ROI Case File No.235 | 'The Challenge of a Middle Eastern Energy Startup'

Chapter 1: Chaotic Frontlines—Between Ambition and Reality

The week after resolving the SabreTropical AIDMA emotionalization case, an urgent consultation arrived from the Middle East. The fifth case in Volume 18, "Reconstruction of Logic and Verification," concerned the chaos in project management faced by a growing company.

"Detective, we're a rapidly growing renewable energy company in the Middle East, but projects are experiencing successive delays and budget overruns, and our operations are in complete chaos. Individual members are excellent, but we're not functioning as an organization."

Omar Al-Zahrani, Chief Operating Officer of GreenTech Middle East, visited 221B Baker Street unable to hide his fatigue. In his hands were ambitious business plans and, in stark contrast, dismal project progress reports.

"We're a startup handling solar and wind power generation projects across the Middle East. We've gathered excellent talent and secured abundant funding, but project management is on the verge of collapse."

GreenTech Middle East's Growth Potential: - Established: 2022 (rapidly growing startup) - Project scale: 15 concurrent projects (total ¥50 billion) - Personnel: 120 experts in various fields - Funding raised: Cumulative ¥20 billion (abundant investment) - Market expectations: Pioneer of Middle Eastern green energy

The numbers certainly indicated a promising company. However, Omar's expression was etched with deep crisis awareness.

"The problem is that in each project, confusion of 'said/didn't say' and 'did/didn't do' keeps occurring, responsibility is unclear, and the same mistakes are repeated. We have excellent talent, but we're not functioning as a team."

Serious Problems in Project Management: - Deadline achievement rate: 23% (majority of projects delayed) - Budget achievement rate: 31% (average 35% budget overrun) - Quality issues: Average 18 cases per month (including major troubles) - Customer satisfaction: 3.1/5 (significantly below expectations) - Employee turnover rate: 22% per year (industry average 8%)

"We have high 'individual skills,' but zero 'organizational execution capability.' We're in a vicious cycle where chaos breeds more chaos."

Chapter 2: Action Without Records—The Labyrinth of Information

"Mr. Omar, specifically, what kinds of problems are occurring at project sites?"

Holmes inquired quietly.

Omar spread out project materials with a perplexed expression.

"We've gathered engineers and managers with advanced skills, but they act individually, and information sharing and progress management are completely non-functional."

Typical Project Chaos Cases:

Project A: Large-Scale Solar Power Plant Construction - Planned duration: 18 months → Actual: 24 months (6 months delay) - Budget: ¥8 billion → Actual: ¥11 billion (¥3 billion overrun) - Main problems: No design change records, unclear approval process, scattered construction management data

Specific Chaos Examples: - Design department: "We communicated the design changes verbally" - Construction department: "We haven't received any design change instructions" - Procurement department: "No instructions for material procurement due to changes" - Result: 3-week construction halt, massive cost increase due to emergency material procurement

Project B: Wind Power Equipment Installation - Planned duration: 12 months → Actual: 16 months (4 months delay) - Budget: ¥4.5 billion → Actual: ¥5.8 billion (¥1.3 billion overrun) - Main problems: No progress confirmation system, lost quality inspection records, unclear responsibility scope

Specific Chaos Examples: - Project manager: "I hear progress is going well" - Site supervisor: "Problems have been occurring for 3 weeks" - Quality control: "Cannot find inspection records" - Result: Large-scale rework when quality issues are discovered

I noted the lack of information management.

"In every project, the processes of 'recording,' 'confirming,' and 'executing' are unclear, causing confusion to expand."

Omar let out a deep sigh.

"Exactly. Everyone thinks they 'understand' and are 'doing,' but in reality, nothing is recorded, no one confirms, and execution is scattered."

Problem Patterns Occurring Frequently on Site:

Information Communication Problems: - Verbal instructions: "Said/didn't say" arguments - Scattered materials: Cannot find necessary information - No updates: Incorrect decisions based on old information - Lack of sharing: Important information only reaches specific people

Progress Management Problems: - Unknown current status: Cannot grasp actual progress - Delayed detection: Problems surface when it's too late - Unclear responsibility: Ambiguous who is in charge of what - Reactive countermeasures: Ad-hoc responses even after problems occur

Quality Control Problems: - Inspection records: Unclear what, when, who inspected - Problem history: Past trouble information not utilized - No improvement: Same mistakes repeated - Responsibility avoidance: Blame-shifting when problems occur

"We rely on 'individual memory' and 'on-the-spot judgment' for project management, and cannot learn or improve as an organization."

Chapter 3: RCD Shows the Blueprint of Order—Records Create Certainty

⬜️ ChatGPT | Catalyst of Conception

"Record, Confirm, Do. When these three align, reproducibility is guaranteed"

🟧 Claude | Alchemist of Narrative

"Stories remain because they're recorded. They're trusted because they're confirmed"

🟦 Gemini | Compass of Reason

"Order is born not from chance but from design. RCD is that design philosophy"

The three members began their analysis. Gemini deployed the "RCD Model" framework on the whiteboard.

Basic Structure of the RCD Model: - R (Record): Recording - Record all activities, decisions, and results - C (Confirm): Confirmation - Confirm accuracy and sharing of recorded content - D (Do): Execution - Reliable execution based on confirmed information

"Mr. Omar, let's analyze GreenTech's project management from the RCD perspective in detail."

RCD Analysis of GreenTech Project Management:

R (Record: Recording) Current State Analysis

Current Recording Status: - Meeting minutes: 30% of meetings not documented - Design changes: 60% verbal instructions only - Progress data: Dependent on individual notes and memory - Problem occurrences: 80% not recorded, no countermeasures remain - Decision-making: Decision basis and process unclear

Qualitative Problems with Records: - Incomplete: Missing important information - Inaccurate: Recorder's subjectivity and memory errors mixed in - Inconsistent: Recording format and accuracy vary - Not updated: Old information left as is - Not shared: Records only kept by creator

C (Confirm: Confirmation) Current State Analysis

Current Confirmation Status: - Information sharing: 40% of stakeholders have insufficient confirmation - Consensus formation: No confirmation of "understood" - Progress confirmation: Weekly confirmation routinely postponed to monthly - Quality confirmation: 60% of inspection items have check omissions - Completion confirmation: No objective confirmation of work completion

Qualitative Problems with Confirmation: - Formalistic: Only the form of "confirmed" - One-way: Only information sender confirms - Irregular: Confirmation timing irregular - Not thorough: Important and minor items treated the same - Not recorded: Confirmation itself not recorded

D (Do: Execution) Current State Analysis

Current Execution Status: - Instruction execution: 25% insufficient understanding of instruction content - Procedure compliance: Deviation occurs in 70% of standard procedures - Deadline compliance: 60% of tasks exceed deadlines - Quality standards: 40% fail to meet standards - Reporting execution: 50% delayed or omitted completion reports

Qualitative Problems with Execution: - Ad-hoc: No standardized procedures - Individual-dependent: Dependent on executor's skill and judgment - No verification: No system for verifying execution results - No improvement: No review or improvement after execution - Unclear responsibility: Ambiguous executor and scope of responsibility

Claude showed shocking analysis results.

"This is serious. In each of GreenTech's projects, all three elements of RCD are dysfunctional. With this, organizational learning and improvement are impossible."

Structure of Vicious Cycle Due to RCD Dysfunction:

No Records → Cannot Confirm → Execution Chaos → No Records (Repeat)

Specific Vicious Cycle Cases:

Design Change Process Collapse: 1. Design change decision (no record) 2. Communication to stakeholders (no confirmation) 3. Execution in each department (scattered) 4. Problem occurrence (cause unknown) 5. Same problem recurs (no learning)

Progress Management System Breakdown: 1. Work progress (records left to individuals) 2. Progress sharing (confirmation formalistic) 3. Delay countermeasures (ad-hoc execution) 4. Project delay (responsibility unclear) 5. Similar delays next time (no improvement)

Most Serious Problem: "Lack of Organizational Memory"

Because RCD is not functioning, past experiences and knowledge are not accumulated as an organization, resulting in a "non-learning organization" that perpetually repeats the same failures.

Chapter 4: From Chaos to Order—Transformation to Systematization

After conducting detailed RCD analysis and project reality investigation, GreenTech's fundamental organizational management problems became clear.

"Individual-Dependent Organization" Leading to Management Collapse:

Essence of the Problem: Unsystematized Organizational Operations

GreenTech relied on the skills of excellent individuals and had no organizational systems built at all.

Problem Structure of Individual-Dependent Organization:

Individualization of Records: - Important information dependent on individual memory and notes - Information format and accuracy vary by person - Information disappears when personnel move or leave - Successor must gather information from scratch, inefficient

Subjectification of Confirmation: - Judgment of "understood" left to individuals - Confirmation methods and standards not unified - Formalistic confirmation without substantial understanding - No system for discovering confirmation omissions

Personalization of Execution: - Work procedures dependent on individual experience and judgment - Methods and quality differ by person for same work - No standardized procedures or checklists - No objective evaluation criteria for execution results

Actual Loss Calculation:

Opportunity Loss Due to Project Delays: - Average delay period: 6 months - Sales opportunity loss due to delay: ¥8 billion per year - Additional costs: ¥4.5 billion per year - Impact on customer trust: Affecting future orders, ¥10 billion scale

Direct Losses Due to Quality Problems: - Rework construction: ¥2.5 billion per year - Warranty response: ¥800 million per year - Customer response/compensation: ¥1.2 billion per year - Brand image loss: Immeasurable but severe

Opportunity Loss Due to Personnel Outflow: - Recruitment and training costs: ¥1.5 billion per year - Loss of knowledge and experience: Priceless - Inhibition of organizational know-how accumulation: Long-term competitive decline - Team breakdown: Declining morale of remaining employees

Comparison with Successful Companies:

RCD-Thorough Company (Competitor A in Same Industry) Performance: - Deadline achievement rate: 92% (GreenTech 23%) - Budget achievement rate: 87% (GreenTech 31%) - Quality problems: 2 cases per month (GreenTech 18 cases) - Employee satisfaction: 4.3/5 (GreenTech 2.8/5) - Project profit rate: 18% (GreenTech 5%)

Success Factors of Company A: - Digital recording system: All information centrally managed - Staged confirmation process: Multi-person confirmation at each stage - Standardized execution procedures: Complete checklists - Continuous improvement system: Regular improvement of RCD cycle

Most Important Discovery: "Lack of Reproducibility"

Because RCD is not functioning, even when there are successful projects, the success factors cannot be reproduced in other projects. Conversely, failure factors are also not recorded, perpetually repeating the same failures.

Chapter 5: The Detective's RCD Diagnosis—Reproducibility as a Weapon

Holmes compiled the comprehensive analysis.

"Mr. Omar, the essence of the RCD model is 'systematization of organizational memory and learning.' Individual skills are important, but without a system to accumulate, share, and utilize them as organizational assets, sustainable growth is impossible. RCD is the foundation for organizations to continue evolving."

RCD Thorough Implementation Strategy: Transformation from "Individual Dependence" to "System Dependence"

Basic Policy of Strategy: Systematic Project Management

Phase 1: Complete Construction of Recording System (3 months)

Thorough Systematization of R (Record):

Introduction of Digital Recording Platform: - Project management system: Centralized management of all project information - Decision-making records: Mandatory recording of decision content, basis, and stakeholders - Progress records: Real-time recording of progress, problems, and countermeasures - Quality records: Complete recording of inspection results, problems, and corrective actions

Standardization of Records: - Unified format: Complete unification of record content and format - Mandatory item definition: Check items for recording without omissions - Automatic recording: System-based automatic recording wherever possible - Real-time updates: Immediate update information system

Phase 2: Systematization of Confirmation Process (2 months)

Multi-Stage Confirmation System for C (Confirm):

Staged Confirmation Process: - 1st confirmation: Content confirmation by person in charge - 2nd confirmation: Approval and instruction confirmation by supervisor - 3rd confirmation: Feasibility confirmation by related departments - Final confirmation: Comprehensive confirmation by project manager

Visualization of Confirmation: - Confirmation status dashboard: List display of unconfirmed items - Alert system: Automatic notification of confirmation deadline exceedance - Confirmation history: Complete record of when, who, what confirmed - Escalation: Automatic report to higher level when confirmation delayed

Phase 3: Standardization and Automation of Execution (4 months)

Reliable Execution System for D (Do):

Standardized Execution Procedures: - Work procedures: Detailed procedure manuals for all work - Checklists: Check items to prevent execution omissions - Quality standards: Objective quality judgment criteria - Completion standards: Clear judgment criteria for work completion

Automation and Support of Execution: - Workflow automation: Automatic execution of routine work - Automatic progress tracking: Real-time grasp of execution status - Automatic quality check: System-based quality verification - Automatic report generation: Automatic report creation of execution results

Phase 4: Continuous Improvement System (Continuous)

Continuous Improvement of RCD Cycle: - Monthly RCD review: Effect measurement of recording, confirmation, execution - Improvement proposal system: Collection of improvement ideas from the field - Best practice sharing: Organization-wide deployment of success cases - System evolution: Continuous update of RCD system

Expected Effects: - Deadline achievement rate: 23% → 85% (achieving industry standards) - Budget achievement rate: 31% → 82% (significant improvement) - Quality problems: 18 cases per month → 3 cases per month (85% reduction) - Employee satisfaction: Significant improvement (chaos resolution effect)

Investment Plan: - RCD system construction: ¥2.5 billion - Operational structure maintenance: ¥800 million per year - Expected effect: ¥15 billion per year (loss reduction + efficiency improvement) - Investment recovery period: 3 months

"What's important is converting the capabilities of excellent individuals into organizational assets. RCD is a converter that transforms individual knowledge and experience into organizational competitive advantage."

Chapter 6: Revival of Order—Reproducibility Created by Systems

18 months later, a report arrived from GreenTech Middle East.

Results of Organizational Transformation Through RCD Thorough Implementation:

Dramatic Improvement in Project Management: - Deadline achievement rate: 23% → 89% (industry top-class) - Budget achievement rate: 31% → 86% (execution as planned) - Quality problems: 18 cases per month → 2 cases per month (90% reduction) - Customer satisfaction: 3.1/5 → 4.7/5 (industry highest level)

Success of Each RCD Element:

Complete Systematization of Record: - Digital recording rate: 100% (centralized management of all project information) - Information search time: Average 45 minutes → Average 2 minutes (95% reduction) - Information accuracy: Over 95% (standardization effect) - Knowledge succession: Complete information handover when personnel change

Multi-Stage System of Confirm: - Confirmation omissions: 25 cases per month → 0 cases (complete elimination) - Consensus formation period: Average 2 weeks → Average 3 days (80% reduction) - Problems due to misunderstanding: 12 cases per month → 0 cases (improved understanding) - Decision-making transparency: All stakeholders grasp process and basis

Standardization and Efficiency of Do: - Work quality variation: 90% reduction (standardization effect) - Work efficiency: Average 35% improvement (procedure optimization) - Rework rate: 80% reduction (quality improvement) - Execution speed: Average 40% improvement (reduced confusion and confirmation time)

Qualitative Change in Organizational Capability:

Transformation to Learning Organization: - Success case sharing: Deployment of 15 best practices per month - Failure utilization: Rapid cause analysis and countermeasures when problems occur - Knowledge accumulation: Exponential increase in organizational know-how - Continuous improvement: Average 25 improvement proposals and implementations per month

Transformation from Individual to Organization: - Elimination of personalization: Anyone can execute with same quality and efficiency - Standardization effect: Rapid empowerment of newcomers - Knowledge sharing: Individual skills become organizational assets - Improved stability: Escape from dependence on specific individuals

Acquisition of Competitive Advantage: - Industry evaluation: "Benchmark company for project management" - Order expansion: Continuous receipt of large projects due to trust in management capability - Personnel acquisition: Personnel influx as "comfortable company to work for" - Investor evaluation: "Organizationally mature growth company"

Employee Changes:

Project Manager (35 years old): "Previously every day was firefighting. Now the system warns before problems occur, and countermeasures are recorded, so I can respond calmly. Work has become enjoyable."

Field Engineer (28 years old): "As a newcomer, I couldn't do anything without asking seniors, but now I can work independently with procedure manuals and checklists. I can feel my growth, and mistakes have decreased."

Quality Control Manager (42 years old): "Not only have quality problems dramatically decreased, but we can quickly identify causes and take countermeasures when they occur. There's no recurrence of the same problems, and we're achieving real quality improvement."

The letter from Omar contained deep gratitude and confidence in organizational evolution:

"Through RCD thorough implementation, we were able to evolve from a 'collection of excellent individuals' to a 'powerful organization.' What was most important was building a system to accumulate, share, and utilize individual skills and experiences as organizational assets. Now when starting new projects, past success and failure cases are utilized, leveling up each time. I'm convinced that RCD is not just a project management method, but a lifeline for organizations to continue learning and evolving. Record, confirm, and execute. The thorough practice of this simple principle was the magic that transformed chaos into order and individual dependence into organizational strength."

Detective's Perspective—Systems as Weapons

That night, I deeply contemplated the mechanisms of organizational memory and learning.

The GreenTech case vividly demonstrated the challenge of "transformation from individual dependence to system dependence" faced by modern growth companies. A collection of excellent individuals alone cannot achieve sustainable organizational growth. A system to accumulate, share, and utilize individual knowledge and experience as organizational assets becomes the true source of competitive advantage.

The true value of the RCD model lies in its simple appearance of three processes, yet its ability to design the entire system of organizational memory, learning, and evolution. No learning without records, no improvement without confirmation, no reproducibility without standardized execution.

In the context of Volume 18, "Reconstruction of Logic and Verification," GreenTech's transformation provided important implications. Even with logical strategies and excellent personnel, without a system to reliably execute and reproduce results, sustainable success is impossible.

"Organizational strength is determined not by the capabilities of the most excellent individuals, but by systems that function reliably even in the weakest parts"

The next case will also explore more fundamental system challenges lurking behind superficial capabilities.

"Records create memory, confirmation creates trust, execution creates results. RCD is the equation of organizational evolution that transforms chaos into order."—From the detective's notes