For Founders
Speed over process. Direct control. Technical depth. The specific instincts that made you successful at the early stage are the same ones routing every significant decision back through you now — and the bottleneck is structural, not personal. You don't need a different founder. You need a structure that doesn't require you to be in the room for every call.
The pattern
You hire senior people but keep making the decisions. The org chart says delegation. The calendar says you. Nobody transferred real authority; you transferred the title.
The strategy is sound. The execution keeps drifting. The gap isn't talent or effort — it's the translation layer between strategic intent and operational work, and nobody built it.
You think it's a people problem. Your board thinks it's a leadership problem. It's almost always a structural problem wearing a people mask, which is why firing and replacing doesn't fix it.
Patterns
Each one is a specific structural mechanism — not a metaphor, not a personality type. If you recognise yourself in any of them, the diagnosis is already underway. The sprint maps which pattern is producing your specific dysfunction and redesigns around it.
At ten people, the founder IS the operating system. At fifty, the founder's bandwidth is the binding constraint. The organisation scaled the headcount without scaling the operating model.
Read →Organisations hit predictable structural walls at 15, 30, 50, and 100 people. Each breakpoint invalidates the operating model that got you there. The symptoms look like people problems. They're physics.
Read →Nobody in your organisation knows who can say yes. The org chart says one thing. The actual decision flow says another. The result is high latency, low quality, and zero accountability — and the fix isn't 'empower people.'
Read →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 — the decision infrastructure that translates strategic intent into daily choices doesn't exist.
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 →Your climate tech company has completed fourteen pilots and closed zero commercial contracts. The technology works in every pilot. The organisation was never built to convert pilots into revenue.
Read →What happens when you engage
Both follow the same method — Observe, Hypothesise, Test, Revise — and both start from the decision graph, not from the org chart. The sprint is a bounded engagement with a clear end and specific deliverables. The retainer is ongoing access to a structural diagnostician watching the decision stream as it happens.
In four to six weeks you'll know what's structurally broken, which product lines to bet on, what your team configuration should look like, and what to tell your board — with the specific mechanism named, not a vague "culture problem."
A wrong senior hire costs €60–80k and six months of the wrong person in the wrong structure. A year spent building the wrong product line costs more than the salary. The sprint costs €18k and six weeks.
You give me visibility into the decisions as they happen — board prep, hiring decisions, product bets, team changes. I read the decision stream and flag the structural consequences before they compound, so the expensive mistakes that would become visible six months from now get caught while they're still reversible.
Conditions
The diagnosis requires real conversations with the people who experience the structure. If the team can't be part of the process, the diagnosis is based on one person's account of reality.
The sprint produces specific recommendations. If the engagement becomes an indefinite discussion about what to do rather than a structured path to doing it, the value doesn't compound.
The retainer watches the decision stream. If the company isn't making decisions — if everything is deferred, delegated upward, or stuck in committee — there's nothing to watch. The sprint comes first.
If you need someone to step in and operate — make the hires, run the board meeting, manage the crisis — that's an interim executive, not a diagnostician. I diagnose the structure. I don't run it.
I work with 3–4 companies at a time.
Method
Strategy work fails without leadership change. Leadership coaching fails without structural change. The structure and the founder co-produce the outcomes, which is why the intervention has to touch both or it doesn't hold.
Trace the actual decision graph. Not the org chart — the real path a significant decision takes, who has informal authority, where information gets filtered at the seams.
Redistribute decision rights, rebuild the translation layer between strategy and execution, remove the accumulated layers that the organisation stopped needing.
Work with you as the founder to operate inside the new structure. The instincts that built the company stay useful — they just stop being the bottleneck.
Background
PhD in atmospheric physics from TU Delft. Built €20M ARR in climate adaptation products at ICEYE — flood monitoring, insurance analytics, government contracts. Watched from the inside as the structural patterns I now diagnose played out in real time: the founder bottleneck, the scaling breakpoint, the decision architecture that worked at ten people and broke at fifty. The diagnostic method comes from atmospheric physics, where the gap between a climate model and a weather forecast is entirely a question of infrastructure. Same method, applied to organisations.