Strateros
Strateros creates a web of informaiton from your business systems. Our BRiDGEOS software continuously monitors business strategies, from dicussion through delivery, adoption and governance.
BRiDGE OS
Through BRiDGE OS, business transformation and responsible AI, we connect people, processes and technology to improve accountability, performance and organisational learning.
AI Implementation
We connect your data, processes, and technology to a custom AI model that continuously learns with your business giving you complete control over the AI intelligence, cost and security.
Industries
Areas of impact Strateros can help you with. From professional services to manufacturing SMEs, we turn strategic decisions into delivered, measurable results.
Slide 1 of 4: Strateros
BRiDGE OS connects leadership decisions to the people, investments, activities and outcomes that follow. By integrating with existing enterprise systems, it provides continuous visibility of accountability and execution, helping organisations identify strategic drift and preserve institutional knowledge.
Connect strategic intent to operational execution through governed decisions, measurable commitments and evidence based oversight. Human-led, AI-optional and designed to work alongside your existing systems.
Explore BRiDGE OS → →Every decision creates valuable organisational knowledge. BRiDGE OS preserves the rationale, ownership and evidence behind decisions, connecting their execution and outcomes to a continuous cycle of organisational learning.
Surface signals, issues and opportunities.
Organise themes, evidence and options.
Capture rationale, ownership and commitment.
Connect actions, spend, risks and milestones.
Review outcomes and improve the next decision.
Organisations invest in strategies, systems and transformation programmes, yet often struggle to maintain alignment between leadership decisions and operational delivery. Strateros combines business architecture, process excellence and technology to connect strategic intent with measurable outcomes.
Our implementation model→Establish clear objectives, decisions, expected benefits and measurable outcomes before committing resources.
Define the operating model, decision rights, ownership, processes and governance required to translate strategy into action.
Integrate strategy, investment and operational activity through the systems and workflows organisations already use.
Monitor performance against approved objectives, identify emerging drift and preserve lessons to strengthen future decisions.
Our structured approach connects strategy, decisions, people and technology to establish accountability, improve execution and demonstrate measurable business value.
Clarify organisational objectives, leadership decisions, operational challenges and expected business outcomes.
Evaluate existing processes, governance, data, technology, capabilities and opportunities for improvement.
Define responsibilities, decision rights, information flows, performance measures and supporting technology.
Connect priority decisions to operational activities and evidence. Validate the approach with stakeholders using real business scenarios.
Introduce the agreed capabilities into daily operations with appropriate governance, training, controls and accountability.
Track outcomes against objectives, identify improvement opportunities and preserve organisational learning.
We connect your data, processes, and technology to a custom AI model that continuously learns with your business giving you complete control over the AI intelligence, cost and security.
Five calculators, each built on published research. They return exposure and load, not savings. We do not claim that traceability produces a return, because the research does not establish one.
Proposed construct
No published baseline exists for this ratio. The default is a placeholder, so use your own figure.
Every figure on this page is illustrative and driven by your own inputs. Each tab states the strength of the evidence behind it and what it does not show. None of these tools is a business case.
Investment without lineage = governed investment x (1 - STR). Each evidence gap = 1 - ratio.
An unverified allocation is a review priority, not a measure of money wasted, and missing evidence is not the same as failed delivery. These ratios describe evidence integrity. They do not measure strategy effectiveness and they are not a valuation.
Strateros, Strategy-Execution Traceability R2.03, Appendix A and slide 20.
Proposed construct. STR, PSAR, OKIAR and BRC are management constructs defined in our own research. They have no published percentile, cut-off or external benchmark. The slider defaults reproduce the illustrative control panel on slide 20; OKIAR is the one ratio with no baseline there.
Practitioner framework
Every figure on this page is illustrative and driven by your own inputs. Each tab states the strength of the evidence behind it and what it does not show. None of these tools is a business case.
Decisions at risk = decisions per year x overtaken share. Value at risk = decisions at risk x value per decision. Exposure days = median days x overtaken share.
The cost of delay is not linear and compounding. These figures assume a flat value per decision, no discount rate and no interaction between decisions, so treat them as an order of magnitude rather than a valuation.
Reinertsen, D. G. (2009). The Principles of Product Development Flow. Celeritas Publishing.
Practitioner framework. Cost of delay is a prioritisation method, not a benchmark. Reinertsen's work is drawn from product development, so applying it to strategy generally is an extension, not a direct finding.
Brown, S. L. & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The Art of Continuous Change: Linking Complexity Theory and Time to Evolutionary Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1-27.
doi:10.2307/2393806Peer-reviewed. Reports an average loss of 33% of after-tax profit when products ship six months late, against 3.5% when development overruns budget by 50%. The asymmetry favours speed. This is a product-development finding, not a general result.
Contested, counter-evidence shown
Every figure on this page is illustrative and driven by your own inputs. Each tab states the strength of the evidence behind it and what it does not show. None of these tools is a business case.
Cancelled per year = active initiatives x cancellation share. Cancelled value = cancelled per year x average cost. Superseded and restarted values are shares of that.
A cancelled project is not automatically a failed one. Stopping work can be the correct management decision, and the evidence below shows published cancellation rates ranging from roughly 11% to 31%. This tab measures committed spend, not waste, and it cannot tell you which of your cancellations were right.
Standish Group International. The Chaos Report, 1994.
Industry survey, contested. Reports 31.1% of projects cancelled and 94 restarts per 100 projects started. Widely quoted and widely disputed. Use with the counter-evidence below.
Jorgensen, M. & Molokken-Ostvold, K. (2006). How large are software cost overruns? A review of the 1994 CHAOS report. Information and Software Technology, 48(4), 297-301.
doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2005.07.002Peer-reviewed rebuttal. Concludes the reported 189% average cost overrun is probably much too high and that the sampling method may be strongly biased towards failure projects.
Eveleens, J. L. & Verhoef, C. (2010). The Rise and Fall of the Chaos Report Figures. IEEE Software, 27(1), 30-36.
doi:10.1109/MS.2009.154Peer-reviewed rebuttal. Identifies four major problems with the Chaos Report definitions, including one-sided estimation accuracy and success rates distorted by steering on those definitions.
Molokken-Ostvold, K. & Arisholm, E. (2008). A Replicated Survey of IT Software Project Failures. University of Ottawa.
Independent replication. Replicated survey finds a project cancellation rate of 11.5% to 15.5%, against the 31% commonly quoted. No relationship between project size and cancellation was found.
McManus, J. & Wood-Harper, T. (2008). A study in project failure. BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT.
Case study, n=214. 214 information systems projects, 1998 to 2005. 23.8% were cancelled. Ranked causes include business strategy superseded, business processes changed through poor alignment, and benefits not clearly communicated or overstated.
Peer-reviewed
Every figure on this page is illustrative and driven by your own inputs. Each tab states the strength of the evidence behind it and what it does not show. None of these tools is a business case.
Unverified value = matured benefits x (1 - BRC). At risk = unverified value x share currently reported.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Benefits may well be realised without a formal record, and no tool can tell which is which from here. Verified benefit is also not the same as a cashable net saving, because displacement, cost to run and timing all still have to be established.
Serra, C. E. M. & Kunc, M. (2015). Benefits Realisation Management and its influence on project success and on the execution of business strategies. International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 53-66.
doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.011Peer-reviewed. Survey across Brazil, the UK and the USA. Benefits realisation practices explain 16% of perceived project success and up to 44% of a combined success measure. The authors note there was previously no empirical evidence of their effectiveness.
Williams, T., Vo, H., Bourne, M., Bourne, P., Cooke-Davies, J., Brookes, A., Donnelly, R., Evans, S., Fleming, C., Healy, M., Mason, R., Milne, A., Pickering, J. & Wilson, K. (2023). Benefits realisation: case studies in public major project delivery with recommendations for practice. Production Planning & Control.
doi:10.1080/09537287.2023.2256287Peer-reviewed. Examines how benefits change across a project's life and how management practices handle that change, including cases where the business case itself is overtaken.
Strateros, Strategy-Execution Traceability R2.03, Appendix L, NISTA 2025-26 public portfolio extract (189 programmes).
Source-gated, not used here. Records quantified benefits for 44.4% of sampled projects, an evaluation link for 38.1%, and a missing delivery-confidence rating for 48.1%. These measure field coverage, not delivery failure, and are deliberately not used to seed any default above. Publishing them requires the original dataset, fields and extract to be rechecked first.
Not established, measured capacity only
We do not apply a correction for management layers. No reliable published coefficient links layer count to communication accuracy, and the widely repeated claim that each additional layer degrades communication has not survived meta-analytic review. The duplication rate below is your own figure.
Recorded for context. Deliberately excluded from the calculation.
Assumed loaded cost per hour: £45
Every figure on this page is illustrative and driven by your own inputs. Each tab states the strength of the evidence behind it and what it does not show. None of these tools is a business case.
Alignment hours = people x hours per week x 52. Duplicated hours = alignment hours x duplication share. Duplicated value = duplicated hours x loaded hourly rate.
This measures time, not accuracy. It does not estimate how much strategic error your layer count causes, and it is not a model of communication quality. The loaded rate is a default assumption you should replace.
Impink, S. M., Prat, A. & Sadun, R. (2021). Communication within firms: evidence from CEO turnovers. NBER Working Paper 29042.
Working paper. Finds internal communication patterns shift toward cross-hierarchical flows when strategic uncertainty rises, and normalise once a new strategy is shared. It measures the mix of communication, not its accuracy, so it cannot support a per-layer degradation rate.
DeChurch, L. A. & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 32-53.
doi:10.1037/a0017328Peer-reviewed meta-analysis. 231 correlations across 65 studies and 3,738 groups. Its central finding is that the effect of communication is contingent on task, team and context, which is the opposite of the flat 'more layers means worse' model.
Sammut-Bonnici, T. (2015). Strategic Drift. Wiley Encyclopedia of Management.
doi:10.1002/9781118785317.weom120213Reference work. Defines strategic drift as the gradual deterioration of competitive action that follows a failure to acknowledge and respond to change, with causes in cognitive mapping and organisational culture. This is a definition, not a measurement.
A diagnostic establishes the baseline and the decision register. It does not pre-commit you to a platform rollout.
Areas of impact Strateros can help you with.
A professional services business redesigned intake, prioritisation, resource allocation and reporting around a governed workflow, improving visibility of operational commitments and delivery performance.
Policies, work instructions and lessons learned are organised into an accessible knowledge system, helping employees retrieve relevant information and maintain continuity as teams and responsibilities change.
Automation amplifies the process it is given. Start with the workflow, controls and outcome before choosing an agent framework.
Read the perspective →A practical way to compare use cases across value, feasibility, risk, data readiness and organisational change.
Read the perspective →The right solution depends on work characteristics, control requirements and how much autonomy the organisation can support.
Read the perspective →Bring us one important strategic decision, investment or transformation initiative. We'll help you explore how its objectives, ownership, execution and outcomes can be connected, measured and improved.