Case studies
How strategy, governance and organisational ecology meet in practice
Every organisational situation is shaped by more than the problem we can see.
Behind a governance challenge, there may be questions of trust, power or identity. Behind a strategic disagreement, different understandings of purpose may coexist. Behind organisational resistance, the system may be signalling that something needs attention.
SEPO approaches casework by looking at the whole ecosystem — its structures, relationships, dynamics and potential.
The cases below illustrate how this perspective translates into practice. They are anonymised to respect the confidentiality of our engagements.
Case Study 01 - Building governance for a distributed European organisation
The ecosystem
A European organisation had grown across countries, institutions and communities. Its governance structures had evolved over time, but the organisation was reaching a point where its increasing complexity was making collective decision-making more difficult.
Different levels of responsibility, formal and informal communities, and evolving institutional relationships were interacting in ways that could no longer be addressed through governance structures alone.
The governance system had also become difficult to understand. There were multiple ways to contribute, participate and engage with the organisation, but these opportunities were not always clear to its members and communities. The language used to describe different groups and levels of the organisation had become increasingly complex, making it harder for people to understand where they belonged, how they could contribute, or who they should turn to.
The hidden dynamics
The visible challenge was governance. The deeper issue was the relationship between authority, responsibility and trust.
Formal roles did not always correspond to where influence actually sat. Decisions could become difficult not because the organisation lacked rules, but because the relationships between its different parts had become unclear — particularly between the local, national and European levels.
Interests were not always aligned. In some cases, organisations or communities were also navigating forms of institutional competition while remaining part of the same European ecosystem.
The question was therefore not simply: What governance structure should we design?
It was: What conditions would allow this ecosystem to make decisions, collaborate and evolve more effectively?
Our intervention
SEPO approached governance as a living organisational ecosystem rather than as a set of structures and procedures.
We explored how decisions were actually made, how responsibilities were distributed, where interactions became difficult, and what recurring tensions revealed about the organisation's underlying dynamics.
The work combined governance design, collective reflection and facilitated decision-making. It brought together different groups and levels of the organisation through surveys and workshops, creating space for perspectives that were not always visible in the formal governance system.
A significant part of the work focused on making the organisation easier to understand and navigate: clarifying the vocabulary used to describe its different communities and levels, simplifying processes, and making clearer how people could participate, contribute and find the right point of contact.
The aim was not to remove complexity, but to make complexity legible and workable.
The transformation
The objective was not to create a perfect governance model.
It was to move towards a governance system that could support effective decisions, stronger relationships and greater organisational adaptability.
The organisation gained greater clarity about roles and responsibilities, as well as a better understanding of how its different components related to one another.
Just as importantly, participation became easier to navigate. Members and communities could better understand where they fitted within the ecosystem, how they could contribute, and how decisions were connected across different levels.
The result was not a simpler organisation in the sense of being less complex. It was a more intelligible, connected and workable one.
What this reveals
Governance is not only about structures. It is about the quality of the relationships that make those structures work.
For complex European organisations, this means holding two realities at the same time: different members and institutions may have legitimate interests that are not always aligned — or may even be in competition — while still needing to contribute to a shared purpose.
Good governance does not eliminate these tensions. It creates the conditions in which an organisation can work with them, make decisions despite them, and continue to evolve together.
Case Study 02 - From scientific ambition to European infrastructure
The ecosystem
A scientific community was developing an ambition to build a European research infrastructure.
The scientific case was strong. But turning that ambition into a credible and sustainable infrastructure required much more than scientific excellence. It required alignment across researchers, institutions, countries and European stakeholders, as well as an understanding of what makes an organisation viable over time.
The ecosystem was therefore both scientific and institutional.
The community brought strong scientific expertise and a genuine willingness to build something together, but limited experience in creating and positioning a European infrastructure. Questions around organisational structure, legal foundations, financing, management, stakeholder relations and long-term strategy were becoming just as important as the scientific case itself.
The challenge was to help researchers look beyond the scientific project and develop the organisational capabilities needed to turn an idea into a lasting European structure.
The hidden dynamics
The challenge was not simply to write a strong proposal.
The deeper question was whether the community could develop a shared organisational and strategic trajectory.
Different actors brought different expectations, interests and levels of commitment. The infrastructure needed to create enough coherence to act collectively without losing the diversity and scientific richness that made the community valuable.
This required a shift in perspective: from thinking primarily as scientists to also thinking as strategists, organisational leaders and managers.
Building a European infrastructure means understanding how to position an organisation, communicate with policy-makers and institutional stakeholders, develop a strategy, make choices about governance and financing, and create the foundations that will allow the organisation to remain alive and relevant over time.
The scientific idea was only the starting point. The question was how many different paths could turn that idea into a viable organisation — and which one would best serve the community's long-term purpose.
Our intervention
SEPO worked at the intersection of scientific ambition, strategy, governance and organisational development.
The work explored the infrastructure's strategic positioning, governance model, stakeholder ecosystem and long-term organisational trajectory. It also examined the different possible ways of translating the scientific ambition into an organisational reality.
A key part of the intervention was helping researchers develop the competencies needed to navigate this transition: understanding the foundations of an organisation, communicating beyond their immediate scientific community, engaging with policy-makers and institutional stakeholders, and thinking strategically about positioning and sustainability.
Through strategic work and targeted training, the scientific community was supported in moving from “What do we want to build?” towards “What organisation could make this ambition possible, and what would it take to sustain it?”
The transformation
The initiative moved from a strong scientific vision towards a more structured strategic and organisational proposition, with clearer thinking about governance, stakeholders, positioning and long-term sustainability.
The community developed a broader understanding of what building a European infrastructure actually entails, including the organisational capabilities required alongside scientific expertise.
The ambition also became easier to articulate across different parts of the ecosystem. Researchers, institutions and potential European stakeholders could begin to recognise not only the scientific value of the initiative, but also the organisational trajectory required to make it credible.
The result was not a single predetermined model. It was a clearer understanding of the possible pathways from scientific idea to sustainable organisation, and of the choices involved in moving from one to the other.
What this reveals
European research infrastructures are not built through scientific excellence alone. They are built through the capacity of diverse communities to organise around a shared purpose.
A good scientific idea and a lasting organisation are two different achievements. The second requires additional skills: strategy, governance, management, communication, stakeholder engagement and an understanding of how organisations are built and sustained over time.
And there is rarely only one way to implement a scientific ambition.
The strategic challenge is to understand the possible organisational paths, make the choices explicit, and build the one that best enables the community's purpose to endure.
Case Study 03 — Evolving an organisation when its environment changes
The ecosystem
A European organisation had been established to provide a set of services responding to a specific policy and technological context.
Over time, that context began to change. New European policies were redefining priorities. Technological developments were creating new ways of delivering some services, while making others less relevant or easier to provide elsewhere. New actors were entering the ecosystem, and expectations from users and stakeholders were evolving.
The organisation therefore faced a strategic question that many established organisations eventually encounter: What should we continue to do, what should we transform, and what should we stop doing?
The challenge was not a lack of ideas. It was the difficulty of making choices within an organisation with established services, communities, commitments and governance bodies — where every service had people invested in it and a history that gave it legitimacy.
The hidden dynamics
The visible challenge was service evolution. The deeper challenge was organisational identity and collective decision-making in a changing environment.
Stopping or substantially changing an established service can feel like questioning the value of the people who built it, the communities who use it, or the decisions that created it in the first place.
Governance committees may therefore focus on protecting existing activities rather than asking whether they still serve the organisation's purpose and strategic position.
At the same time, external change does not automatically tell an organisation what to become. A new policy or technology may create several possible futures.
The strategic question was therefore not: How do we preserve all our existing services?
Nor simply: What new services should we create?
It was: What should this organisation become in response to a changing environment — and what must change today to make that future possible?
Our intervention
SEPO worked with the organisation to reconnect purpose, environment, strategy and services.
We examined how changes in policy, technology and the wider ecosystem were affecting the organisation's role and the value of its existing activities. Services were considered not only individually, but as part of a broader strategic portfolio.
This helped distinguish between activities that should be:
- protected, because they remained central to the organisation's purpose;
- transformed, because their role or delivery model needed to evolve;
- integrated or repositioned, because new opportunities had emerged elsewhere in the ecosystem;
- phased out, because continuing them would consume resources without strengthening the organisation's future position.
A significant part of the work was also relational.
SEPO helped create the conditions for difficult strategic conversations with committees, service owners and communities, making the case for change while recognising the history and value of what had already been built.
The objective was not to impose a predetermined future, but to help the organisation develop a shared strategic rationale for change.
The transformation
The organisation moved from reacting to external change towards actively shaping its own adaptation.
The evolution of services became part of a broader strategic conversation: what role should the organisation play in the emerging ecosystem, where could it create distinctive value, and what capabilities would it need to develop?
Some activities could be strengthened, others redesigned, and some deliberately brought to an end.
Importantly, these choices could be explained not as isolated operational decisions, but as part of a coherent organisational trajectory.
The organisation was therefore able to evolve without abandoning its identity: the purpose remained a reference point, while the way of fulfilling it could change.
What this reveals
Organisational adaptability is not about constantly adding new things. Sometimes, adaptation means stopping.
For established organisations, the most difficult strategic decisions are often not about what to start, but about what to let go of.
Policy change and technological innovation can make yesterday's successful services less relevant tomorrow. The role of strategy is not to protect the past, but to help an organisation understand what its purpose requires now.
A living organisation needs enough continuity to retain its identity, and enough courage to change the way it fulfils its purpose.
Strategic adaptation is therefore not simply a question of innovation. It is also a question of collective sense-making, difficult choices and the ability to bring governance bodies along on the journey.
Case Study 04 - Restoring trust in senior governance
The ecosystem
A European organisation was experiencing growing tensions within its senior governance and management.
The organisation itself remained functional. Its strategy was in place, its activities continued, and formal decision-making mechanisms were operating. Yet relationships between key individuals and governance bodies had become increasingly difficult.
Trust had weakened. Communication had become more cautious. Decisions took longer, responsibilities were sometimes contested, and issues that could previously be addressed informally were becoming harder to resolve.
Because the people involved held senior positions, the situation could not simply be treated as an interpersonal disagreement. The tension was beginning to affect the organisation's capacity to decide, communicate and move forward collectively.
At the same time, addressing the situation required a high degree of discretion. The organisation needed a space in which the underlying issues could be explored without escalating the situation or exposing individuals unnecessarily.
The hidden dynamics
The visible issue was a governance or management tension.
The deeper issue was the quality of the relationships and the conditions for trust at the top of the organisation.
Different interpretations of roles, responsibilities and authority had developed over time. Some decisions carried unresolved tensions from previous situations, while different expectations about leadership and accountability were beginning to collide.
In such situations, the formal governance framework may be perfectly adequate on paper while no longer functioning effectively in practice.
The question was therefore not:
Who is responsible for the problem?
It was:
What is happening between the different parts of the system, and what would allow them to work together again?
Our intervention
SEPO provided a confidential and independent space to understand the situation and identify possible ways forward.
The intervention began by listening to the different perspectives involved, creating a protected space in which concerns, perceptions and expectations could be expressed without immediately turning them into formal positions.
The focus was not on assigning blame or determining who was right. It was on identifying the underlying dynamics: where trust had weakened, where responsibilities had become ambiguous, where expectations diverged, and which organisational mechanisms were contributing to the tension.
Depending on the situation, the work combined individual conversations, collective sessions and facilitated dialogue between the relevant governance or management actors.
The process remained deliberately discreet. SEPO acted as a trusted third party, helping the organisation address what could not easily be addressed from within.
The transformation
The organisation was able to move from a situation of implicit tension towards a more explicit and workable understanding of what needed to change.
Some issues could be resolved through clarification of roles and responsibilities. Others required changes in ways of working, communication or decision-making. In some cases, the most important step was simply to create the conditions for people to speak openly again and rebuild a degree of trust.
The objective was not necessarily to restore relationships to what they had been before.
It was to establish sufficient trust, clarity and working agreements for the organisation to function effectively again.
What this reveals
Governance tensions are rarely only about governance. They are also about relationships, trust, authority and the stories people have built around each other.
When tensions reach senior levels, organisations often need more than another procedure or governance rule. They need a trusted space in which difficult issues can be explored without unnecessary exposure.
SEPO's role is not to take sides, arbitrate or impose solutions.
It is to help the organisation see what is happening, create the conditions for difficult conversations, and find a way forward that protects both the people involved and the organisation's capacity to act.
Sometimes, the most valuable intervention is the one that remains largely invisible
Other situations we work with
Some situations require the same combination of strategic thinking, governance design and organisational sensitivity — but emerge from very different contexts.
Building global governance around a European-funded infrastructure
An infrastructure may be funded primarily through European resources while being established and operated in another region of the world.
How can global governance be designed so that local communities and institutions have meaningful influence, ownership and voice — rather than simply being represented?
Facilitating strategic alignment across national nodes
A European infrastructure may rely on national nodes that operate in very different institutional, funding and policy environments.
How can national nodes develop a shared strategic direction while preserving the autonomy, expertise and specific needs of each country?
SEPO can facilitate the conversations needed to identify common priorities, make differences explicit, and build a shared strategic trajectory without requiring uniformity.
Governing with asymmetric funding
An organisation may depend heavily on the financial commitment of one country, institution or member while remaining a collective European or international endeavour.
How can the organisation recognise this commitment without allowing financial weight to undermine collective governance — or making other members feel marginalised?
Designing participation that actually works
Organisations often want to involve their communities more deeply, but participation can easily become fragmented, overly complex or symbolic.
How can participation create genuine influence and ownership without making decision-making unmanageable?
Governing across very different institutional cultures
International organisations bring together institutions with different administrative traditions, expectations, decision-making cultures and understandings of authority.
How can governance create enough common ground to work together without imposing a single institutional model on everyone?
Preparing for leadership transition
When senior leadership changes, organisations can lose more than a person. They can lose relationships, institutional memory and an implicit understanding of how things actually work.
How can an organisation prepare for leadership change while preserving continuity and creating space for renewal?
Navigating power asymmetries
Not all stakeholders enter a governance system with the same resources, influence, expertise or ability to shape decisions.
How can governance acknowledge these differences while creating a system that remains legitimate, trusted and collectively owned?
Different situations. One underlying question.
Across these situations, the challenge is rarely to find a governance model in isolation.
It is to understand what the organisation is becoming, what its ecosystem requires, and what conditions will allow people and institutions to work together over time.
This is where SEPO works best: at the intersection of strategy, governance, organisational dynamics and the relationships that hold an organisation together.