Two ways of looking at the same organisation

Comparing approaches isn't about arguing one is right and the other wrong. Different organisations, at different points, are served by different kinds of help. What we can offer is a clear description of how we work, so you can judge whether it fits your situation.

The responsibility grid — a table setting roles against decision types, marking who decides and who is consulted — comes from direct observation rather than an assumed org chart. It shows the company back to itself, which is often more useful than a proposal built from a template.

We also don't attach a recommendation to every observation. Some trade-offs are genuinely the company's to weigh — speed against consensus, for instance — and naming that trade-off clearly is sometimes more useful than resolving it for you.

Structural recommendations that arrive without local observation sometimes go unused, simply because they don't match the reality of how a company runs. A description grounded in what's actually happening tends to be easier for a team to recognise and act on — or set aside with reason, which is a valid outcome too.

We don't promise measurable improvement in a fixed timeframe, since outcomes depend heavily on what a company chooses to do with what it learns. What we can offer is a document that reflects the organisation accurately at the time it was written.

Engagements are scoped narrowly and priced accordingly — a preparation round and a single session, a six-week review, or two facilitated conversations. There's no retainer and no open-ended billing. What you pay corresponds to a defined piece of work with a defined output.

Whether that represents good value depends on what the resulting document is worth to your company — a judgment we'd rather leave with you than argue for.

Where a prescriptive model often means a single large presentation at the end, our engagements are built from smaller, closer contact — a written exercise here, a live observation there, a joint session to talk through what surfaced. It's a slower rhythm, and it means the people involved are part of building the record, not just receiving it.

A plan handed down from outside can fade once the consultant leaves, particularly if the people expected to follow it weren't part of shaping it. A responsibility grid or a revised meeting agenda that the company itself helped produce tends to stay in use longer, simply because it was built with the people who'll rely on it day to day.

It's sometimes assumed that a descriptive approach means no clear output — just observations with nothing to act on. In practice, each engagement ends with a specific written document: a responsibility grid, a revised agenda, or a record of what a family agreed and deferred. The difference isn't a lack of structure — it's that the structure describes your company rather than a generic one.

It's also worth saying plainly that a prescriptive plan isn't wrong for every company. Some situations call for a firmer external recommendation. This page describes our approach, not a case against alternatives.