← Management ConsultingCONTENT HISTORY
WHAT CHANGED
changed
Update to Management Consulting
Snapshot Nov 1, 2026 · 06:33 UTC · version 2.3.0
Collection source: downloaded plugin package. These snapshots do not have a confirmed matching collection source. Differences in file lists alone do not establish changes to the package.
Instructions updated for org-design
Skill instructions — Now says: --- name: org-design description: "Design organizational structures, operating models, role architectures, and transitions that support strategy. Use for...
Observed in instructions or declared skills. Runtime behavior has not been tested.
Save Management Consulting and check future changes in Following.
Up to 10 plugins free · no card required.
All fields and original values.
Skill instructions
Before
Sep 30, 2026 · 23:14 UTC
--- name: org-design description: "Design organizational structures, operating models, role architectures, and transitions that support strategy. Use for reporting lines, spans and layers, centralization, decision rights, job families, a...
After
Nov 1, 2026 · 06:33 UTC
--- name: org-design description: "Design organizational structures, operating models, role architectures, and transitions that support strategy. Use for reporting lines, spans and layers, centralization, decision rights, job families,...
Compare saved observations
Download comparison JSONSKILL.md text changes
− removed · + added
--- before +++ after @@ -1,41 +1,41 @@ ---- -name: org-design -description: "Design organizational structures, operating models, role architectures, and transitions that support strategy. Use for reporting lines, spans and layers, centralization, decision rights, job families, and reorganizations." -license: MIT -metadata: - category: engagement-delivery - version: "2.2.0" - author: Anot ---- - -# Organizational Design - -Design how work, decisions, and accountability fit together. Diagnose whether structure is part of the problem before proposing a reorganization. The user may need one role definition, a decision-rights repair, an operating-model comparison, or a full transition; match that scope. - -Use supplied strategy, work flows, organization data, constraints, and employee implications. Mark missing facts and proposed roles or spans. Ask only when an unknown prevents a defensible design; draft alternative designs or principles where the strategy remains unsettled. Do not invent headcount, costs, capability scores, stakeholder positions, or approval. - -## Diagnose the operating problem - -Trace strategic priorities to capabilities and recurring decisions. Identify what the organization must do better and how success will be observed. Inspect how work actually crosses functions, where it queues, who resolves exceptions, and which informal arrangements make it work. - -Separate structural problems from gaps in systems, skills, incentives, process, workload, or leadership. A maturity gap does not establish its cause. Use 7S or another alignment lens only when it helps test a specific mismatch; ratings need behavioral anchors and evidence. Consider a repair to decision rights or coordination before changing reporting lines. - -Baseline relevant layers, spans, roles, effort, costs, vacancies, and service outcomes using consistent definitions. Average span can hide very different work. Diagnose supervision and coordination demand rather than declaring a narrow span vanity or a wide span neglect. - -## Compare viable designs - -Define principles that resolve a trade-off, such as which decisions need local customer knowledge and which gain from scale. Compare functional, product, geography, customer, matrix, network, or platform structures as appropriate. Assess strategic fit, economics, service, accountability, coordination cost, talent, and transition risk. Preserve the approved strategy and actual constraints. - -Use [operating models and roles](references/operating-models-and-roles.md) for structural choices, spans, job architecture, and integration. A matrix needs explicit decision rights when objectives conflict; a simpler hierarchy still needs a mechanism for cross-functional work. Do not select a structure from fashion or a preferred span benchmark. - -## Make the design executable - -Define unit mandates, outputs, reporting relationships, decision authority, and integration mechanisms. For material roles, specify purpose, accountabilities, authority, required capabilities, relationships, and capacity. Distinguish the design of roles from the selection of individuals; personnel decisions need appropriate evidence and the client's process. - -Sequence the transition around continuity, dependencies, required consultation, role clarity, staffing, systems, and support. Label proposed timing and approvals. Surface job and career implications honestly, including what is unresolved. Do not promise employment outcomes or impose a generic communication calendar. - -## Deliver and assess - -Present the recommended design with its rationale, trade-offs, alternative, transition conditions, and operating measures. Use an org chart when it explains reporting, but include how work and decisions cross the boxes. A chart alone is insufficient for a complex operating model. - -Check workload, role overlap and gaps, contradictory authorities, coordination capacity, and transition continuity. Define observable tests such as decision latency, handoff quality, customer outcomes, cost, and role clarity against baseline. Set review points to the change's risk and pace; state what evidence would require adapting the design. +--- +name: org-design +description: "Design organizational structures, operating models, role architectures, and transitions that support strategy. Use for reporting lines, spans and layers, centralization, decision rights, job families, and reorganizations." +license: MIT +metadata: + category: engagement-delivery + version: "2.3.0" + author: Anot +--- + +# Organizational Design + +Design how work, decisions, and accountability fit together. Diagnose whether structure is part of the problem before proposing a reorganization. The user may need one role definition, a decision-rights repair, an operating-model comparison, or a full transition; match that scope. + +Use supplied strategy, work flows, organization data, constraints, and employee implications. Mark missing facts and proposed roles or spans. Ask only when an unknown prevents a defensible design; draft alternative designs or principles where the strategy remains unsettled. Do not invent headcount, costs, capability scores, stakeholder positions, or approval. + +## Diagnose the operating problem + +Trace strategic priorities to capabilities and recurring decisions. Identify what the organization must do better and how success will be observed. Inspect how work actually crosses functions, where it queues, who resolves exceptions, and which informal arrangements make it work. + +Separate structural problems from gaps in systems, skills, incentives, process, workload, or leadership. A maturity gap does not establish its cause. Use 7S or another alignment lens only when it helps test a specific mismatch; ratings need behavioral anchors and evidence. Consider a repair to decision rights or coordination before changing reporting lines. + +Baseline relevant layers, spans, roles, effort, costs, vacancies, and service outcomes using consistent definitions. Average span can hide very different work. Diagnose supervision and coordination demand rather than declaring a narrow span vanity or a wide span neglect. + +## Compare viable designs + +Define principles that resolve a trade-off, such as which decisions need local customer knowledge and which gain from scale. Compare functional, product, geography, customer, matrix, network, or platform structures as appropriate. Assess strategic fit, economics, service, accountability, coordination cost, talent, and transition risk. Preserve the approved strategy and actual constraints. + +Use [operating models and roles](references/operating-models-and-roles.md) for structural choices, spans, job architecture, and integration. A matrix needs explicit decision rights when objectives conflict; a simpler hierarchy still needs a mechanism for cross-functional work. Do not select a structure from fashion or a preferred span benchmark. + +## Make the design executable + +Define unit mandates, outputs, reporting relationships, decision authority, and integration mechanisms. For material roles, specify purpose, accountabilities, authority, required capabilities, relationships, and capacity. Distinguish the design of roles from the selection of individuals; personnel decisions need appropriate evidence and the client's process. + +Sequence the transition around continuity, dependencies, required consultation, role clarity, staffing, systems, and support. Label proposed timing and approvals. Surface job and career implications honestly, including what is unresolved. Do not promise employment outcomes or impose a generic communication calendar. + +## Deliver and assess + +Present the recommended design with its rationale, trade-offs, alternative, transition conditions, and operating measures. Use an org chart when it explains reporting, but include how work and decisions cross the boxes. A chart alone is insufficient for a complex operating model. + +Check workload, role overlap and gaps, contradictory authorities, coordination capacity, and transition continuity. Define observable tests such as decision latency, handoff quality, customer outcomes, cost, and role clarity against baseline. Set review points to the change's risk and pace; state what evidence would require adapting the design.
Full technical diff · 1 changed fields
changed /skill_md_contents
BEFORE
"---\nname: org-design\ndescription: \"Design organizational structures, operating models, role architectures, and transitions that support strategy. Use for reporting lines, spans and layers, centralization, decision rights, job families, and reorganizations.\"\nlicense: MIT\nmetadata:\n category: engagement-delivery\n version: \"2.2.0\"\n author: Anot\n---\n\n# Organizational Design\n\nDesign how work, decisions, and accountability fit together. Diagnose whether structure is part of the problem before proposing a reorganization. The user may need one role definition, a decision-rights repair, an operating-model comparison, or a full transition; match that scope.\n\nUse supplied strategy, work flows, organization data, constraints, and employee implications. Mark missing facts and proposed roles or spans. Ask only when an unknown prevents a defensible design; draft alternative designs or principles where the strategy remains unsettled. Do not invent headcount, costs, capability scores, stakeholder positions, or approval.\n\n## Diagnose the operating problem\n\nTrace strategic priorities to capabilities and recurring decisions. Identify what the organization must do better and how success will be observed. Inspect how work actually crosses functions, where it queues, who resolves exceptions, and which informal arrangements make it work.\n\nSeparate structural problems from gaps in systems, skills, incentives, process, workload, or leadership. A maturity gap does not establish its cause. Use 7S or another alignment lens only when it helps test a specific mismatch; ratings need behavioral anchors and evidence. Consider a repair to decision rights or coordination before changing reporting lines.\n\nBaseline relevant layers, spans, roles, effort, costs, vacancies, and service outcomes using consistent definitions. Average span can hide very different work. Diagnose supervision and coordination demand rather than declaring a narrow span vanity or a wide span neglect.\n\n## Compare viable designs\n\nDefine principles that resolve a trade-off, such as which decisions need local customer knowledge and which gain from scale. Compare functional, product, geography, customer, matrix, network, or platform structures as appropriate. Assess strategic fit, economics, service, accountability, coordination cost, talent, and transition risk. Preserve the approved strategy and actual constraints.\n\nUse [operating models and roles](references/operating-models-and-roles.md) for structural choices, spans, job architecture, and integration. A matrix needs explicit decision rights when objectives conflict; a simpler hierarchy still needs a mechanism for cross-functional work. Do not select a structure from fashion or a preferred span benchmark.\n\n## Make the design executable\n\nDefine unit mandates, outputs, reporting relationships, decision authority, and integration mechanisms. For material roles, specify purpose, accountabilities, authority, required capabilities, relationships, and capacity. Distinguish the design of roles from the selection of individuals; personnel decisions need appropriate evidence and the client's process.\n\nSequence the transition around continuity, dependencies, required consultation, role clarity, staffing, systems, and support. Label proposed timing and approvals. Surface job and career implications honestly, including what is unresolved. Do not promise employment outcomes or impose a generic communication calendar.\n\n## Deliver and assess\n\nPresent the recommended design with its rationale, trade-offs, alternative, transition conditions, and operating measures. Use an org chart when it explains reporting, but include how work and decisions cross the boxes. A chart alone is insufficient for a complex operating model.\n\nCheck workload, role overlap and gaps, contradictory authorities, coordination capacity, and transition continuity. Define observable tests such as decision latency, handoff quality, customer outcomes, cost, and role clarity against baseline. Set review points to the change's risk and pace; state what evidence would require adapting the design.\n"
AFTER
"---\r\nname: org-design\r\ndescription: \"Design organizational structures, operating models, role architectures, and transitions that support strategy. Use for reporting lines, spans and layers, centralization, decision rights, job families, and reorganizations.\"\r\nlicense: MIT\r\nmetadata:\r\n category: engagement-delivery\r\n version: \"2.3.0\"\r\n author: Anot\r\n---\r\n\r\n# Organizational Design\r\n\r\nDesign how work, decisions, and accountability fit together. Diagnose whether structure is part of the problem before proposing a reorganization. The user may need one role definition, a decision-rights repair, an operating-model comparison, or a full transition; match that scope.\r\n\r\nUse supplied strategy, work flows, organization data, constraints, and employee implications. Mark missing facts and proposed roles or spans. Ask only when an unknown prevents a defensible design; draft alternative designs or principles where the strategy remains unsettled. Do not invent headcount, costs, capability scores, stakeholder positions, or approval.\r\n\r\n## Diagnose the operating problem\r\n\r\nTrace strategic priorities to capabilities and recurring decisions. Identify what the organization must do better and how success will be observed. Inspect how work actually crosses functions, where it queues, who resolves exceptions, and which informal arrangements make it work.\r\n\r\nSeparate structural problems from gaps in systems, skills, incentives, process, workload, or leadership. A maturity gap does not establish its cause. Use 7S or another alignment lens only when it helps test a specific mismatch; ratings need behavioral anchors and evidence. Consider a repair to decision rights or coordination before changing reporting lines.\r\n\r\nBaseline relevant layers, spans, roles, effort, costs, vacancies, and service outcomes using consistent definitions. Average span can hide very different work. Diagnose supervision and coordination demand rather than declaring a narrow span vanity or a wide span neglect.\r\n\r\n## Compare viable designs\r\n\r\nDefine principles that resolve a trade-off, such as which decisions need local customer knowledge and which gain from scale. Compare functional, product, geography, customer, matrix, network, or platform structures as appropriate. Assess strategic fit, economics, service, accountability, coordination cost, talent, and transition risk. Preserve the approved strategy and actual constraints.\r\n\r\nUse [operating models and roles](references/operating-models-and-roles.md) for structural choices, spans, job architecture, and integration. A matrix needs explicit decision rights when objectives conflict; a simpler hierarchy still needs a mechanism for cross-functional work. Do not select a structure from fashion or a preferred span benchmark.\r\n\r\n## Make the design executable\r\n\r\nDefine unit mandates, outputs, reporting relationships, decision authority, and integration mechanisms. For material roles, specify purpose, accountabilities, authority, required capabilities, relationships, and capacity. Distinguish the design of roles from the selection of individuals; personnel decisions need appropriate evidence and the client's process.\r\n\r\nSequence the transition around continuity, dependencies, required consultation, role clarity, staffing, systems, and support. Label proposed timing and approvals. Surface job and career implications honestly, including what is unresolved. Do not promise employment outcomes or impose a generic communication calendar.\r\n\r\n## Deliver and assess\r\n\r\nPresent the recommended design with its rationale, trade-offs, alternative, transition conditions, and operating measures. Use an org chart when it explains reporting, but include how work and decisions cross the boxes. A chart alone is insufficient for a complex operating model.\r\n\r\nCheck workload, role overlap and gaps, contradictory authorities, coordination capacity, and transition continuity. Define observable tests such as decision latency, handoff quality, customer outcomes, cost, and role clarity against baseline. Set review points to the change's risk and pace; state what evidence would require adapting the design.\r\n"
Full snapshot data
{
"description": "Design organizational structures, operating models, role architectures, and transitions that support strategy. Use for reporting lines, spans and layers, centralization, decision rights, job families, and reorganizations.",
"included_files": [
{
"relative_path": "references/operating-models-and-roles.md",
"size_in_bytes": 3286
}
],
"name": "org-design",
"skill_md_contents": "---\r\nname: org-design\r\ndescription: \"Design organizational structures, operating models, role architectures, and transitions that support strategy. Use for reporting lines, spans and layers, centralization, decision rights, job families, and reorganizations.\"\r\nlicense: MIT\r\nmetadata:\r\n category: engagement-delivery\r\n version: \"2.3.0\"\r\n author: Anot\r\n---\r\n\r\n# Organizational Design\r\n\r\nDesign how work, decisions, and accountability fit together. Diagnose whether structure is part of the problem before proposing a reorganization. The user may need one role definition, a decision-rights repair, an operating-model comparison, or a full transition; match that scope.\r\n\r\nUse supplied strategy, work flows, organization data, constraints, and employee implications. Mark missing facts and proposed roles or spans. Ask only when an unknown prevents a defensible design; draft alternative designs or principles where the strategy remains unsettled. Do not invent headcount, costs, capability scores, stakeholder positions, or approval.\r\n\r\n## Diagnose the operating problem\r\n\r\nTrace strategic priorities to capabilities and recurring decisions. Identify what the organization must do better and how success will be observed. Inspect how work actually crosses functions, where it queues, who resolves exceptions, and which informal arrangements make it work.\r\n\r\nSeparate structural problems from gaps in systems, skills, incentives, process, workload, or leadership. A maturity gap does not establish its cause. Use 7S or another alignment lens only when it helps test a specific mismatch; ratings need behavioral anchors and evidence. Consider a repair to decision rights or coordination before changing reporting lines.\r\n\r\nBaseline relevant layers, spans, roles, effort, costs, vacancies, and service outcomes using consistent definitions. Average span can hide very different work. Diagnose supervision and coordination demand rather than declaring a narrow span vanity or a wide span neglect.\r\n\r\n## Compare viable designs\r\n\r\nDefine principles that resolve a trade-off, such as which decisions need local customer knowledge and which gain from scale. Compare functional, product, geography, customer, matrix, network, or platform structures as appropriate. Assess strategic fit, economics, service, accountability, coordination cost, talent, and transition risk. Preserve the approved strategy and actual constraints.\r\n\r\nUse [operating models and roles](references/operating-models-and-roles.md) for structural choices, spans, job architecture, and integration. A matrix needs explicit decision rights when objectives conflict; a simpler hierarchy still needs a mechanism for cross-functional work. Do not select a structure from fashion or a preferred span benchmark.\r\n\r\n## Make the design executable\r\n\r\nDefine unit mandates, outputs, reporting relationships, decision authority, and integration mechanisms. For material roles, specify purpose, accountabilities, authority, required capabilities, relationships, and capacity. Distinguish the design of roles from the selection of individuals; personnel decisions need appropriate evidence and the client's process.\r\n\r\nSequence the transition around continuity, dependencies, required consultation, role clarity, staffing, systems, and support. Label proposed timing and approvals. Surface job and career implications honestly, including what is unresolved. Do not promise employment outcomes or impose a generic communication calendar.\r\n\r\n## Deliver and assess\r\n\r\nPresent the recommended design with its rationale, trade-offs, alternative, transition conditions, and operating measures. Use an org chart when it explains reporting, but include how work and decisions cross the boxes. A chart alone is insufficient for a complex operating model.\r\n\r\nCheck workload, role overlap and gaps, contradictory authorities, coordination capacity, and transition continuity. Define observable tests such as decision latency, handoff quality, customer outcomes, cost, and role clarity against baseline. Set review points to the change's risk and pace; state what evidence would require adapting the design.\r\n"
}SHA-256 of public snapshot: 69e0a5d7d4ac93ca79976b3e8e53a2b56be1a96ce5032cb77691b5bc807bf71e