Structural Diagnosis
I diagnose the structural patterns that make climate tech organizations underperform — then redesign the system so the same people produce different outcomes.
What I do
Strategy without fixing the system is expensive wallpaper. Coaching without fixing the system is therapy that doesn't stick. I start with the structure.
Your leadership style was an asset at 10 people. At 50 it's the bottleneck. The system needs to change — not you.
Read →Your DD evaluates the market and the technology. It doesn't evaluate the operating structure that has to deliver on the thesis.
Read →Hardware + software + government + commercial. Climate tech carries organizational complexity that SaaS frameworks can't see.
Atmospheric modeling taught me one thing: most failures come from unexamined assumptions, not bad data. I apply the same diagnostic process to organizations — not because it's a clever metaphor, but because it's structurally the same problem.
Most advisors skip this. They arrive with the answer. I don't form a hypothesis until I've seen what's actually happening — not what you believe is happening. These are rarely the same thing.
I build a structural hypothesis about the root cause — the mechanism generating all the other problems. Not the symptoms you've been treating. The thing underneath them that makes failure structurally inevitable.
We design interventions that produce data. We find out if the hypothesis holds. This is not gut feel, not best practice, not what worked at your last company. It's a structured experiment with a real feedback loop.
If the hypothesis was wrong, we update it. This is where most advisory engagements end — the moment the clean answer gets complicated. It's where mine starts getting accurate.
For investor engagements, the same method operates on a compressed timeline. A pre-investment organizational assessment takes days, not months. The rigor is the same. The clock is different.
Diagnostic Patterns
These are the structural failure patterns I see repeatedly in climate tech organizations. If you recognize your situation, the diagnosis is already underway.
Your strategy exists in a deck. Your team is executing something else entirely. Every advisor has told you it's a communication problem. It isn't.
Read →The leadership style that built your company is now the thing breaking it.
Read →Your organisation is more complex than it needs to be, and the person who made it that way is you. Technical founders model complex systems for a living.
Read →Your processes aren't designed. They're accumulated. Every workaround your organization has ever invented to deal with a dysfunction is now embedded in how you...
Read →You're treating a structural problem as a people problem, and it's costing you talent, time, and money. The underperformer you're about to fire.
Read →What worked at your last stage is structurally incapable of working at this one. This isn't a metaphor.
Read →Your organisation is fighting its mission without knowing it. The strategy deck still says climate impact. The decision-making architecture optimises for margin.
Read →You're optimizing a model whose assumptions no longer hold, and every improvement is making you more efficiently wrong.
Read →Nobody in your organization knows who can say yes. Decisions get escalated, deferred, or made by whoever cares most and pushes hardest. The org chart says one thing.
Read →The board sees one company. The team is running another. This isn't deception — it's structural.
Read →Climate Tech Sectors
Each climate tech subsector has its own organizational dynamics. I map the specific structural tensions in each space.
Climate adaptation is a sector where the technology works and the market doesn't. The science is solid. The products are real. The commercial infrastructure doesn't exist yet.
Read →Energy markets are being structurally transformed, and the companies building for this transformation are being whipsawed by the very forces they're trying to serve.
Read →Carbon capture is where deep-tech R&D meets industrial-scale project development. The organisational collision between those two worlds is where most companies stall.
Read →AgTech's bottleneck isn't technology. It's trust.
Read →Clean energy companies grow project by project, and that growth pattern creates an organizational identity that's very difficult to escape.
Read →Climate data companies sit on an uncomfortable paradox: the data pipeline IS the product, but the organization treats it as an engineering problem rather than a product management problem.
Read →For Investors
65% of portfolio failures are attributed to people and organizational issues. The due diligence missed it because it wasn't looking.
Your due diligence evaluates the market, the technology, and the team. It almost never evaluates the operating structure that has to deliver on the thesis.
Read →A portfolio company is underperforming. The market is there. The technology works. The team is talented. Something is broken and nobody can name it.
Read →Can this founder scale? The usual assessment is personal. Structural assessment reveals the problem is almost never the founder. It's the organisational design around the founder.
Read →Climate tech is not SaaS. The operating model assumptions from software investing don't transfer to companies with hardware, regulatory dependencies, and project-based revenue.
Read →Fewer bets. Longer horizons. Higher stakes. Family offices entering climate tech bring financial evaluation expertise but need structural diagnosis the standard DD process doesn't cover.
Read →The check is written. The company is struggling. Board advice isn't working. You've told the founder to fix the org three times. Nothing sticks. That's where structural diagnosis starts.
Read →About
PhD in atmospheric physics. Built €20M ARR in climate adaptation products at ICEYE. Spent years watching brilliant organizations fail for structural reasons that had nothing to do with talent. Now I diagnose what's actually broken.