Cases · 6 investigations, disguised
What we found, and what it cost.
Names, countries, dates and exact figures are altered. The mechanism, the sequence and the order of magnitude are not. Open any case for the full story.
6 organisations other organisations depend on
In every one, a capable leadership team was producing a result it had not chosen. In none of them was anybody hiding anything.
Telecoms3 strategies, one roomA listed telecommunications group. 3 versions of the strategy running at once, and no argument anywhere on record.US$38m a month
What it looked like
Quarterly targets missed 3 times despite heavy network investment. Functions blaming each other. A restructure under consideration that would have removed 2 executives.
What we looked at
Board packs and minutes against the organisation chart people actually use. One-to-one sessions across the executive team and the layer below it.
What was really happening
3 members of the executive team were working to 3 different versions of the strategy. Disagreement between them appeared nowhere in the record.
What it was costing
Duplicated investment and resource conflict, modelled at US$38m a month. That number moved the conversation from alignment as a value to alignment as a line in the accounts.
14 decisions across 22 months, traced and dated. Each one made complete sense if you believed the version of the strategy that person believed.
The question for your board: Would 5 of your executives describe the strategy the same way?
BankingSigned off 3 times, funded onceA group that approved the same programme 3 years running and funded part of it each time.US$12m–18m a month
What it looked like
A new core banking system, approved 3 years running and late every year. The executive committee had settled on the view that it was a supplier problem.
What we looked at
What the committee approved, set against what the budget actually released, year by year. Sessions with the committee and with the finance team that set the budget.
What was really happening
The committee approved the programme in full. The budget was set months later by a different team, on a different timetable, treating it as one request among many. Neither side knew the other was working from a different number.
What it was costing
Delay and rework on the new system, modelled at US$12m–18m a month, before counting what the missing capability was worth.
Neither team owned the contradiction. Both were doing their job correctly. The money went into the gap between them.
The question for your board: What did we approve last year, and how much of it was actually funded?
Energy4 years of clean auditsA utility whose internal audits were perfect. The chief risk officer thought the silence was too clean to be true.US$90m
What it looked like
4 years of internal audits passed with perfect marks. The chief risk officer could not point to anything wrong and did not believe the record.
What we looked at
5 years of audit findings against what people described in session. Where a concern had been raised, and what happened to the person who raised it.
What was really happening
A concern raised publicly 5 years earlier had been answered publicly and badly. The lesson the organisation drew was that raising a concern costs you something.
What it was costing
17 issues downgraded before they reached the executive layer, 3 of them still live, with combined exposure modelled at US$90m.
The audits were accurate. They recorded what had been reported, and what had been reported was shaped by one incident 5 years earlier.
The question for your board: When did someone last raise a concern early here, and what happened to them?
MiningThe structure changed. The authority did not.A group that restructured the same reporting line 3 times, each announced as the fix for the last.R1.2bn
What it looked like
3 restructures of one reporting line in 4 years. Structure had been the answer often enough that somebody on the board began to doubt it.
What we looked at
A dated timeline of all 3 restructures, followed back 4 levels past the symptom, separating the immediate triggers from the conditions that came before all of them.
What was really happening
Decision rights were redrawn every time. What people were actually allowed to approve stayed exactly where it was. Each new structure inherited the old bottleneck intact.
What it was costing
Deferred capital decisions and a stalled production ramp, modelled at R1.2bn across 2 years. The restructures themselves were the smaller number.
One approval limit had not moved since before the first restructure, and every stalled decision had passed through it.
The question for your board: Which approval limit has not moved since your last restructure?
TelecomsAn escalation route with no deadlineA regional operator losing senior people across 2 cycles, with a separate explanation for each.R310m
What it looked like
Senior departures were read one at a time, each with its own story. Exit interviews cited fit and pace, and nothing specific.
What we looked at
The exit record treated as evidence, not as reporting. Escalation routes traced upward from the operating level, and how long each step took to respond.
What was really happening
A formal escalation route existed, with no deadline for a response. So issues moved informally instead, carried by people whose own bonus depended on the function they were escalating past.
What it was costing
Replacement, lost delivery and deferred network decisions, modelled at R310m across 18 months. Most of it sat in the delay, not in the recruitment.
The same 3 names appeared in 9 separate accounts of why a decision had stalled, and none of them was in the minutes.
The question for your board: When an escalation is raised here, how long until someone answers?
LogisticsThe curated briefA European-headquartered operator losing senior people before a refinancing, with nothing specific in any exit interview.€14m a year
What it looked like
Senior departures accelerating ahead of a refinancing. Exit interviews citing cultural friction, with the specifics missing from every one.
What we looked at
The chief executive’s calendar against the pattern of what reached them. Sessions with the layer below, and the way problems were phrased when they arrived.
What was really happening
Problems raised at the top were met with an answer, not a question. Disagreement was met with questioning that ran until the other person gave up. The layer below learned to bring only the version that ended the conversation fastest.
What it was costing
Talent loss and decisions taken on curated data, modelled at €14m a year. Direct replacement cost was a small part of it.
The behaviour was not hidden. It had been described internally as decisiveness. The cost was not the behaviour. It was what the organisation stopped telling itself as a result.
The question for your board: When someone brings you bad news, do you answer or ask?
What is altered, and what is not
Clients agree to this work on the understanding that what we find stays between us. So the cases are disguised, deliberately and consistently.
| Altered on purpose | Exactly as found |
|---|---|
| The client name, in every case | The sector, so you can judge whether it is your world |
| The country and the region | The mechanism, which is the part that transfers |
| Dates, and the year of the work | The sequence of what we looked at and what we found |
| The size of the organisation and the exact figures | The order of magnitude, so the number still means something |
| Any detail that would identify a person | The fact that nobody involved was hiding anything |
Where a client clears a figure in writing, we publish it with their name attached. Until then, the shape is real and the identifiers are not.
In all 6, the leadership team was capable. The information it was working from was not.
If one of these reads like your organisation, the first meeting costs nothing and ends with a clear answer.