From execution systems that survive the quarter to leadership teams that execute independently.
These case studies show what changes when strategic direction becomes a working execution system: clearer priorities, stronger ownership, better cadence and leadership teams that can move the business without everything returning to the CEO.
"Mike helped us set the direction from 2022 to 2026. He was instrumental in helping the team understand what was a priority now and later. Even after the project, Mike stays in touch with the business and continues to support us. There is mutual inspiration between Mike and the team."
Rasmus HolstCEO, Zensai
Three leadership teams that took ownership of execution.
Zensai, Appficiency and IMI had clear strategic direction. What changed was who carried execution: the leadership team began to own priorities, decisions and the weekly rhythm, without everything returning to the CEO.
Choose a case to see what it looked like before, what changed and what happened after.
Explore the cases:
ZENSAI
Copenhagen · Teams in Denmark, the US, Poland and Australia
A new CEO with a strong vision, and execution that still ran through him.
1. Execution depended on the CEO
Priorities and decisions kept coming back to his desk.
2. No shared weekly rhythm
Teams in four countries moved at different speeds.
3. Strategy stuck in a deck
Priorities and ownership had not reached the weekly work.
The leadership team took over the execution system.
1. One weekly rhythm for the whole leadership team
Clear outcomes, weekly scoring and quarterly resets.
2. A clear cascade
Three year outcomes, a one year focus, quarterly priorities and weekly work.
3. Ownership transferred
Miguel Dias ran the system alongside the team until the leaders owned it.
The CEO stopped carrying execution alone.
1. Year three outcomes reached in years one and two
Clarity and rhythm accelerated the business.
2. Still running more than three years later
The leadership team owns the rhythm.
3. A stronger funding round
Visible priorities and progress made the case to investors.
Mike helped us set the direction from 2022 to 2026. He was instrumental in helping the team understand what was a priority now and later. Even after the project, Mike stays in touch with the business and continues to support us. There is mutual inspiration between Mike and the team.
Rasmus Holst | CEO at Zensai
APPFICIENCY
Toronto, Canada
The CEO carried execution alone.
1. Teams waited for direction
Reactivity, inconsistency and leadership fatigue.
2. No single view of execution
Priorities, progress and ownership were not visible.
3. Two businesses in one P&L
Product and services competed for the same attention.
Each leader now owns outcomes and weekly commitments.
1. Clear ownership
Every leader knows what they own and reports on it every week.
2. A strategic cadence
The three year vision, the 18 month strategy, quarterly priorities and weekly work, connected.
3. Product and services separated
Each unit has its own P&L, priorities and leadership rhythm.
The leadership team runs execution.
1. The CEO no longer pushes execution alone
The team owns it.
2. Still running more than a year later
The rhythm became how the team works.
3. Faster, more predictable movement
Weekly clarity on wins and bottlenecks.
"We finally had a system that showed us where execution was breaking — and a team that owned fixing it. The OKR rhythm was simple, but it changed everything."
John Than | CEO at Appficiency
%2010.54.30%201.webp)
IMI
IMI was exploring how to accelerate innovation across business units while collaborating effectively with fast-moving technology companies. The leadership team needed clarity on how to scale innovation without slowing it down with corporate processes.
1. No clear framework for evaluating external innovation
Leaders lacked a structured way to identify, assess and integrate emerging technologies from startups and scaleups.
2. Uncertainty on startups versus scaleups
The team needed to understand which partners were safer, faster or more suitable for corporate innovation.
3. Corporate processes slowed external collaboration
Procurement, compliance, ownership ambiguity and slow decision loops risked killing innovation with corporate gravity.
4. Leadership unprepared for entrepreneurial collaboration
Leaders needed new behaviours, communication skills and decision models to work effectively with founders and product teams.
5. No execution model to scale innovation across units
IMI needed a shared execution framework to align decision-making, ownership and execution across regions and business units.
1. Designed a clearer innovation partnership strategy
SV worked with IMI to clarify the strategic advantages of working with scaleups over early-stage startups.
2. Built a corporate and scaleup collaboration model
A practical framework to speed up evaluation, reduce friction and maintain innovation momentum without heavy corporate processes.
3. Upgraded leadership mindset and behaviours
Leaders worked on expectation setting, communication and decision-making with entrepreneurial teams.
4. Introduced modern execution frameworks
The leadership team worked with quarterly priorities and a weekly rhythm as tools to increase speed, accountability and cross-unit alignment.
5. Strengthened leadership alignment across business units
The work created a shared language, decision model and innovation evaluation framework across the organisation.
1. Clearer innovation evaluation logic
Leaders gained a more structured way to assess external innovation opportunities and decide which partnerships deserved attention.
2. Stronger corporate and scaleup collaboration model
The organisation had a more practical way to work with fast-moving technology companies without slowing innovation through unnecessary internal friction.
3. Better leadership readiness for entrepreneurial collaboration
The leadership team became more aware of the behaviours, communication patterns and decision expectations required to work with founders and product teams.
4. Shared language across business units
Different units gained a more consistent way to discuss innovation, partnership models, execution speed and decision-making.
5. Stronger execution foundation for scaling innovation
IMI gained a clearer framework for connecting innovation opportunities to ownership, rhythm and cross-unit execution.
Your leadership team
The same shift is possible when your leadership team runs execution every week.
Today Miguel Dias combines this way of working with a team of AI bots that prepares the numbers, tracks commitments and flags what is slipping.
For CEOs and leadership teams in mobility, transport and logistics.