Organisational Review and Design
Organisational structures accumulate rather than get designed. A post is created for a person, a function moves because of a personality, a department survives a strategy it was built for, and five years later the chart describes history rather than intent. Reviewing it is straightforward. Changing it is where the work actually is, which is why this sits in delivery rather than advisory.
1
Understand
What must be delivered
2
Map
How it works now
3
Design
Structure to fit
4
Profile
Roles and accountability
5
Implement
Phase the change
How We Deliver It
01
Understanding the Mandate
We start from what the organisation is now required to deliver, which is frequently not what it was built to deliver. Structure follows strategy, and reviewing a chart without that reference point produces cosmetic change.
- Current strategy, mandate or IDP reviewed
- Service delivery obligations established
- Growth, contraction or scope change identified
- Constraints such as regulated posts or agreements noted
02
Mapping the Current State
We map what exists: reporting lines as practised rather than as published, actual span of control, and where the same work is being done in more than one place.
- Actual reporting lines documented, not the published chart
- Span of control measured per manager
- Duplicated functions across departments identified
- Vacancies, acting arrangements and their duration
03
Designing the Structure
Options rather than a single answer, each with its cost and its consequences. Structures that look elegant on paper frequently fail on the practical detail of who reports to whom in a small office.
- Structure options with cost implications per option
- Reporting lines and accountability made explicit
- Spans of control within workable limits
- Recommendation with rationale and trade offs stated
04
Role Profiling
Every post described by outputs and accountability rather than by a list of activities. Overlapping job descriptions are a common source of both duplicated effort and work nobody does.
- Role profiles written around outputs and accountability
- Overlaps between roles identified and resolved
- Competency requirements per post
- Gaps where an output has no owner at all
05
Implementation Planning
A structure on paper changes nothing. Implementation covers sequencing, consultation obligations, redeployment and the communication that determines whether people cooperate or resist.
- Phased implementation sequence
- Consultation and labour law obligations identified
- Redeployment, redundancy and transition arrangements
- Communication plan for each affected group
What You Receive
- Current state map of actual reporting lines and spans
- Structure options with cost implications per option
- Recommended structure with rationale and trade offs
- Role profiles built on outputs and accountability
- Gap analysis of outputs with no owner
- Phased implementation and communication plan
Indicative Timeline
A review takes four to eight weeks depending on size and number of sites. Implementation runs considerably longer, because consultation obligations and notice periods set the pace rather than the design work.
- Mandate review and current state mapping: two weeks
- Structure design and options: two weeks
- Role profiling: two to three weeks
- Implementation: governed by consultation obligations
What the Review Covers
Structure work spans the chart, the roles inside it and the change required to get there.
Structure
Whether the shape of the organisation fits what it now has to deliver.
Reporting Lines
Actual accountability, which frequently differs from the published chart.
Span of Control
Managers with too many or too few reports, both of which cause problems.
Role Clarity
Profiles built on outputs, so overlaps and gaps become visible.
Cost
What each option costs, because structure is largely a payroll decision.
Implementation
Sequencing, consultation and communication, where most restructures fail.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does this mean retrenchments?
Not necessarily, and frequently not. Reviews commonly find work with no owner rather than surplus capacity. Where a structure does reduce posts, that is a labour law process with obligations, and we say so at scoping rather than at the end.
Who should be involved?
Executive leadership certainly, and the managers who will operate the structure. Excluding them produces a design that is resisted from the first day, and their operational knowledge usually improves it materially.
How is this different from your advisory work?
Advisory diagnoses and quantifies. This is delivery: we produce the structure, write the role profiles and support the implementation on site. That distinction is deliberate and it changes both the engagement shape and the skills involved.
Can you write our job descriptions?
Yes, and profiling is part of the engagement. We write them around outputs and accountability rather than as activity lists, because activity lists are what allow two people to both believe something is the other job.
What about labour law obligations?
We identify them and work alongside your labour advisors, who should lead on process compliance. Restructures fail more often on process than on design, so getting that sequencing right matters.
How long before we see the benefit?
Role clarity has an effect almost immediately. Structural change takes a full cycle to settle, usually six to twelve months, and judging it earlier than that mostly measures disruption.
Related Services
This sits inside our Consulting practice. Related work: Performance Improvement where the diagnosis comes first, and Business Advisory for the governance structures above the operating one.
