Case Study · Electrical Equipment Manufacturing
Middle Management and Cross-Functional Integration
Planning, production, and materials functions were interdependent but not sufficiently aligned. Middle managers were overloaded and escalation-dependent — not because they lacked capability, but because the authority architecture had never been designed to give them the decision rights their roles required.
The Situation
Throughput losses were being caused by coordination failures, not capability gaps.
An electrical equipment manufacturer was experiencing persistent throughput losses that the leadership team had been unable to resolve through the standard interventions — production scheduling improvements, cross-functional meetings, and management training. The losses were not caused by technical failures or individual underperformance. They were caused by coordination failures between planning, production, and materials functions that were structurally embedded in the way the organisation had been designed.
Middle managers were overloaded and escalation-dependent. Every significant coordination issue — a materials shortage, a schedule conflict, a quality hold — required escalation to the plant manager or a senior functional head before it could be resolved. The plant manager was performing the integration function that the organisation had not designed into any other role.
The root cause was an authority architecture that had never been designed to give middle managers the decision rights their roles required. Roles had been defined by function. The authority to coordinate across functions — to make the decisions that required two or more functions to act together — had been left unassigned. The result was a management layer that was accountable for outcomes it could not produce with the authority it held.
Kriate's Approach
Authority redesign combined with cross-functional action learning.
Kriate used Authority-Role-Task thinking to redesign the middle management layer, clarifying what each role owned and what authority it held. Cross-functional action learning forums were used to build the coordination habits and shared accountability that the redesigned structure required.
Authority-Role-Task diagnostic
Mapped the specific authority gaps at the middle management level — identifying which coordination decisions were being escalated unnecessarily and why the current authority architecture was producing the bottleneck.
Middle management authority redesign
Redesigned the authority architecture for the middle management layer, explicitly assigning the decision rights required to coordinate across planning, production, and materials without escalation.
Cross-functional action learning forums
Established structured cross-functional forums anchored in live operational issues — building the coordination habits and shared accountability that the redesigned authority structure required.
Operating rhythm redesign
Redesigned the management operating rhythm to create structured integration points between functions — replacing the informal, reactive coordination that had been producing the throughput losses.
Outcomes
Reduced escalation dependency and improved throughput coordination.
The authority redesign and action learning approach produced a measurable reduction in escalation dependency and improved coordination between planning, production, and materials functions.
The work on middle management was the most impactful. Our senior leaders finally had bandwidth to think strategically because the layer below them knew what they were accountable for.
Plant Head, Electrical Equipment Manufacturer
Related Solutions
Solutions applied in this engagement.
Start Here
Is your middle management layer overloaded and escalation-dependent?
A diagnostic conversation helps identify whether the bottleneck is in authority design, coordination mechanisms, or operating rhythm — and what a targeted intervention would need to address.
One conversation. No commitment required.