The Hard Data Behind Capability Gaps Leaders Miss

True capability health lies beneath the surface, in the jobs and activities that drive value, cost, and risk.

Capability maps have become a standard feature of strategy and enterprise architecture. They promise  to show how the organization is equipped to deliver on its goals. But too often, they are built on  assumptions. Leaders label capabilities as “strong” or “weak” based on perceptions, anecdotes, or  high-level performance indicators. What’s missing is hard evidence, the data hidden inside the jobs and  activities that actually express those capabilities. Without that evidence, capability maps remain elegant  diagrams of intent rather than accurate models of capability health. 

Why Perceptions Mislead 

Executives and architects often rely on broad signals to judge the strength of a capability: headcount,  leadership visibility, or investment levels. But these signals are deceptive. Headcount says little about  whether work is well designed, leadership titles do not indicate how the work is executed, and  investment can easily reinforce inefficiency if the underlying roles are misaligned. As a result,  capabilities that appear mature may actually be fragile. Others that seem underdeveloped may be  quietly performing with discipline and balance. Without granular data, organizations cannot tell the  difference. 

Where the Real Gaps Hide 

Capability gaps rarely appear at the label level, they emerge in the jobs and activities that make up  each capability. A capability may appear fully staffed but still underperform because its jobs contain  misaligned activities or are overloaded with excessive strain. Another may seem strong but rely on  unstable positions with high exit risk, inconsistent standardization, or low tenure. These are not surface  problems. They determine whether a capability can sustain performance, absorb disruption, and scale  effectively. Without job- and activity-level evidence, leaders cannot see where capability strength truly  lies or where it is eroding beneath the surface. 

From Abstract to Measurable 

To understand capabilities accurately, organizations must treat them not as conceptual boxes but as the  sum of their jobs and activities. This means measuring real variables that describe capability health, the  value created, the cost incurred, the strain experienced, and the risk embedded in how work is  designed. It also means distinguishing strategic and high-value activities from those that are routine,  transactional, or redundant. By mapping these attributes upward, leaders can see which capabilities  create meaningful value and which are consuming resources without advancing strategy. Only by  grounding capability maps in measurable work data can organizations move from speculation to  operational truth. 

How Orgsure Reveals the Evidence 

Orgsure is one of the few systems that measures capability strength with data. The platform tracks  detailed activity and position-level attributes, including value, cost, strain, intensity, standardization, and  exit risk, and links every activity to the capabilities it supports. Because Orgsure also distinguishes  strategic and high-value activities, it allows leaders to see not just the volume of work within a  capability, but its quality and orientation. A capability composed primarily of routine internal activities  looks very different from one anchored in strategic, high-value work. By aggregating these measures,  Orgsure creates a quantified capability profile. Leaders can pinpoint where a capability is vulnerable, for  example, where its sustaining jobs are overstrained, unstable, or filled with low-value activities. They  can also identify where additional investment will produce the greatest strategic return because high-value work is already concentrated and well-designed. In both cases, Orgsure replaces assumption  with hard data, transforming capability mapping from a conceptual framework into an empirical  management tool. 

The Core Insight 

Capability maps are only as strong as the evidence that supports them. Without activity- and job-level  data, they become wishful sketches that miss the gaps leaders most need to see. By grounding  capability health in quantifiable measures, Orgsure turns architecture into analytics. It gives leaders the  visibility to separate perception from reality, identify true sources of strength and weakness, and  manage capabilities with the same rigor they bring to financial performance. 

Suscipit nibh nunc eu mauris platea

Un horaire flexible signifie bien plus qu’un simple aménagement : il incarne une nouvelle manière de concevoir le temps de travail. Ces dernières années ont vu l’adoption croissante de concepts novateurs tels que les horaires flexibles, aussi appelés flexitime.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

The Role of Pay Distribution in Value Analysis

Most organizations view pay purely as a cost, but Orgsure treats it as a signal of value. By analyzing where each position sits within its pay range, Orgsure adjusts value calculations to reflect real return on compensation.

The Case for Strain

Traditional capacity measures like utilization and productivity overlook how work is actually experienced. Orgsure introduces strain—a capacity-response measure that captures the tension between workload and the ability to absorb it.

The Gap Between Capabilities and Work

Many organizations map capabilities but stop short of linking them to the work that expresses them. As a result, capability models remain theoretical, disconnected from structure, cost, and value.