Case Study

Team Centralisation and Service Consolidation

Restructuring fragmented delivery teams into a national, capability-led model that enabled scalable service delivery and commercial growth.

Context

Delivery capability was distributed across nine independent teams nationwide, each operating with localised practices and limited coordination. While functional in isolation, the structure constrained consistency, reduced collaboration, and made it difficult to present coherent services to clients.

This fragmentation had direct commercial implications. The group supported over 20 organisations across government and enterprise, and the lack of unified capability limited both delivery efficiency and the ability to scale or position services effectively in the market.

It also limited the ability to define and deliver consistent services, as capability, roles, and delivery approaches varied between teams.

Challenge

The task was to transition from a collection of local teams to a structured, capability-led operating model that could:

• Standardise delivery without reducing flexibility.
• Improve utilisation and workforce efficiency.
• Support both project-based and BAU demand.
• Provide clear role definition and career pathways.
• Enable services to be packaged and sold effectively, which was not possible under the existing fragmented structure.

Approach

A national, capability-led operating model was established alongside a structured service design approach.

The operating model aligned teams, roles, and delivery capability, while service design defined how that capability would be packaged, priced, and delivered to clients.

Key changes focused on practical, high-impact improvements:

• Consolidating nine teams into two aligned structures.
• Defining seven standardised roles to create consistency and progression pathways.
• Introducing offshore capacity to support scalable delivery across projects and support.
• Defining service offerings and delivery models aligned to capability.
• Reshaping services into clearer, market-facing offerings.

This alignment enabled the definition of consistent, repeatable services across the organisation.

Operating Model

The model replaced locally managed teams with centrally aligned capabilities, supported by shared roles, standards, and service definitions.

It aligned structure, roles, and services into a cohesive system that could scale across multiple clients and delivery contexts, enabling consistent delivery and flexible resourcing.

This provided the structural foundation required to define consistent services.

Service Design

Services were defined alongside the operating model to ensure capability could be consistently packaged, priced, and delivered.

This aligned service structure with team capability, enabling repeatable delivery models, clearer positioning to clients, and consistent service definition across engagements.

It also improved the ability of sales teams to identify, qualify, and scope opportunities by removing ambiguity in what could be delivered, how it would be delivered, and how it should be priced.

Delivery

The operating model and service design were implemented through a combination of organisational design, operational improvement, and service definition.

The changes I implemented enabled the teams to operate as cohesive capabilities rather than disconnected units, forming a foundation for consistent delivery and repeatable services that were not previously viable, including:

• Bespoke application support.
• Microsoft Dynamics development and support.
• Oracle CX Service Cloud development and support.
• Data and analytics services.
• Process automation.

Outcome

The new model established two national teams of over 40 people, improving collaboration and delivery consistency.

Utilisation increased from 49% to over 80%, reflecting improved workforce planning and demand alignment.

The consolidated capability strengthened the organisation’s commercial position, generating more than $10M in annual revenue across client engagements.

These outcomes were driven by consistent, scalable service delivery enabled by the operating model.

Key Projects

Operating Model Design and Team Consolidation

Designing and implementing a national, capability-led operating model to replace fragmented team structures and enable scalable service delivery.

Context

This work focused on implementing the operating model described above, addressing fragmented structures, inconsistent roles, and disconnected delivery practices.

Capability was distributed across multiple teams with inconsistent structures, roles, and delivery practices. This limited coordination, reduced visibility of capacity, and prevented the definition of consistent services.

Without a unified model, delivery was locally optimised but globally inefficient, and capability could not be easily shared or scaled across clients.

Approach

• Consolidated nine independent teams into two national capability groups: Applications and Testing.
• Defined a standardised role framework to align responsibilities, expectations, and progression.
• Established shared delivery practices and capability ownership across teams.
• Introduced flexible resourcing models to support both project and BAU demand.
• Aligned team structure to service delivery models.

Outcome

• Established a cohesive operating model across previously fragmented teams.
• Improved visibility of capability and enabled more effective resource allocation.
• Enabled flexible resourcing across projects and support functions.
• Created the structural foundation required to define and deliver consistent services.
• Supported a more balanced workforce composition, including increased junior hiring.

Service Packaging, Pricing, and Capacity Modelling

Designing flexible service models with aligned pricing and capacity planning to support a range of client needs, including high-availability environments.

Context

While standardised services improved clarity, there was still a gap in how services were priced and scaled. Clients, particularly in government and emergency management, required flexible delivery models ranging from minimal support through to 24/7 operational coverage.

Existing approaches relied on bespoke scoping, limiting speed, consistency, and commercial predictability.

This was compounded by the lack of a consistent operating model, which made it difficult to define standard service tiers or align delivery capability to pricing models.

Approach

• Introduced à la carte service structures, allowing clients to select components based on need.
• Mapped resource capacity against service tiers, from baseline support through to 24/7 monitoring and response.
• Developed pricing models aligned to each service and delivery tier.
• Aligned workforce planning to support scalable coverage models.
• Incorporated operational requirements for high-availability environments.

Delivery

Service tiers were defined to provide clear options:

• Baseline support and maintenance.
• Enhanced support with defined SLAs.
• Fully managed services with continuous monitoring and response.

These tiers were enabled by the operating model, which provided the consistency in roles, capability, and delivery standards required to support repeatable service structures.

Each tier was backed by defined resourcing models, ensuring sustainable delivery with aligned capacity.

Outcome

• Reduced time and complexity in shaping new engagements.
• Improved pricing consistency and commercial transparency.
• Enabled scalable support models, including 24/7 operations.
• Strengthened alignment between sales, delivery, and workforce planning.
• Improved the organisation’s ability to position, sell, and deliver services consistently across clients.