Why Testing Organisational Structures Is a ‘Must Do’ for Councils
- truthaboutlocalgov
- Nov 30
- 7 min read
When councils embark on reorganising departments or introducing matrix structures, the temptation is often to move quickly from design to implementation. However, one critical step that is frequently overlooked is testing the proposed structure and its linkages before sign-off. This is not a cosmetic exercise or a “nice-to-have”; it is a must do. Why? Because the cost of skipping this stage can be significant ranging from expensive rework and operational confusion to a structure that fundamentally fails to deliver on its intended design principles.
Organisational design is not just about drawing boxes and reporting lines. It is about creating a system where strategy, structure, processes, and people work together seamlessly. As Michael Goold and Andrew Campbell emphasise in their seminal article Do You Have a Well-Designed Organization?
“A well-designed organisation is one where structure, processes, and people align to deliver the strategy effectively.”
Testing is the mechanism that ensures this alignment exists in practice not just on paper. Without it, councils risk implementing a structure that looks logical in theory but collapses under the weight of real-world complexity. For example, a matrix structure might appear to promote collaboration, but unless tested, it could create unclear accountabilities, duplicated effort, and decision-making bottlenecks. Testing provides a reality check. It answers questions such as:
Will the new structure enable the council to meet its strategic objectives?
Are the linkages between departments strong enough to support cross-cutting priorities?
Do reporting lines and decision rights make sense when applied to day-to-day scenarios?
Skipping this step is akin to approving a bridge design without stress-testing its load-bearing capacity. The design might look elegant, but without testing, you cannot guarantee it will stand up to real-world pressures.
Why Testing Matters
Organisational charts can look neat and logical on paper, but reality is rarely that tidy. Many shortcomings of a proposed structure only become visible when you simulate real-world conditions. Without testing, councils risk discovering these flaws after transition, when the stakes are higher, and the cost of correction is far greater. This often leads to another “go-round” of restructuring something that drains time, resources, and credibility. Testing is not about slowing down progress; it’s about de-risking the change. It provides assurance that:
The structure meets the agreed design criteria. Does it reflect the strategic priorities? Does it enable accountability and clarity of roles?
Linkages between departments and roles work in practice. Are the coordination points strong enough to support cross-cutting initiatives? Will decision-making flow smoothly?
Day-to-day scenarios can be handled without bottlenecks or ambiguity. Who approves urgent procurement? How does a safeguarding concern escalate? These operational details matter.
As one transformation lead put it:
“Testing the structure options with the linkages is a ‘must do’ before signing off for the next stage planning to transition.”
Think of testing as a stress test for your organisational design. It answers questions that theory alone cannot:
Will the matrix structure create clarity or confusion?
Are there hidden overlaps that could lead to turf wars?
Does the structure empower managers to act, or does it create layers of unnecessary approval?
Skipping this step is like launching a new IT system without user acceptance testing you might get it live, but you’ll spend months fixing issues that could have been prevented.
Four Ways to Test Your Structure
There is no single method for testing an organisational design; in fact, doing more than one is strongly recommended. Each approach uncovers different insights, and together they provide a comprehensive picture of whether your structure will work in practice. Here are the most effective methods:
1. Assess Against Design Criteria
Start by revisiting the principles that guided your design. Does the structure support the council’s strategic priorities? Does it enable accountability and clarity of roles? Is it flexible enough to adapt to future challenges?
Goold and Campbell emphasise that design criteria should include:
Strategic fit – Does the structure align with the council’s vision and objectives?
Clarity of roles – Are responsibilities and decision rights unambiguous?
Effective coordination mechanisms – Will departments collaborate effectively without duplication or conflict?
This step is about checking whether the structure delivers what it was intended to deliver not just whether it looks neat on paper.
2. Use Test Scenarios
Create realistic scenarios and walk through how the structure would handle them. For example:
Responding to a major service failure – Who takes the lead? How quickly can decisions be made?
Implementing a cross-departmental initiative – Are the linkages strong enough to support collaboration?
These scenario tests expose weaknesses in decision-making pathways, resource allocation, and escalation processes. They also highlight whether the structure can cope under pressure, which is critical for councils operating in complex, high-stakes environments.
3. Conduct ‘Walk-Throughs’ of Day-to-Day Issues
While scenarios focus on big-picture events, walk-throughs simulate routine operations. Ask practical questions such as:
How will a housing officer escalate a safeguarding concern?
Who signs off procurement for a joint project?
How does information flow between planning and environmental health?
These walk-throughs reveal gaps that might not appear in high-level charts. They help ensure that the structure supports smooth operations and avoids bottlenecks that frustrate staff and residents alike.
4. Apply the Nine Tests
Goold and Campbell propose nine theoretical tests for organisational design, which provide a more conceptual lens. These include:
The Parenting Advantage Test – Does the structure allow the corporate centre to add value without interfering unnecessarily?
The People Test – Does the design fit the skills and capabilities of the people who will operate within it?
The Flexibility Test – Can the structure adapt to future changes in strategy or environment?
While these tests are more abstract, they are invaluable for stress-testing the design against long-term strategic and cultural considerations.
Tip: Do not rely on just one method. Combining practical walk-throughs with theoretical tests gives councils confidence that the structure will work both in day-to-day operations and under strategic scrutiny.
The Nine Tests Explained
Goold and Campbell divide the tests into two categories: Four “Fit” Tests and Five “Good Design” Tests. Together, they help organisations evaluate whether a structure is strategically aligned, operationally sound, and adaptable.
Four “Fit” Tests
These tests check whether the design aligns with the organisation’s strategy and context.
Market Advantage Test
Does the design direct sufficient management attention to the organisation’s sources of competitive advantage?
For councils, this means ensuring the structure supports priority outcomes such as housing delivery, climate action, or community engagement rather than diluting focus across too many objectives.
Parenting Advantage Test
Does the design allow the corporate centre (or senior leadership) to add value without unnecessary interference?
Councils should ask: Does the corporate core enable services to perform better through shared resources and strategic guidance, or does it create bureaucracy that slows decision-making?
People Test
Does the design fit the skills, experience, and behaviours of the people who will operate within it?
For example, introducing a complex matrix structure when managers lack experience in dual reporting can lead to confusion and conflict.
Feasibility Test
Is the design practical given constraints such as legal requirements, budgets, and technology?
Councils must consider statutory duties, financial limits, and digital capability before approving a structure.
Five “Good Design” Tests
These tests refine the design to ensure operational effectiveness and adaptability.
Specialist Cultures Test
Does the design protect units that need a distinct culture from being diluted by the dominant organisational culture?
For instance, safeguarding teams may need a different ethos from planning or finance to maintain focus on vulnerable residents.
Difficult Links Test
Does the design provide solutions for potentially problematic connections between units?
Councils often struggle with links between housing and social care or planning and highways. The structure should make these links clear and manageable.
Redundant Hierarchy Test
Does the design avoid unnecessary layers of management?
Too many levels slow decisions and increase costs. Streamlining hierarchy improves agility.
Accountability Test
Does every unit have clear performance measures and controls?
Ambiguity in accountability leads to gaps or overlaps. Councils should ensure clarity on who owns outcomes like homelessness prevention or economic growth.
Flexibility Test
Can the design adapt to future changes in strategy or environment?
Councils face shifting priorities such as new legislation or funding changes so structures must be resilient and adaptable.
Why These Tests Matter for Councils
Applying these nine tests before sign-off helps councils avoid costly mistakes. It ensures the structure is not only theoretically sound but also practical, culturally sensitive, and future-proof.
Don’t Skip This Step
Testing is not bureaucracy it’s risk management. Councils operate in complex environments where clarity, coordination, and accountability are essential. A structure that looks perfect in theory can fail spectacularly in practice if its linkages and decision-making pathways are not stress-tested.
By investing time in testing, you avoid the trap of “designing in isolation” where decisions are made based on diagrams and assumptions rather than operational realities. Testing ensures that your organisational design works in reality, not just on paper. It validates that the structure can handle both strategic priorities and day-to-day challenges without creating bottlenecks, duplication, or confusion. As one senior executive noted:
“Do more than one test, and in all cases, check that the structure and linkages meet the design criteria.”
Skipping this step often leads to costly consequences:
Rework and delays when flaws emerge during implementation.
Loss of credibility with staff and stakeholders who experience confusion and inefficiency.
Strategic drift, where the structure fails to support the council’s objectives.
Testing is your safeguard against these risks. It is the difference between a structure that merely looks good and one that delivers results.
Conclusion: Testing Is Your Safety Net
Organisational design is one of the most strategic decisions a council can make and one of the most complex. A structure that looks perfect in theory can fail under real-world conditions if its linkages and decision-making pathways are not rigorously tested. That’s why testing is not an optional extra; it’s a must do.
Key Takeaways:
Testing is essential before sign-off and transition. It prevents costly mistakes and ensures the structure works in practice.
Use multiple methods: design criteria checks, realistic scenarios, operational walk-throughs, and theoretical frameworks.
Draw on proven approaches like Goold and Campbell’s nine tests to stress-test your design against strategic, cultural, and operational challenges.
Testing saves time, money, and credibility by avoiding structural failure post-implementation.
In short, testing is your safety net. It transforms organisational design from a theoretical exercise into a practical, risk-managed process that delivers clarity, coordination, and confidence. Councils that invest in this step will not only avoid the pain of rework but will set themselves up for success in delivering better outcomes for communities.
