Utilities / Selected work

The supply-chain team wasn't oversized. Its load sat on managers, with no execution layer beneath them.

Headcount ratios would have called this function efficient. Assessing workload role by role showed a lean structure carrying ~70% more spend per FTE than the peer median, with no planning function and no headroom for the growth it was asked to absorb.

At a glance ~70%

more spend per FTE than the peer median

Engagement context

Consulting · US energy utility

My role

Organisational benchmarking & operating model

Duration

12 weeks

Exhibit 1

The utility supports more spend per FTE than any peer

Peer distribution, indexed

So what

Beyond the top of the peer range: evidence of a lean, broad-scope structure, not an over-resourced one.

Exhibit 2

Capacity is concentrated in manager roles, over a thin execution layer

Illustrative mix, this utility vs peer median

So what

Managers hold a far larger share of capacity than peers, enablement is thin, and planning has no dedicated FTE: the two structural gaps.

The commercial question

Leadership needed to know whether the supply-chain organisation could support current spend and planned growth. Raw headcount comparisons would obscure real differences in role scope and functional coverage between peers, and the goal was a fact base for workforce decisions rather than a headcount verdict in either direction.

My contribution

Led the assessment across structure, roles and capacity: defined the peer framework, normalised spend and headcount by workload, clustered roles by capability rather than title, and translated the findings into structural implications.

How I approached it

Compare capabilities, not job titles

Every utility names supply-chain roles differently, so cluster roles by the capability they deliver, then normalise each function by a workload denominator.
Map the outliers

Plot load-adjusted spend per FTE against the peer distribution to find which functions sit off the line, and in which direction.
Rule out the alternatives first

Test turnover, geographic scope and workload growth before attributing a gap to organisation and process design.

The decision that mattered

High spend per person can mean a lean organisation or an overloaded one, and the two call for opposite responses. Reading the number alongside scope and how execution work was distributed turned a benchmark into a recommendation rather than a headline.

What the work delivered

A structured fact base on supply-chain sizing relative to peers, usable directly in workforce planning.
Two structural gaps identified: lean enablement and no standalone planning function.
A prioritised reinforcement roadmap, de-risked through a single-region pilot with tracked KPIs.

Sources: client function and role-level spend and FTE data, normalised by workload (assets served, spend under management) and clustered by delivered capability rather than job title, benchmarked against comparable regulated utilities. The deliverable was a diagnostic and a recommended operating model; headcount changes, pilot results and downstream savings are not presented as outcomes of this work. Peer identities and counts are withheld, and distributions are indexed.

PDF · 1 page