AI Org-Structure Assessment
Generate an AI assessment of your workspace's organizational structure against the WTW governance rubric — five weighted criteria totalling 100%:
- Span-of-control efficiency (25%) — are managers' direct-report counts balanced?
- Strategic alignment (25%) — do units and their job descriptions tie to strategic priorities?
- Governance & responsibilities (20%) — are mandates clear and free of duplication?
- Administrative-levels impact (15%) — is the hierarchy justified, without redundant layers?
- Organizational-detailing effectiveness (15%) — is the structuring basis logical?
The result is classified as Effective (100%), Improvement review (>85%), or Comprehensive review (≤85%).
How to generate
- Open Organization structure (HR-admin only) and switch to the Report view (next to Tree/Graph).
- Click Generate report at the top of that view. Optionally scope it to one branch and paste strategic context.
- The new report is added to the list — select it to read scores, per-criterion evidence, the full organizational study (chart, overlapping tasks, proposals, relationships, benchmarking, initiatives — see below), structural recommendations, and a financial-impact estimate. Export to PDF from the report header — the PDF carries the same org chart(s) and study sections as the on-screen view.
The report is written entirely in the language you are using the app in at the moment you generate it, in plain business wording — no technical jargon. Switch the app to Arabic or English before generating to get the report in that language.
The assessment reads your units, the positions inside them — including each position's pay grade and its annual salary band — their attached job descriptions, and computed span/depth metrics. Those salary bands also ground the report's financial-impact estimate. Every report is saved and labelled with the assessed scope — the chosen branch's subtree, or Whole structure — plus its generation date and time, so a growing history stays easy to tell apart. The Report view is a two-pane list: saved reports appear on the left — each row shows its scope, generation date, and score — and selecting one opens the full report on the right. Regenerate any time to compare before and after a restructure, and delete any saved report you no longer need from its header.
A full organizational study, not just a score
Beyond the five-criteria scoring, every report reads like a ministry-style organizational study — the same shape used for formal Saudi public-sector restructuring submissions. Alongside the score, criteria evidence, and structural narrative, the report includes:
- Current-structure org chart — the assessed structure rendered as a chart, not just a score. The chart shows the assessed scope's own level and its direct children only (one level down); any branch with a deeper subtree is drawn with a +N badge on the block counting the units folded away beneath it — the same behaviour as the interactive org graph, so the report stays readable on a page.
- Overlapping tasks — a table of tasks performed by more than one unit, and which units share them.
- Restructuring proposals — one or more named proposals, each with a pros/cons list. A proposal that changes the shape of the tree (creating, merging, abolishing, splitting, or moving units) carries its own proposed-structure org chart, colour-coded against the current one. A proposal that touches units without restructuring them — a job-description, process, or policy change — shows no chart; instead it names the units concerned on a single line, so the reader knows which units are meant without an echo of the current chart. These are distinct from the scoring recommendations below: a proposal is a fuller "what the structure could look like" option, while a recommendation is a single scored action tied to specific criteria evidence.
- Internal & external relationships — tables of how the assessed unit(s) relate to other internal units and to outside entities (type + description each).
- Benchmarking — a peer-comparison table (peer entity, leading entity, organizational level, linkage, similarity).
- Initiatives — a list of related improvement initiatives with short descriptions.
All of these sections are generated by AI from the same context as the score (your units, the positions in them with their pay grade and salary band, their job descriptions, and any strategic context you pasted at generation time). They only appear when the AI has content for them — an empty section is simply omitted from the report and its PDF.
Edit the study sections before exporting
An HR admin can click Edit on a completed report to open an editor for the study sections above (overlapping tasks, relationships, benchmarking, initiatives, and each proposal's title/rationale/units-concerned/pros/cons) — correcting AI wording or figures before sharing the report. Editing only ever changes the saved report's content; it never edits your live org units, job descriptions, or taxonomy. Save updates the report immediately, including the printable PDF.
Export to PowerPoint (PPTX)
From a completed report's header, next to Print / PDF, an HR admin can click Export PPTX to download the study as a MOMRAH-branded PowerPoint deck — a skyline cover, one slide per section, right-to-left Arabic in the ministry's Sakkal Majalla font and teal/green palette, matching the reference study deck.
- The deck is built on demand from the saved report at the moment you click, so it always reflects the latest edited study — there is no cached file to go stale.
- It carries the same content as the on-screen report and PDF: executive summary and score, the current-structure org chart, per-criterion factor cards, structural impact, overlapping-tasks matrix, internal/external relationships, benchmarking, each proposal (with a before → after org chart when the proposal reshapes the tree), recommended actions, financial impact, and initiatives. Empty sections are skipped.
- Large or deep org charts stay legible: the chart is scoped to the assessed subtree and auto-scaled, and any level that is too deep or too wide is capped with a +N chip counting the units folded away.
The export is read-only — like the report itself, it never writes to your live org units, positions, or taxonomy.
Preview a recommendation's proposed change
When a recommendation would change the shape of the tree — splitting a unit, merging two units, moving a unit under a different parent, or abolishing/creating a unit — a View proposed change button appears under it. It opens a side-by-side preview: your current structure on one side and the structure after the recommendation on the other, with new, merged, moved, and removed units colour-coded (see the legend). The preview is illustrative only and never edits your live structure. Advisory recommendations that don't reshape the tree show no button.
Configurable rubric
The five criteria above are the built-in defaults — every workspace inherits them until an HR admin changes them. From Score settings on the report page, an HR admin can:
- Toggle any of the five built-in criteria off, or re-weight it — the enabled criteria's weights must total exactly 100 before the change can be saved.
- Add up to 8 custom factors (a title and a scoring instruction each), with their own weight counted toward the same 100-point total.
Reset to defaults restores the WTW rubric shown above.
Report scope
Every report states its scope at the top of the Report view, in the report's history list, and on the exported PDF: either a specific org-unit's subtree (named, e.g. "Assessing: Sales Division") or entire organizational structure when no branch was chosen at generation time.
Related
- Structural request review — the sibling WTW-derived rubric for scoring a proposed new unit instead of the live structure.
- Job Descriptions & Positions — the job descriptions the assessment reads for strategic-alignment and governance evidence.
- Org chart — the mandate-coverage view; a different read of the taxonomy, not the org-unit tree this report scores.