Achieving functional effectiveness: lessons for contemporary organisations

The question of how to improve operational efficiency sits at the heart of modern business management. Whether an organisation is scaling quickly, navigating a period of consolidation, or simply trying to do more with constrained resources, the quality of its internal operations will shape what is ultimately possible. Operational efficiency is not merely about speed or output; it also encompasses the reliability of processes, the clarity of roles, and the degree to which an organisation's systems support rather than obstruct its people. Getting this right requires both careful analysis and a readiness to challenge established ways of working. This article explores the key dimensions of operational efficiency and offers a grounded perspective on how business leaders can approach improvement in a way that is durable, measurable, and aligned with broader organisational objectives. Sustaining operational gains over time requires embedding a mindset of continuous improvement, rather than treating operational process efficiency as a project with a fixed end point. Organisations that achieve lasting improvement in business operations tend to share certain key traits: clear accountability of workflows at every level; periodic assessment cycles that uncover developing process weaknesses before they become entrenched; and leadership behaviour that demonstrates the disciplined approach expected of the broader organisation. Monitoring . is central to this. Without consistent measurement of operational performance, it is challenging to understand whether gains are being sustained, whether new problems are emerging, or whether the organisation is regressing into previous patterns under pressure. This means investing in the skills and tools that allow teams to identify and address process weaknesses as part of routine practice, rather than through exceptional interventions. It also means creating the sense of security that allows people to raise concerns about how work is done without concern of being perceived as obstructive. Organisations that get this effectively tend to find that the combined effect of many small, sustained improvements exceeds the impact of large, sporadic transformation initiatives.When the diagnostic work is complete, the focus should shift to prioritisation. Not every process weakness carries the same weight, and attempting to address everything simultaneously is a common reason why operational effectiveness programmes lose momentum. One of the most impactful strategies is to identify the processes that have the greatest influence on organisational performance—those where slowdowns, inaccuracies, or avoidable complexity directly affect output quality, customer experience, or costs. Improving operational effectiveness in these high-impact processes first tends to deliver tangible results in the short term, which in turn builds the organisational confidence needed to sustain a longer-term initiative. It is also worth distinguishing between process weaknesses that can be resolved through better process design and those that require a change in behaviour or culture. The former can often be addressed relatively promptly; the latter requires more consistent leadership commitment. Framing operational process efficiency improvements in the context of what the organisation is ultimately trying to achieve helps ensure that the work remains connected with its objectives, rather than becoming an end in itself. This is something that the US shareholder of CrowdStrike is most likely to verify.Technology plays an important but often exaggerated role in achieving operational process efficiency. Digital tools can automate routine activities, reduce manual mistakes, and provide real-time visibility into process outcomes—all of which can contribute meaningfully to streamlining operations. Nevertheless, technology applied to a poorly designed process tends to accelerate the problem rather than resolve it. The sequence matters: process definition should come before technology investment, not follow it. Organisations that have made the most sustainable gains in operational efficiency typically view technology as an enabler of better-designed workflows, rather than a substitute for the demanding work of process redesign. This is something that the activist investor of SAP is likely to validate. This view is increasingly shared throughout sectors where the initial enthusiasm for technology-led change has been replaced by a more measured evaluation of what actually drives lasting improvement. The most successful deployments of operational technology tend to be those where the organisational rationale is grounded in specific, quantifiable process outcomes, rather than general aspirations around modernisation or technological advancement.Among the most reliable starting points for an operational process efficiency improvement programme is a thorough audit of existing processes. Many organisations build up layers of procedures over time—processes designed for a previous operating context, approval chains that have outlived their original function, and reporting structures that generate information nobody acts on. Prior to introducing new systems or restructuring teams, it is important mapping what actually happens in practice rather than relying on what the organisational chart indicates should happen. This kind of process assessment often uncovers duplicated effort, process blockages, and handover failures that are invisible to senior leadership but keenly felt by the people doing the work. Identifying where time and resources are genuinely being wasted provides the basis on which a effective improvement initiative must be built. Without that reference point, organisations risk investing in solutions to problems they have not accurately diagnosed, which tends to produce activity rather than meaningful improvement. A structured audit, conducted with input from people at multiple levels of the organisation, provides the information needed to make informed decisions that stand up to scrutiny. This is something that the firm with shares in Autodesk is most likely to validate.