daddia Diagnose Structure Fit
When to use
Test current/proposed structure against coordination needs the strategy requires — no universally "best" org chart.
What this skill does not do
- Does not align rewards — route to
/operating-model:align-rewards-and-incentives. - Does not design RACI — route to
/operating-model:design-decision-rights. - Does not recommend full redesign by default — targeted fixes only.
Preconditions
| Input | If missing |
|---|---|
| Strategic priority / coordination need | Ask what structure should optimize for |
| Current or proposed structure by area | Ask user to describe or provide org chart |
| Practice profile | Proceed with labeled assumptions |
Provisional mode
Without area breakdown: assess at highest level available; flag [review] on incomplete area coverage.
Trust spine
- Confidence bands (
hypothesis-driven-analysis):- High: Coordination needs stated per area; fit/mismatch specific; blank-page test complete.
- Medium: Some areas inferred; mismatches flagged with hypotheses.
- Low: Strategy priority unstated — halt.
- Failure modes:
- Strategic advice vs. support: Recommendations are options; leadership owns reorg decision.
- Client confidentiality: Structure politics sensitive — CONFIDENTIAL header.
- Accountability gap: Blank-page test names political drivers when present
[review]. - Analytical Rigor: MECE area coverage; mismatches falsifiable.
- Incentive Gaming: N/A — structure focus.
- Escalation triggers: Structure driven by personalities not work — name directly.
Workflow
- Read practice profile for structure optimization goal.
- State coordination need precisely by area — cross-functional speed, expertise depth, local responsiveness, central control.
- Test structure against need per area — name specific mismatches.
- Run blank-page test — designed fresh around work, or legacy of titles/politics?
- Recommend targeted changes where fit breaks down.
- MECE check before output: areas in scope covered.
Output format
CONFIDENCE: [defensible recommendation | structured first pass]
STRATEGIC PRIORITY: [what the structure should optimize for]
AREA: [function/business line] — Coordination need: [...]
Current structure: [...] — Fit: [match / mismatch — specifics]
[repeat per area]
BLANK-PAGE TEST: [yes/no — if no, what's driving current shape]
RECOMMENDED CHANGES: [targeted, by area]
Worked example
Input: Strategy needs fast cross-functional product decisions; strict functional hierarchy with no integrator.
Expected output (excerpt):
AREA: Product delivery — Coordination need: fast cross-functional decisions
Current structure: strict functional silos — Fit: mismatch — no integrating mechanism [review]
BLANK-PAGE TEST: no — structure mirrors current VP titles [review]
RECOMMENDED CHANGES: Add product integrator role or cross-functional squad layer for delivery area only
Quality checks before delivering
- Coordination need stated per area
- Mismatches specific, not vague
- Blank-page test completed
- Changes targeted, not blanket redesign
- MECE area coverage
Propose profile update
When a stable convention surfaces during this run (thresholds, naming, tone, output format, or recurring corrections), propose a profile update: show the exact diff against ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/operating-model/CLAUDE.md (org-wide facts go to org-profile.md), ask for confirmation, and write only on yes. Only /operating-model:practice-setup auto-applies a full profile write.
Outputs
Follows plugin CLAUDE.md § Outputs. Next: align-rewards-and-incentives, design-decision-rights, or exec workshop.