Organizational Digital Twin
A GENOMIA twin of your organization: structure, dependencies, and decision paths — the substrate every structural analysis runs on.
Why this engagement exists
Organizations make structural decisions — reorgs, integrations, investments — without a model of the structure itself. Dependencies are invisible, decision paths are assumed, and every analysis starts from an org chart that does not match how the organization actually runs.
What it looks like in your organization
- Reorgs and integrations are designed from org charts, not dependency reality.
- Nobody can say which teams or roles are structurally critical.
- Decision paths are assumed; bottlenecks are discovered by accident.
- Every structural analysis starts over because no model of the organization exists.
What we do and how it works
We build the GENOMIA twin: the organization’s structure, dependencies, and decision paths modeled at the size × complexity band you scope. The twin becomes the substrate for every structural analysis after it — workforce impact, integration, resilience, and strategy all run against it. GENOMIA is priced to the organization, not flattened into a flat fee.
The engagement includes
- GENOMIA size × complexity scoping
- Structure, dependency, and decision-path modeling
- Critical-node and key-person analysis
- Structural resilience assessment
- Twin handoff with guidance for ongoing analysis
What you take away
Every deliverable is named, formatted, and tied to the outcome it enables. Nothing ships as a deck with no use.
GENOMIA organizational twin
ModelThe organization modeled: structure, dependencies, and decision paths at the scoped size and complexity.
A living model of how the organization actually runs — the substrate for every structural question.
Dependency and decision-path map
MapThe dependencies and decision paths that carry the organization, mapped and criticality-flagged.
You see where the organization actually depends on whom — not where the org chart says.
Critical-node and key-person analysis
AnalysisThe nodes and people whose failure would break the structure, with concentration risk flagged.
Continuity and succession decisions rest on structural evidence.
Structural resilience assessment
AssessmentHow the structure holds under stress: single points of failure, brittle paths, and reinforcement priorities.
Structural risk is managed proactively instead of discovered in a crisis.
How this engagement runs
Size the twin
Week 1GENOMIA size × complexity is confirmed. The band sets the modeling depth and the price — a 500-person org and a 50,000-person enterprise are different twins.
A scoped twin sized honestly to the organization.
Model the structure
Weeks 1–3Structure, dependencies, and decision paths are modeled from interviews, data, and evidence — not from the org chart alone.
A model of how the organization actually runs.
Find the critical nodes
Weeks 3–4Critical-node and key-person analysis runs against the twin; structural resilience is assessed under stress.
The structure’s real risk points are named and prioritized.
Hand over the substrate
Weeks 4–6The twin is handed off with guidance for ongoing analysis. Workforce impact, integration, and strategy work can all run against it.
The organization owns a structural model it can keep using.
How the fee is built
The engagement fee moves on three multipliers — sensitivity, involvement, and organization type — and the platform units the work consumes are their own lines. Nothing is hidden inside a flat number.
Sensitivity
×0.90 – ×1.30 on the engagement feeSensitivity sets the handling envelope around the whole engagement: how data moves, where evidence lives, who can touch it, and what containment we must maintain. Higher sensitivity means cleared handling, segregated evidence, and slower, more deliberate operations — real cost that a flat fee would hide.
Open information. Standard handling, no containment overhead.
Proprietary business information. NDA-grade handling and controlled evidence storage.
Compliance-bound data. Framework controls and audit-ready evidence handling shape the work.
Defense-grade pathways. Cleared handling, boundary containment, and evidence segregation inside your perimeter.
Involvement
×0.85 – ×1.35 on the engagement feeInvolvement is how much Multipolar operator time is on the hook. Counsel at checkpoints is a different commitment than embedded delivery inside your team, your systems, and your cadence. The multiplier tracks senior hours actually committed — not a markup.
We advise and interpret; your team executes. Senior counsel at defined checkpoints.
We run the engagement end to end, with your stakeholders at the decision points.
Embedded delivery. Our operators work inside your team until the outcome is actually in place.
Organization type
×0.85 – ×1.25 on the engagement feeThe same technical work lands differently depending on who is buying it. Federal and defense engagements carry procurement, compliance, security review, and stakeholder alignment that a mid-market engagement does not. The multiplier prices the coordination and accountability surface, not the analysis.
Fewer stakeholders, faster decisions, lighter coordination overhead.
The baseline: standard commercial engagement surface.
Public-sector procurement and multi-agency stakeholder surface.
Investment-platform cadence: deal-driven timelines and IC audiences.
Joint-delivery and enablement motions with partner delivery teams.
Assurance functions: evidence standards and underwriting audiences.
Federal procurement, compliance crosswalks, and multi-office alignment.
Mission-critical review, security handling, and acquisition-process alignment.
Scope & scale of platform units
The largest component of most totalsEvery engagement consumes platform units — CYBAIR workloads, AIR organization bands, GENOMIA twins, WINS scenarios, SiliconAIR systems. Units track your estate, not our appetite for flat pricing: an 8-workload assessment and a 50-workload assessment are different engagements and are priced as such. You set the scope in the configurator; the total moves with it, and nothing is quietly under-scoped to fit a number.
Simulation compute
Estimated until configured · billed on actualsWINS simulations carry real compute costs that scale with scenario count, branching depth, and campaign length. A focused single-scenario game and a sustained multi-agent campaign are orders of magnitude apart. Facilitation and after-action are in the fee; compute is estimated once the game is configured, then billed on actuals — you pay for what actually runs, never a padded average.
Platform units in this engagement
Units track your estate, not our appetite for flat pricing. You set the scope; the total moves with it. Each unit below is consumed by this engagement and billed as its own line.
The organizational twin: people, skills, systems, dependencies, and projects modeled as a living graph.
Headcount or agency count sets the size band; structural complexity multiplies it. Multi-system, contested, or mission-critical environments cost more to model because they are more to model.
What the engagement fee covers
- Scoping, workshops, and interpretation
- Every deliverable listed on this page
- Cross-framework mapping where the package includes compliance
- Executive translation — board, program-office, or IC language
- Handoff and a defensible next-step recommendation
What it does not cover
- Platform units consumed by the work (shown as their own lines)
- WINS simulation compute (estimated, then billed on actuals)
Frequently asked questions
No. The twin models how the organization actually runs — dependencies and decision paths — not the reporting lines on a chart. The org chart is an input, not the model.
Ready to brief us on the Organizational Digital Twin?
We choose who we work with and confirm scope, capacity, and final pricing in the briefing.