Recent Work
Anonymized examples of decisions we've analyzed. These case studies show the types of structural weaknesses and second-order risks we typically uncover.
Case Study 1
Market Entry Decision
Expansion into new geographic market
The Challenge
A mid-market SaaS company was considering rapid expansion into a new geographic market. Leadership was enthusiastic about the opportunity. The team was aligned on the strategic rationale.
The Outcome
The client delayed expansion by 6 months to build proper infrastructure and restructure incentives. When they eventually entered, they did so with realistic timelines and sustainable unit economics.
What We Found
Our analysis identified a critical incentive misalignment: the expansion lead's compensation was tied to revenue targets, not profitability or market sustainability. This created pressure to enter the market quickly, even if unit economics didn't support it. Additionally, the company lacked operational infrastructure in the new region—they were assuming they could replicate their existing model without accounting for regulatory, cultural, and competitive differences.
Key Insight
Incentive misalignment often drives decisions that look good on paper but fail in execution.
Case Study 2
Organizational Restructuring
Leadership reorganization and reporting structure change
The Challenge
A growing company was restructuring its leadership team. The CEO wanted to consolidate reporting lines and create clearer accountability. The proposed structure looked logical on an org chart.
The Outcome
The client modified the structure to distribute decision-making authority more broadly and created a transition plan that addressed stakeholder concerns. The restructuring succeeded because they anticipated failure modes.
What We Found
We identified several hidden assumptions: (1) The new structure assumed certain leaders could manage 2x their current span of control without evidence they could. (2) It created a bottleneck where all product decisions flowed through one person. (3) It didn't account for the informal power dynamics and relationships that actually drove decision-making. (4) The transition plan assumed people would adapt quickly, but didn't address the political fallout.
Key Insight
Org charts don't capture how organizations actually work. Structural weaknesses often hide in the informal dynamics.
Case Study 3
Product Pivot Decision
Major shift in product strategy and target market
The Challenge
A B2B software company wanted to pivot toward a new market segment. Early customer conversations were positive. The team believed the pivot was necessary for long-term growth.
The Outcome
The client conducted more rigorous customer research before committing to the pivot. They discovered the market was smaller than assumed and the switching costs were higher. They modified their strategy to a gradual transition rather than a hard pivot.
What We Found
Our analysis revealed that the "positive" customer feedback was biased—they were talking to early adopters who were excited about novelty, not representative customers. The company was also underestimating switching costs for existing customers and overestimating how quickly they could build credibility in the new market. Most critically, the pivot required a completely different sales motion, but the company planned to use its existing sales team without retraining.
Key Insight
Customer enthusiasm doesn't equal market demand. Structural weaknesses in go-to-market strategy often doom otherwise good products.
Case Study 4
Partnership & Acquisition
Strategic partnership and potential acquisition opportunity
The Challenge
A company was considering a partnership with a larger player that could provide distribution and resources. The deal looked strategically sound and financially attractive.
The Outcome
The client renegotiated the partnership terms to align incentives and clarify decision rights. They also built in checkpoints to assess whether the partnership was delivering expected value. The partnership succeeded because they addressed structural weaknesses upfront.
What We Found
We identified critical structural issues: (1) The partnership agreement gave the larger player veto rights over key decisions, effectively giving them control without ownership. (2) The incentives were misaligned—the partner wanted to extract value quickly, while the company needed long-term investment. (3) The company was assuming the partner's distribution would be available, but the partner had competing priorities. (4) The deal didn't account for cultural differences and how theyd affect execution.
Key Insight
Partnerships fail when incentives are misaligned and decision rights are unclear. The best deals are the ones where both parties win.
Case Study 5
Investment & Capital Allocation
Major capital investment in new infrastructure
The Challenge
A company wanted to invest heavily in new infrastructure to support growth. The investment was large and would consume significant capital. The ROI model looked compelling.
The Outcome
The client phased the investment over 18 months instead of deploying it all at once. This gave them time to validate assumptions and adjust course if needed. They also built in contingency plans for slower growth.
What We Found
Our analysis found several hidden assumptions: (1) The ROI model assumed growth would continue at current rates, but didn't account for market saturation or competitive response. (2) The infrastructure investment assumed they could hire and train people quickly, but the labor market was tight. (3) The company was underestimating operational complexity—they'd never managed infrastructure at this scale. (4) The investment locked them into a specific growth trajectory, reducing flexibility.
Key Insight
Large capital investments often assume away uncertainty. Phased approaches preserve optionality and reduce downside risk.
Case Study 6
Talent & Retention Strategy
Executive compensation and retention plan
The Challenge
A company was designing a new compensation and retention plan for key executives. They wanted to align incentives and reduce turnover. The plan looked generous and well-intentioned.
The Outcome
The client redesigned the plan to align incentives with long-term value creation. They extended vesting schedules and added metrics that captured both growth and sustainability. The revised plan was more effective at retaining talent.
What We Found
We identified structural issues: (1) The plan created perverse incentives—executives could hit their targets by cutting costs rather than building value. (2) It didn't account for how the plan would affect team dynamics and morale. (3) The vesting schedules were too short, creating pressure to extract value quickly. (4) The plan didn't address what happens if the company underperforms—would executives stay or leave?
Key Insight
Compensation plans often create unintended consequences. The best plans align individual incentives with company success.
Common Patterns We See
Incentive Misalignment
Compensation structures, reporting lines, and success metrics often create incentives that work against the stated decision. People optimize for what they're measured on, not what the company needs.
Hidden Assumptions
Decisions are built on assumptions that go unstated. Market growth will continue. People will adapt quickly. Competitors won't respond. These assumptions often don't hold.
Structural Bottlenecks
Org structures, decision-making processes, and resource allocation create bottlenecks that slow execution or prevent adaptation. The structure that worked at one scale doesn't work at the next.
Execution Risk
Good strategies fail in execution. Companies underestimate the operational complexity, the talent required, or the time needed to build new capabilities. They assume execution will be easy.