Executive Summary
Strategy falls apart when team structures don’t align with user needs. Rich Allen, author of User Needs Mapping, reveals how organisations plan with the outside world in mind, then implement using unchanged internal hierarchies—leaving good teams working at cross purposes.
Core insights:
- Most organisations suffer from misalignment, not lack of effort—the problem is structural, not motivational
- “Inside out” thinking optimises internal processes; “outside in” thinking aligns teams around user needs
- User Needs Mapping connects Wardley Mapping’s strategic foundations with Team Topologies’ practical team design
- 80% of organisations don’t understand who their users are or what they need—the foundation of all strategy
- AI amplifies whatever organisational design you currently have: clear boundaries mean AI reduces toil; confusion means AI magnifies dysfunction
- Blue Lagoon case study: mapping revealed that “booking” concealed multiple distinct user journeys, enabling targeted team restructuring
- Start with users and needs, not systems and structure—this single shift unlocks better strategic decisions
- Stream-aligned teams of 5-9 people optimise for trust boundaries and cognitive load management
- Change is the new constant: organisations can no longer settle into stable “norms” between projects
- First step: ask “Who’s this serving?” in your next meeting—language change precedes structural change
The Strategy Implementation Gap: Why Good Plans Fail
Your organisation spent months on strategy. External consultants analysed market trends. Leadership workshops articulated vision. The deck looks brilliant.
Then implementation begins, and progress stalls. Not because people don’t care or don’t understand—they do. But because the organisational structure that delivered yesterday’s value isn’t designed to deliver tomorrow’s.
“Lots of organisations are having this ‘inside out’ thinking where they are looking or focusing on their current structures and the systems and maybe the assumptions that they already have,” Rich Allen explains. “But the real alignment starts by working from the ‘outside in’.”
The distinction matters profoundly. Organisations often believe they’re thinking “outside in” because strategy considers competitive landscape, market dynamics, and customer trends. But when implementation time arrives, the hierarchies haven’t changed. Teams remain organised around internal functions, not user outcomes. The structure optimises for yesterday’s efficiency, not tomorrow’s adaptation.
This creates the pattern Rich sees repeatedly: “Organisations think they’re considering the users, but then immediately it becomes about how do we make our processes more efficient.”
Why "Inside Out" Thinking Persists
The roots run deep. “Inside out” thinking stems from Taylorism—scientific management from the early 1900s focused on optimising linear factory processes. That approach worked when the rate of change was slow enough that organisations could operate in stable “norms,” run occasional projects, then return to the norm.
“But in the modern world, the rate of change is now accelerating so quickly that organisations need to be able to keep up,” Rich observes. “Change is the new constant.”
The amount of new technologies, shifting customer needs, and environmental volatility means organisations can no longer settle into stable states between projects. The Tayloristic model—optimise internal workflows, create specialised departments, perfect the handoffs—becomes the very thing preventing adaptation.
Yet the pattern persists because it’s literally hardwired into most organisations’ founding stories. The structure feels like reality itself rather than a choice that made sense under different conditions.
The Delivery Gap: When Perception Doesn't Match Reality
Mark shares a sobering statistic from Bain research: 80% of companies believe they excel at customer orientation and delivering customer value. But when Bain asked the customers of those same companies, only 8% agreed their suppliers excelled at delivering customer value.
This massive gap—from 80% to 8%—reveals something profound. “That’s self-evident,” Mark observes. “And it really talks, if there is a Delivery Gap, what is it that we need to do? And it’s all about the flow of value.”
Rich agrees completely: “I think that it’s definitely not necessarily the performance of the people within the organisation. Most organisations have willing, capable people that are able to do that. But for me, it’s a big signal that those organisations are still having this ‘inside out’ thinking.”
The problem isn’t lack of talent or effort. It’s that organisations focus on internal functions and silos whilst users experience the whole organisation. “They’re not caring about how it’s structured internally,” Rich explains. “And so that for me is the big gap—that the strategy might start with the users, but then they don’t translate that throughout the whole organisation.”
Without clarity on users and their needs, every downstream decision becomes guesswork. Which capabilities matter most? Where should team boundaries sit? What dependencies are acceptable versus problematic? How do we prioritise competing initiatives?
“If you don’t start with your users, you end up mapping your technical systems,” Rich warns. “You’re still thinking ‘inside out.'”
User Needs Mapping: Connecting Strategy to Structure
User Needs Mapping emerged from Rich’s two-decade journey through software engineering, technical leadership, and organisational transformation. Working at Pure Gym, he recognised that good practices—cloud-based development, single-piece flow, deploying 16 times daily—weren’t enough when the organisation wanted to scale.
“We recognised that the processes that we had were not going to support additional people,” Rich recalls. “We needed to think about how can we actually reorganise ourselves to be more effective.”
The challenge was articulating this need to leadership. Agile methodologies focused on process—how to deliver software. Lean thinking emphasised workflow optimisation. But nothing addressed how to organise teams around the work itself.
Then Team Topologies appeared. “This is what I’ve been trying to say all along,” Rich realised. He wrote the first case study of someone reading the book and applying the principles, which began a five-year collaboration shaping Team Topologies practice.
But a gap remained. Whilst Wardley Mapping provided strategic thinking about landscape and evolution, and Team Topologies offered patterns for team design, organisations needed something that connected them—a practical entry point that didn’t require deep systems thinking expertise.
User Needs Mapping fills that gap. It takes the foundational principle from Simon Wardley—”Know your users, focus on user needs”—and provides a visual, collaborative technique that helps teams:
- Clearly identify who their users are (internal or external)
- Define what those users need in outcome-focused language
- Map the capabilities required to meet those needs
- Overlay current team structures to expose gaps, overlaps, and dependencies
- Design team boundaries that enable autonomy and fast flow
“User Needs Mapping shows you what’s been sitting at the end of the street all along,” Rich explains, quoting from Simon Wardley’s foreword. “Start with working out what’s at the end of your street, work out what your organisation looks like, and then you can start looking at the broader situational awareness.”
The Blue Lagoon Transformation: Making the Invisible Visible
Blue Lagoon—Iceland’s renowned geothermal spa—faced a common scaling challenge. Growth opportunities abounded, but organisational structure created drag.
Rather than adding more people and tools, they brought together 35-40 people from across departments for a three-day mapping exercise. First, they mapped from the inside out using value stream mapping—revealing how work currently flowed through the organisation.
“That was eye-opening because many people hadn’t even spoken to each other,” Rich recalls.
The visualisation exposed constant context switching as people juggled multiple domains whilst waiting for handoffs. Cognitive load was through the roof.
Then they flipped perspective, mapping from the outside in using User Needs Mapping. This revealed something crucial: what seemed like a single “booking” need actually concealed multiple distinct user journeys—corporate bookings, individual visits, special events, group packages.
By refactoring team boundaries around these actual value streams rather than internal functions, Blue Lagoon reduced dependencies and clarified ownership. Teams could make decisions autonomously because they owned end-to-end capabilities for their user journey.
The results: onboarding reduced from three months to days, team autonomy increased dramatically, and intrinsic motivation soared because people could see the direct connection between their work and user outcomes.
Stream-Aligned Teams: Why 5-9 People Matters
Team Topologies introduces four fundamental team types, but stream-aligned teams form the backbone of value delivery.
“The idea here is that this is a long-lived stable team of around five to nine people that has end-to-end capabilities to deliver the value that they need to deliver,” Rich explains.
The 5-9 sizing isn’t arbitrary—it’s based on Robin Dunbar’s research on trust boundaries. Within this size, teams can build the high trust needed to work exceptionally well together whilst managing cognitive load effectively.
Critically, “given a particular user and the user need they’re serving, that drives the work. And the work that’s needed then determines what capabilities that team needs.”
This inverts the typical model. Instead of “we have these specialists, so let’s create work that uses them,” the logic becomes: “Users need this outcome, which requires these capabilities, so our team must include them.”
Technology doesn’t dictate team composition—user needs do. This keeps teams focused on outcomes rather than outputs, on value rather than activity.
The other three topologies support this core:
Enabling teams help stream-aligned teams address missing capabilities or adopt new practices, then leave. They don’t create dependencies—they build capability.
Complicated subsystem teams handle highly specialised areas requiring deep expertise that would overload stream-aligned teams if embedded.
Platform grouping provides self-service capabilities that stream-aligned teams consume, reducing cognitive load whilst enabling autonomy.
The key insight: team types aren’t just labels. Each comes with specific expectations about behaviour, interactions, and relationship to flow of value. Renaming existing teams without changing how they work rarely improves anything.
The AI Amplification Effect
Organisations are rushing towards AI adoption. But Rich offers a sobering perspective: “AI is very much an amplifier. It will amplify the dysfunction within an organisation.”
If teams already have clear understanding of how they deliver value, aligned around user needs with well-designed boundaries and interactions, AI can reduce toil and boost outcomes. The organisation knows where AI belongs because they understand their value streams.
But if team boundaries are unclear, ownership is blurred, and dependencies multiply—AI magnifies that confusion. “Organisations that don’t have such a clear idea of how the team structures work, how they interact, are potentially going to struggle with where AI can be effective.”
The pattern mirrors what happened with cloud adoption. Organisations expected instant speed and savings. Instead, bills increased and teams slowed down because they’d piled new technology on top of existing dysfunction.
This connects to research showing that 95% of AI implementations fail to meet their vision. The common interpretation focuses on technology maturity or use case selection. But the deeper issue is organisational: without understanding your processes and how you deliver value, you’re deploying powerful tools in the wrong places.
“We’re just generating more content, which isn’t actually necessarily serving or meeting user needs,” Rich observes. “The ones that will win are the ones that are really considering where does this really help users make effective progress?”
User Needs Mapping provides infrastructure for AI agency—whether human agency or AI agency. When teams understand who their users are, what capabilities they own, and how they interact with other teams, conversations about where AI belongs become grounded in value delivery rather than fear of missing out.
Jobs to Be Done: Understanding What Users Are Trying to Accomplish
Mark notes that the technique Rich uses to get the “outside in” view is fundamentally Jobs to Be Done—a methodology the Arkaro Insights podcast has explored with Scott Burleson’s work on the Jobs to Be Done Pyramid.
Rich agrees completely: “The Wardley Mapping and the needs that we’re talking about in the Wardley map is very much aligned with the Jobs to Be Done theory. And this idea that we’re looking for needs that help people make progress ultimately.”
But here’s the challenge: when organisations first start mapping, especially those with “inside out” thinking, they don’t naturally think in terms of needs.
“When we say who are your users and what do they need, often what we’ll see is people mapping activities or tasks,” Rich explains. “So it’s quite an early signal that you’re not thinking in terms of needs.”
This distinction matters profoundly. Activities and tasks are what people do. Needs are what they’re trying to accomplish—the progress they’re seeking to make.
The Blue Lagoon example illustrates this perfectly. During the mapping workshops, the team started questioning: “Is the need of booking a Blue Lagoon day pass the same as booking something at the hotel?”
The answer revealed crucial insight: “Well, no, it’s not the same need. The purpose or what the job to be done that the holiday maker wants to do when they want to book something in the highlands is different to when they want to do a day pass at the Blue Lagoon.”
What appeared to be a single “booking” function actually concealed distinct user needs driven by different jobs to be done. The day pass visitor and the hotel guest weren’t just using different features—they were trying to accomplish fundamentally different things.
This is why starting with Jobs to Be Done thinking matters. It surfaces these distinctions before you design team structures. “Once you start mapping, you start to see where you need to increase your capability,” Rich observes. “So that particular team doesn’t really understand user needs in a way of Jobs to Be Done thinking. So maybe we need an enabling team that helps upskill that team to learn more about their user needs.”
The Practical Starting Point: Change Your Language
When people ask Rich where to begin, his advice is deceptively simple: “Don’t start with your inside out thinking. Really try to push back against that natural inclination and start with your users.”
The first step isn’t creating elaborate maps or restructuring teams. It’s changing language.
“Just start having that simple conversation, maybe in the next meeting that you go. Who’s this serving? Who are we actually delivering this for?”
This question—”Who’s this serving?”—begins shifting attention from internal efficiency to external value. It makes user needs visible in everyday decisions.
“Just by starting to introduce that kind of language, what is it they need, if we can start to encourage that in more and more meetings, the more that the organisation begins to talk in terms of users and needs, the more that they’ll be able to start embracing that thinking of ‘outside in’.”
Language change precedes structural change. Before teams can reorganise around user needs, they must develop shared vocabulary for discussing those needs. Before leadership can make better strategic trade-offs, they must have clear language about whose needs drive which capabilities.
This isn’t about perfection. It’s about direction. Start asking “Who’s this serving?” Start defining needs in outcome language. Start making visible the connections—or disconnections—between user needs and team capabilities.
From there, patterns emerge. Gaps become visible. Overlaps reveal themselves. Dependencies that seemed necessary prove to be artefacts of structure rather than requirements of the work.
Why This Matters Now
Organisations face unprecedented volatility. Technologies evolve faster than strategy cycles. Customer expectations shift more rapidly than product roadmaps. Competitive threats emerge from unexpected directions.
In this environment, the traditional playbook—set strategy, cascade objectives, optimise execution—creates the very rigidity that prevents adaptation. Structure designed for yesterday’s efficiency becomes tomorrow’s bottleneck.
User Needs Mapping offers a practical alternative: align teams around what users need, build capabilities to meet those needs, design boundaries that enable autonomy, and create interactions that support fast flow of value.
This isn’t just better practice. It’s survival. Because the organisations that thrive won’t be those with the best strategy slides. They’ll be those whose structure enables sensing, learning, and responding to what users actually need.
Your organisation probably has brilliant people with clear intentions. The question isn’t whether they care or understand their work. The question is whether your structure enables them to connect their efforts to what users actually need—or whether invisible patterns, hardwired since founding, keep them working at cross purposes.
Start with the simple question: Who are we serving? What do they need?
Everything else follows from that.
Ready to Close the Delivery Gap?
Are your teams working hard but not aligned around what users actually need? Is your organisational structure optimised for yesterday’s efficiency rather than tomorrow’s adaptation? User Needs Mapping provides a practical entry point—but sustainable change requires more than technique. It requires collaborative “do it with you” work that addresses culture, context, and capability alongside structure. Let’s explore whether this approach fits your situation. Arrange a call with Mark Blackwell
Related Reading
On Organisational Structure & Team Alignment:
Why Traditional Management Fails and How Adaptive Organizations Succeed – Moving from control to flow in complex systems through trust, value streams, and team boundaries (directly discusses Blue Lagoon case study and systems mapping)
Neuroscience of Collaboration: The SPACES Model Explained – How clear boundaries, autonomy, and certainty enable team performance (complements User Needs Mapping’s focus on cognitive load)
On Strategy Implementation & Alignment:
Strategy Implementation: Bridge the Corporate Gap – Translating high-level direction into practical decision rules teams can actually use
Strategy is an Adaptive Challenge not a Technical Problem – Why expert-driven approaches fail and collaborative “do it with you” solutions succeed
Strategy in a VUCA World: Emergent Approach Guide – Adaptive strategy frameworks for volatile, uncertain, complex environments
Make Strategy Work: The Power of Integrated Business Planning – Moving strategy from slides to sustainable execution through collaborative processes
On Change Management & Transformation:
Transforming Change Resistance: 4-Step Collaborative Approach – Why resistance reveals valuable insights and how to transform it into ownership
Arkaro’s Approach to Culture During Change Initiatives – Building change roadmaps that address cultural and behavioural dimensions alongside business goals
Why ADKAR and the Arkaro Approach Are Essential Partners – Combining structured change management with collaborative “do it with you” methods
On AI & Technology Adoption:
AI & the Octopus Organization: Adaptive Transformation – Why distributed intelligence and human alignment matter more than technology deployment (addresses the 80/15 strategy implementation gap)
AI Implementation Failure: Why 95% Fail & How to Fix It – The people side of AI adoption and why technology amplifies existing organisational design
On Customer Understanding & Innovation:
B2B Win-Loss Analysis for Cross-Functional Growth – Using Jobs-to-Be-Done methodology to understand customer needs beyond features (85% of CRM data is wrong)
Exposing Bottlenecks: The Key to Building a Great Strategy – Root cause analysis for identifying what truly constrains growth
On Strategic Foundations:
Why Companies Miss Disruption: The 3 Ghosts – Past traumas, present patterns, and future fears that block transformation (organisational ghosts that prevent “outside in” thinking)
The Chronic Problems with Strategy – Why traditional strategy approaches fail and how adaptive methods fix them
External Resources & Further Reading
User Needs Mapping Website – Complete resource including case studies and community
User Needs Mapping Book – Rich Allen’s comprehensive guide
Team Topologies – Organising for fast flow of value
Wardley Mapping – Strategic mapping and situational awareness
The Flowhive – Erica Engelen’s collective for adaptive organisations
Stay connected: Subscribe to Arkaro Insights newsletter for regular perspectives on change management, strategy implementation, and building adaptive organisations in complex industries.
