Scott Foster · Shape Executive · Strategy & Operations
The customer has changed. The technology has changed. The cost base has changed. The labour market has changed. The speed of decision-making has changed.
But in many businesses, the structure has not. That is the problem.
So we ask management to find efficiencies. We ask teams to do more with less. We add CRM, ERP, dashboards, portals, automation and now AI. Then we wonder why productivity does not materially improve. When boards are managing that transition, post-acquisition leadership support provides the operating layer that boards cannot provide from the governance level.
Because sometimes the issue is not the people. It is not the system. It is not the market. It is the design of the business itself.
I expect that very few boards sit down with the organisation chart, the customer journey, the cost base and the workflow, and ask the question that actually matters:
If we were building this business today, what would we not build again?
That is the productivity conversation we are avoiding.
This Is A Design Problem, Not A Labour Problem
The cost of doing business in Australia is becoming very expensive. Wages are higher. Rent is higher. Compliance is heavier. Energy, insurance, technology and administration costs continue to rise. The answer cannot simply be to ask people to work harder.
The harder truth is that many businesses are still operating with structures designed for another era. And this is where efficiency, productivity and value creation are often confused.
Efficiency asks: How do we do the current work with less waste? Productivity asks: How do we create more output from the resources already deployed? Value creation asks: Is this business structurally designed to increase EBITDA, improve cash conversion, strengthen customer relevance and increase enterprise value?
A business can cut cost and destroy value. It can grow revenue and destroy value. It can automate tasks and still leave the same broken operating model underneath.
Technology Changed. The Org Chart Often Did Not.
Before CRM, salespeople carried customer cards. I remember being a sales representative with milk crates in the back of my car full of customer cards tied up by the seat belt. At the time, it worked. But nobody today would seriously argue that a milk crate full of customer cards is a better commercial system than a properly embedded CRM.
Technology does not always remove the work. Often, it removes the drag around the work. Email did it. Mobile phones did it. CRM did it. ERP did it. Cloud accounting did it. Video meetings did it. And now AI is forcing the same question again.
But AI is not the strategy. Rewiring the business is the strategy. AI simply exposes how much of the current operating model was built around limitations that may no longer exist — manual processing, manual reporting, manual follow-up, manual coordination, manual visibility.
Video Changed Work. But Did It Change The Sales Model?
Many businesses adopted the technology without redesigning the work around it. In many industrial, manufacturing and distribution businesses, the sales model still looks much the same as it did years ago — large field sales teams, company cars, territories, road time, activity measured by presence rather than productivity.
The question is not whether field sales should disappear. The question is whether field sales should still be the default. Perhaps 10 highly capable business development people focused on strategic accounts — supported by 20 commercially sharp inside sales managers using video, CRM, data, analytics and AI-enabled insights. That may be a higher-service model. More frequent contact. Faster follow-up. Better use of customer data. Less dead time. Cleaner pipeline management.
The Customer Has Already Moved
Customers expect faster quotes, faster order confirmation, better visibility, digital self-service and cleaner communication. They order through portals. They email purchase orders. They accept remote demonstrations.
The old operating model was often designed around internal convenience — branches, territories, functions, reporting lines, approval layers. The new model needs to be designed around customer value. If the customer has already moved but the business structure has not, productivity will remain trapped inside the gap.
The Most Dangerous Place Is Halfway
Businesses adopt new technology but keep the old structure. They pay for the old operating model and the new tools — the same people, meetings, manual workarounds, spreadsheets, approvals and reporting cadence. Then they add CRM. Then ERP. Then analytics. Then dashboards. Then portals. Then automation. Then AI.
The result is not productivity. It is cost duplication. The business becomes heavier. More systems. More reports. More complexity. More reconciliation. That is not transformation. That is accumulation. And accumulation is one of the quiet killers of productivity.
The Boardroom Question Is Not "Where Do We Put AI?"
Over the last three months, I have spoken with more than 100 senior leaders. Almost all are interested in AI. But the question I hear most is not whether AI matters — it is: Where do we put it?
That question says a lot. Because most businesses are still trying to fit AI into the structure they already have. The real question is not where AI sits in the current organisation chart. The real question is what the organisation chart should look like once AI, automation, data and workflow redesign are properly understood.
If technology can process information, interrogate data, prepare reporting, identify exceptions, support customer communication and accelerate decision-making, why would we start with the old organisation chart? Why would we assume the same number of layers? The same roles? The same meetings? The same internal friction?
This Is A Capital Allocation Conversation
For boards, chairs, CFOs, COOs, founders and private equity firms, this cannot be treated as a technology conversation alone. It is a capital allocation conversation.
In a high-cost economy, every dollar tied up in low-value work is a dollar not being deployed into customer growth, margin expansion, cash conversion or enterprise value. Every person buried in manual administration is capacity not being deployed into pricing discipline, margin improvement, sales coverage or working capital reduction.
The structure that helped a founder scale from $10 million to $50 million may be the same structure preventing the business from reaching $100 million. Many founders do not need to abandon the business they built. They need to redesign the structure that helped them survive but now prevents them from scaling.
No Sacred Cows
If this conversation is serious, everything has to be on the table. Sales structure. Customer service. Finance. Supply chain. Branch networks. Warehouse footprint. Reporting cadence. Management layers. Meetings. Territories. Office space. Vehicle fleets. Customer segmentation. Role design. Decision rights. Inventory ownership. Approval processes.
None of these should be protected simply because they are familiar. This is especially relevant in industrial, manufacturing and distribution businesses — many still carry legacy branch networks, sales territories, warehouses and physical footprints designed before digital ordering, video selling, centralised support and better data.
Would we build the same branch network today if we were starting from zero? Would we hold the same inventory in the same places? Would we still accept the same level of working capital intensity? These questions go directly to rent, labour, fleet, inventory, service levels, working capital, customer experience and EBITDA.
Managing The Old Model Is Not The Same As Redesigning It
Many managers can manage the current model. Far fewer can redesign it. The next productivity lift will not come from asking managers to manage harder. It will come from asking whether leaders have the capability to redesign the system they are managing.
A leader who has spent their career defending a function may not be the same leader required to redesign that function. A board that only receives monthly reports may not have the operating visibility required to challenge the model underneath them.
The Board Cannot Outsource This Question
Boards should not simply ask: What are we doing with AI? They should ask: Which parts of our operating model would we not rebuild today? Where are we preserving structure because it is familiar rather than because it creates value? Where are we paying for activity that no longer improves the customer experience, margin, cash flow or enterprise value?
That is the boardroom conversation. Not after the next downturn. Not after the next margin miss. Now.
For more on the operating model conversation this article explores: operator advisory.
The Final Test
Print the organisation chart. Print the customer journey. Print the cost base. Print the workflow. Print the branch network. Print the sales coverage model. Print the reporting cadence. Put them all on the boardroom table. Then ask one question:
If we were building this business today, what would we not build again?
That is where the real productivity conversation starts. Not AI. Not cost cutting. Not another efficiency program. A complete rewire of the business around value creation.
Because the businesses that win from here will not be the ones that simply bolt new technology onto old structures. They will be the ones prepared to ask: What should this business become now that the old constraints no longer apply?