Restructuring a construction company

House of Boards conducted a restructuring in a construction company, a complex task that required a systematic approach.

Background

X is a medium-sized construction company specializing in both commercial and residential construction projects.
The company has 200 employees and is based in Wallonia.
The company faced declining profitability and an increase in internal inefficiencies.

Problems

  • Inefficient project execution: Projects were often delivered late or exceeded budget.
  • Outdated structure: The organization operated under an outdated hierarchical model that no longer suited today’s market needs.
  • Loss of market share: New players in the market offered more innovative and cost-effective solutions, so X lost market share.
  • Inadequate communication: Communication between departments was poor, leading to misunderstandings and delays.

Objectives of restructuring

  • Improve operational efficiency
  • Adapting the organization to the demands of today’s marketplace
  • Strengthen the competitive position of X
  • Increasing profitability
Step 1: Analysis of the situation at the time
  • SWOT Analysis: We conducted a SWOT analysis to identify the company’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.
  • Evaluate processes: We took a close look at all operational processes to identify inefficiencies.
  • Interviews with employees: To understand the internal problems, we conducted interviews with employees from different departments.
Step 2: Designing the new structure
  • Matrix organization: A matrix structure was chosen in which functions (e.g., HR, Finance) and project-based teams coexisted.
    This offered more flexibility and promoted interdepartmental cooperation.
  • Decentralization of decision-making: We delegated decision-making to lower levels to respond more quickly to problems on the shop floor.
  • Digitization: X invested in new software solutions for project management and communication to streamline processes.
Step 3: Implementation
  • Change management: A change manager managed the restructuring and ensured that employees embraced the new way of working.
  • Training: All employees received training in the new software and processes.
  • Communication plan: A comprehensive communication plan was to ensure transparency and regularly update employees on the progress of the restructuring.
Step 4: Evaluation and adjustments
  • Regular evaluations: We evaluated progress every three months and made adjustments as needed.
  • Feedback mechanisms: We established feedback mechanisms to continuously gather input from employees and customers.
  • Continuous improvement: The new structure was not seen as an end point, but as a starting point for a culture of continuous improvement.

Results

  • Improved efficiency: Projects were completed 13% faster and stayed within budget with a tolerance of 4.5%.
  • Increased satisfaction: Both customer and employee satisfaction increased significantly.
  • Profitability: Profitability increased 15% after 24 months.
  • Market share: X regained and even increased its market share.

Conclusion: systematic approach to restructuring

The restructuring of X was successful because we followed a systematic approach based on thorough analysis, detailed planning and effective execution. The flexibility of the new structure enabled the company to respond more quickly to changes in the market and ensured more sustainable operations.

Lessons learned

  1. Involve employees: Involving employees in the restructuring process reduces resistance and promotes adoption.
  2. Communicate clearly: Clear and frequent communication is essential to keep everyone informed and engaged, even if the message is not always positive.
  3. Stay flexible: Making quick adjustments based on evaluations and feedback is crucial to the success of a restructuring.
  4. Build in KPIs and metrics so that targets can be set and evaluated.

Read our other cases

House of Boards conducted complex negotiations in the acquisition of a company in the chemicals sector. A challenging process that included various strategic, financial and operational aspects.
House of Boards increased the contribution margin (or gross margin) for a manufacturer of prepared meals. We implemented several strategies to do this.
House of Boards set up a joint venture in Asia for a European IT company. This strategic decision required detailed planning and careful execution.