Operational efficiency in growth companies

Growth creates complexity without any single decision having been wrong.

A new system solves a real problem. A new supplier is added because someone needs delivery quickly. A local exception is introduced because one unit has particular conditions. Each decision is reasonable.

The sum is something else: more handovers, more interfaces and more costs that nobody sees as a whole.

Seven signals that growth has created unnecessary complexity

1. Accountability has become unclear

Questions stall because several people are partly involved but nobody is clearly accountable. It usually becomes visible when something has to be decided quickly.

2. The same work is done in several places

Two units compile the same information in different ways, or the same check is performed both before and after a handover. Duplication rarely arises deliberately.

3. Local exceptions have become the standard

An exception introduced temporarily stays in place. Over time units work differently, which makes monitoring, comparison and shared agreements harder.

4. The number of suppliers grows without a clear reason

New suppliers are added faster than old ones are phased out. Volume is dispersed, making it harder both to monitor quality and to hold a consolidated commercial position.

5. Manual steps and spreadsheet solutions multiply

Spreadsheets are built to bridge gaps between systems. They work, but they depend on individuals, are hard to quality-assure and take more time than they appear to.

6. Several systems solve almost the same problem

Overlapping systems mean both duplicated cost and split data flows. That makes a consolidated view of what is actually being done harder to reach.

7. Decisions require more handovers and approvals

As the number of steps grows, lead time increases without decision quality necessarily improving. Control is necessary, but each control point needs a purpose.

Is the issue the process or the supplier arrangement?

This is a decisive question, because the answer determines which action is right.

If the cost is driven by terms, price or scope in the agreement, renegotiation is a reasonable route. If it is driven by how the service is ordered, used or monitored internally, a new agreement will not solve the problem.

In practice they are usually connected. An agreement that is used inefficiently produces high costs however well it was negotiated.

Technology and AI do not fix an unclear way of working on their own

ERA Group's whitepaper on AI for CFOs describes AI primarily as a way to expand an organisation's analytical and decision-making capacity rather than as a cost tool in itself. A central point is that leadership needs to prioritise which use cases genuinely create business value, and allocate resources accordingly.

ERA Group's supply chain material points in the same direction at the operational level: automation of repetitive tasks, real-time data as a basis for decisions, data governance, and greater resilience through automated processes. A Transport Management System is used there as an example of how technology can support a process — but the system assumes the process is defined.

The report also cites examples of possible savings levels in its own context. Those figures belong with the original report and should not be read as general outcomes.

The conclusion is straightforward: technology amplifies the way of working that already exists. Where that is unclear, the lack of clarity is amplified too.

Where do you start?

A simple prioritisation model goes a long way:

• Where has the business changed most since the way of working was established?
• Which steps take disproportionate time relative to their value?
• Where are there most manual handovers between people or systems?
• Which costs or suppliers have emerged without a clear owner?

The areas that recur across several answers are normally the right place to begin.

Simplification should free up resources without removing what creates customer value, quality or control. The objective is not a smaller organisation, but one where the way of working matches the business as it is actually run today.