Department Restructuring · 5 weeks · ¥35,000
When a department's structure reflects how it grew, not how it works
A five-week engagement that maps current responsibilities, identifies where remits overlap and where work has no clear owner, and proposes a structure with the reasoning for each change stated — supported by individual conversations with the people affected.
Back to homeWhat this engagement delivers
A proposed structure, with reasons — not just a chart
At the end of five weeks, you will have a map of how responsibility is currently distributed, a clear picture of where that distribution creates problems, and a proposed structure with the reasoning for each change written out. Because affected staff are spoken with individually during the process, their perspective is part of what informs the proposal — not an afterthought.
A current-state map
What each person in the department actually does, mapped against what their role is formally described as. The gap between these two things is often where the structural problems are located.
A proposed structure
A reorganisation proposal that addresses the identified problems, with each change explained. The reasoning is stated so that management can evaluate it — and adjust it if they disagree.
An implementation sequence
Structural changes that are made all at once tend to create disruption. The engagement includes a proposed sequence for making changes, with support in communicating them to staff.
What tends to bring organisations here
Structure that grew by accumulation
The structure was never designed
Many departments develop their structure in response to events — a person left, a project was added, a team was merged. The result works well enough to continue but not well enough to be satisfying. No single decision was wrong; the accumulation created the problem.
Overlapping remits and unowned work
Some tasks are claimed by more than one person or team; others are understood to be someone's responsibility without being clearly assigned. Both situations generate friction — one through duplication, the other through gaps.
The people in the department know something is off
Staff who work inside a department often have a clear sense of what is not working — but that sense rarely finds its way to the people who could act on it. Individual conversations during this engagement provide a structured way for that to happen.
Change is difficult to introduce from inside
A restructuring proposed by someone within the department carries a different weight than one proposed by an external adviser. The adviser has no internal relationship to protect and no stake in the outcome — which makes the proposal easier for staff to receive as objective.
The approach
Map the current state, then propose a different one
The engagement begins with understanding the department as it actually operates — not as it appears on any existing chart. Individual conversations with affected staff are held during the mapping phase so their perspective informs what is proposed. The output is a written proposal with reasoning, not a set of abstract recommendations.
Current responsibility mapping
The first phase maps what each person in the department actually does day to day, what they are formally responsible for, and where these diverge. The mapping process also identifies where remits overlap and where no one has clear ownership of particular work.
Individual staff conversations
Each affected staff member is spoken with individually, in confidence. Their perspective on what works and what does not is recorded in an anonymised summary and informs the proposed structure. Staff are not asked to endorse any particular outcome.
The proposed structure
A reorganisation proposal is prepared with the reasoning for each change stated. Where trade-offs were involved — where one problem could only be addressed by accepting a different one — those trade-offs are explained. Management receives the proposal with full reasoning, not just the conclusion.
Communicating the change
The engagement includes support in communicating the proposed changes to staff. How a restructuring is communicated affects how it is received. The adviser can help management prepare for those conversations and, where appropriate, participate in them.
What working together looks like
Who is involved and what is asked of them
Client side
Management lead
Briefing sessions; review of proposed structure
Department staff
One individual conversation each; no group sessions
Senior leadership
Receive the proposal and implementation sequence
Adviser side
Lead adviser
Mapping, staff conversations, written proposal
Anonymised staff summary
Prepared from individual conversations; no attribution
Communication support
Preparation for and, where needed, participation in staff communication
On confidentiality
Individual conversations with staff are held in confidence. What any one person says is not attributed to them in the written proposal. Staff are told this before the conversation begins. The anonymised summary of what staff reported is one input to the proposal — management retains the decision about what to implement and how.
The investment
A contained scope, a clear fee
Department Restructuring Support
Five weeks · Including individual staff conversations
¥35,000
Total engagement fee
Included
- Current responsibility mapping across the department
- Individual conversations with affected staff
- Anonymised summary of what staff reported
- Proposed structure with reasoning for each change
- Proposed implementation sequence
- Support in communicating the change to staff
What to know
- Fee covers the full five-week engagement
- Invoiced in two parts: on start and at close
- Staff conversation count depends on department size — discussed before start
- Management retains full decision over what to implement
How progress is tracked
What the five weeks cover
Mapping and conversations
The adviser maps current responsibilities and holds individual conversations with affected staff. The anonymised staff summary is prepared from this phase.
Analysis and proposal
The adviser analyses the mapping and staff input, identifies the structural problems and their causes, and prepares a proposed structure with reasoning for each change and a proposed implementation sequence.
Presentation and close
The proposal is presented to management and, with their involvement, discussed. Communication support for staff is provided in this week. The engagement concludes.
What the proposal is — and is not
The proposal is a considered recommendation with reasoning, based on the mapping and staff input. It is not a directive. Management may implement it in full, modify it, or set it aside. The value of having the reasoning stated is that management can engage with it specifically — rather than accepting or rejecting an opaque recommendation.
Our commitment
What we stand behind
Staff conversations are genuinely confidential
What any individual staff member says in their conversation with the adviser is not attributed to them. The anonymised summary records themes, not individuals. Staff are told this explicitly before they are asked anything.
Reasoning is stated, not withheld
The proposal explains why each change is suggested. We do not provide a structure without the reasoning — that would make the proposal difficult to evaluate or adapt.
An initial conversation at no cost
Before agreeing to the engagement, we hold a short conversation to discuss the department's situation and whether the scope is a reasonable fit. No charge, no obligation.
Management makes the decisions
The engagement produces a proposal and a recommendation for how to sequence its implementation. What is actually implemented, and when, is entirely management's decision. We do not create a dependency on further engagement.
Getting started
A clear path forward
Describe the situation briefly
A short description of the department and what is not working is enough to begin. You do not need to have a diagnosis ready — that is part of what the engagement produces.
We assess whether the scope fits
In the initial conversation, we will discuss the department's size and situation, and whether a five-week engagement is the right scope. If the department is larger than the scope can accommodate, we will say so.
Staff are briefed before conversations begin
Management informs staff that individual conversations will take place, what the purpose is, and that they are confidential. The adviser can advise on the wording of this communication if useful.
The engagement begins with mapping
Week one begins with the mapping work. The adviser speaks with the management lead to understand the department's formal structure and recent history, then begins the individual staff conversations.
Department Restructuring Support · ¥35,000 · 5 weeks
If a department's structure has been a source of difficulty for some time, it may be worth discussing
An initial conversation is free and carries no obligation. We will discuss the situation and say honestly whether the engagement scope is likely to be useful.
Get in touch6 weeks · ¥41,000
Stakeholder Alignment
For organisations where a decision has been deferred repeatedly because the people involved hold different views on direction.
Learn more7 weeks · ¥43,000
Joint Venture Preparation
Support for companies entering a shared undertaking — covering objectives, contribution, control, and how the venture would be unwound.
Learn more3 months · ¥40,000
Advisory Session Series
Four scheduled half-day sessions across three months, each addressing a matter the client nominates in advance.
Learn more