth initiatives are not throttled by six-layer sign-off chains.
Clients usually engage us after a failed ERP rollout or a restructure that saved headcount but slowed product launches. We map decision paths before recommending cuts.
Growth mapping
Three-to-five year revenue and capital plans with explicit market entry gates.
Delayering
Span-of-control analysis by function—target ratios vary by industry, not generic 7:1 rules.
Re-engineering
Business unit boundaries aligned to customer journeys and P&L accountability.
| Issue | What we do | Usual outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Slow product launches | Map approval chains; remove non-value sign-offs | 40–60% fewer steps |
| Duplicate functions | Shared services vs embedded teams analysis | Cleaner P&L |
| Unclear accountability | RACI + delegated authorities | Faster escalation |
Will delayering trigger Fair Work issues?
We review role changes against Modern Awards and contract terms before implementation.
Can you stay through implementation?
Yes—90-day transition support is common after the design is approved.
How do you measure decision speed?
We baseline approval steps and time-to-decision in week one, then track monthly against targets agreed with the steering group.
"Delayering was uncomfortable, but removing duplicate sign-offs let us launch two product lines in the same quarter."
Decision-speed metrics
We measure approval steps, meeting load, and time-to-decision before recommending delayering. Savings are tracked against baseline after implementation.
Growth vs structure
Growth mapping runs in parallel with structural review so new revenue plans are not throttled by legacy approval chains.
Review your structure
Share your org chart and the decision that is stuck.