Requirements for the Organization Engaged in an R6 Alignment Initiative
Version 0.1 — February 2026
This document specifies the requirements for a management system to be established, implemented, maintained, and continually improved by an organization engaged in an alignment initiative based on the R6 model.
It applies to any organization—enterprise, public authority, nonprofit, or government agency—regardless of its size, sector, or nature, that wishes to:
a) make the alignment between its strategy, organizational capabilities, and employee competencies visible and measurable;
b) manage that alignment systematically and continuously, rather than through one-off crisis interventions;
c) integrate the S-O-I alignment cycle into its existing or developing management system (ISO 9001, ISO 42001, etc.).
This document covers the full alignment cycle, from initial diagnosis through the ongoing maintenance of organizational coherence.
It does not cover:
NOTE — This document is designed to be used either autonomously by an organization that has acquired alignment competencies, or in conjunction with support from a consulting organization conforming to R6-02.
The following documents are essential for the application of this document:
R6-02 — Organizational Alignment Engagement Management System. Requirements for the consulting organization, in particular the data collection and analysis protocols (Clauses 8.3 and 8.4 of R6-02).
IOD Core — Founding Axioms. Structural principles of the R6 model: isomorphic S-O-I architecture, three axes (Stance, Coordination, Execution), two polarities per axis (agentic and instrumental), maturity levels.
IOD Core — I6 Framework. Specification of the six individual pivot competencies and their proficiency scale (EQF 1–8).
IOD Core — O6 Framework. Specification of the six organizational capabilities and their maturity scale (Incomplete → Innovating).
IOD Core — S6 Framework. Specification of the six strategic logics and their maturity scale (Implicit → Regulated).
ISO 9001:2015. Quality management systems — Requirements.
IMS2 (Integrated Management System Methodology). Methodology for the deployment of integrated management systems.
For the purposes of this document, the terms and definitions in R6-02, Clause 3, apply, supplemented by the following definitions.
A member of the organization's leadership vested with the authority and responsibility to champion the R6 alignment initiative, remove obstacles, and ensure that the necessary resources are allocated. The executive sponsor is the guarantor of leadership commitment as defined in Clause 5.1.
A person designated within the organization to provide operational coordination of the alignment initiative, serve as the interface with the consulting organization (where applicable), and manage the maintenance cycle once autonomy has been achieved.
A dated, synthetic representation of the organization's coherence state, comprising the maturity or proficiency levels across each dimension of the three S-O-I levels, together with the identified misalignments. The alignment profile is the central deliverable of the R6 diagnosis.
The S-O-I coherence state the organization aims to achieve within a given timeframe, defined in accordance with its strategy. The target is not a universal "ideal" profile: it is determined by the organization's strategic choices and context.
A dated, prioritized action plan aimed at reducing the gaps between the current alignment profile and the alignment target. It includes interventions at the S, O, and/or I levels, with owners, timelines, and tracking indicators.
A continuous, recurring process through which the organization diagnoses, adjusts, and monitors its S-O-I coherence. The alignment cycle is integrated into the organization's management system and operates according to PDCA logic.
The accumulated misalignments between S, O, and I levels over time, resulting from decisions not taken, changes not supported, or developments not integrated. Organizational debt produces chronic dysfunctions whose root cause is systemic, not individual.
The organization's ability to receive, integrate, and implement a given volume of change within a given timeframe without degrading its ongoing operations. Absorption capacity determines the pace and scale of alignment plan interventions.
The organization shall determine the internal and external issues relevant to its purpose and that affect its S-O-I coherence.
It shall take into account, in particular:
a) strategic issues: its competitive positioning, market developments, technological or regulatory disruptions that may challenge its business model;
b) organizational issues: the maturity of its processes, the clarity of its decision-making structure, the quality of its coordination mechanisms, any accumulated organizational debt;
c) human issues: the availability and adequacy of competencies, the social climate, the capacity to absorb change, the level of trust between hierarchical levels;
d) contextual issues: the regulatory framework, applicable sector standards, geographic, cultural, or economic constraints specific to its operating territory.
The organization shall update this analysis at planned intervals and whenever a significant event changes its context (crisis, restructuring, strategic pivot, leadership change, major regulatory development).
The organization shall identify the interested parties relevant to its alignment initiative and their requirements:
a) leadership: visibility into strategic execution capacity, reduction of time spent on crisis management, anticipation of organizational risks;
b) middle managers: clarity of decision-making boundaries, consistency between assigned objectives and allocated resources, reduction of conflicting directives;
c) employees: understanding of the meaning of their contribution, fit between role requirements and developed competencies, fairness and transparency of evaluation criteria;
d) customers and beneficiaries: quality and reliability of services, fulfillment of commitments, ability of the organization to adapt to evolving needs;
e) partners and suppliers: readability of coordination processes, stability of interfaces;
f) regulators and certification bodies (where applicable): conformity to applicable normative and regulatory requirements.
The organization shall determine the boundaries and applicability of its alignment system, taking into account:
a) the issues identified in 4.1;
b) the requirements of interested parties identified in 4.2;
c) the organizational perimeter concerned (the entire organization, a division, a site, a specific project);
d) the S-O-I levels covered (all three levels are recommended for a comprehensive diagnosis; a reduced scope is acceptable if justified and documented).
The scope shall be maintained as documented information.
The organization shall establish, implement, maintain, and continually improve an alignment management system in conformity with this document.
This system may be:
a) a standalone system, if the organization does not yet have a formalized management system;
b) integrated into an existing management system (ISO 9001, ISO 42001, etc.), with the HS ensuring compatibility.
Integration is recommended: the R6 alignment cycle is not an additional apparatus, but a complement that enriches the existing management system by providing a model for diagnosing and acting on internal coherence.
The system shall cover:
a) the alignment cycle processes (diagnosis, intervention planning, implementation, monitoring, improvement) and their interactions with the organization's other processes;
b) the necessary resources;
c) the associated responsibilities and authorities;
d) the risks and opportunities identified in accordance with Clause 6.
Top management of the organization shall demonstrate leadership and commitment with respect to the alignment initiative by:
a) designating an executive sponsor as defined in 3.1, a member of leadership with the authority to make the decisions that follow from the diagnosis;
b) committing to act on the diagnostic results, including when those results call into question prior decisions by leadership itself;
c) allocating the necessary resources (employee time for interviews, budget, manager availability for reporting and co-construction workshops);
d) ensuring an environment in which employees can speak freely during critical incident interviews, without fear of reprisal;
e) ensuring that diagnostic results are used to improve organizational functioning, and not as an instrument of individual control or sanction;
f) integrating the S-O-I alignment review into existing governance cycles (executive committee, management review, strategic review) rather than creating an additional governance body.
Top management shall establish an organizational alignment policy that:
a) is appropriate to the purpose and context of the organization;
b) provides a framework for defining the alignment target and alignment plan objectives;
c) includes a commitment to pursuing S-O-I coherence as a condition of sustainable performance, not as a formal compliance exercise;
d) includes a commitment to continual improvement of that coherence;
e) explicitly acknowledges that:
The policy shall be communicated to all employees within the alignment perimeter. It shall be expressed in language understandable by all, without methodological jargon.
Top management shall ensure that the following responsibilities and authorities are assigned and communicated:
a) executive sponsor: responsible for leadership commitment, resource allocation, decision-making on diagnostic results, and obstacle removal; participates in reporting sessions and validates the alignment plan;
b) alignment lead: responsible for operational coordination of the initiative (interview logistics, alignment plan tracking, interface with the consulting organization where applicable, maintenance cycle management once autonomy is achieved); this role may be assigned to the quality manager, the HR director, a project director, or any other manager with the necessary cross-functional reach;
c) area managers: responsible for implementing alignment plan actions within their respective areas; participate in reporting sessions and co-construction workshops;
d) process owners (if an ISO management system is in place): responsible for integrating alignment actions into the processes under their charge.
NOTE — In an SME, the executive sponsor may be the CEO and the alignment lead may combine this role with another function. What matters is not the number of people but the clarity of the assignment.
The organization shall, taking into account the issues (4.1) and requirements (4.2), determine the risks and opportunities that need to be addressed to:
a) give assurance that the alignment system can achieve its intended results;
b) enhance desirable effects (improved coherence, reduced organizational debt);
c) prevent, or reduce, undesired effects;
d) achieve improvement.
The organization shall identify, assess, and address the following risks in particular:
a) instrumentalization risk: use of diagnostic results as a tool of power or sanction rather than as a lever for improvement; the R6 diagnosis addresses the system, not individuals;
b) inaction risk: diagnosis completed but never followed by action, generating disappointment and cynicism among employees who participated in interviews; leadership shall commit in advance to its capacity to act;
c) overload risk: alignment plan that is too ambitious relative to the organization's absorption capacity (3.8), resulting in team saturation and an effect opposite to that intended;
d) disconnection risk: alignment cycle treated as a parallel exercise to the management system, producing additional bureaucracy without integration into actual decisions;
e) dependency risk: inability of the organization to sustain the alignment cycle without permanent consulting support; competency transfer shall be planned from the outset;
f) confidentiality risk: in small organizations, difficulty guaranteeing respondent anonymity; specific measures shall be defined (data aggregation, reporting by theme rather than by unit, etc.).
The organization shall retain documented information on identified risks and the actions taken to address them.
Following the initial diagnosis, the organization shall define an S-O-I alignment target consistent with its strategy. This target determines:
a) the organizational maturity profile (O6) needed to support the declared strategy;
b) the individual competency profile (I6) needed to sustain the targeted organizational capabilities;
c) where applicable, the strategic adjustments (S6) to consider when the diagnosis reveals that the strategic ambition is incompatible with the available capabilities and competencies within a realistic timeframe.
The alignment target is a management tool, not an abstract ideal. It shall be realistic given the organization's absorption capacity and revisable at each cycle.
The organization shall establish measurable objectives for its alignment plan. These objectives shall:
a) be consistent with the alignment target;
b) include indicators to verify achievement;
c) account for absorption capacity;
d) be communicated to relevant parties;
e) be updated as necessary.
Objectives shall cover the relevant S-O-I levels. Examples:
When the organization determines the need to change its alignment system (strategy change, reorganization, scope expansion), changes shall be planned and carried out in a controlled manner, taking into account their purpose, their potential consequences, and the available absorption capacity.
The organization shall determine and provide the resources needed for the establishment, implementation, maintenance, and continual improvement of its alignment system.
Time is the most critical resource. The organization shall ensure:
a) the availability of employees selected for critical incident interviews, without this participation being perceived or experienced as an added burden;
b) the availability of managers and leadership for reporting and co-construction workshops;
c) the time needed to implement alignment plan actions, integrated into ongoing workload rather than treated as an "extra" project.
The organization shall allocate a budget covering:
a) consulting organization fees (where applicable);
b) competency development actions identified in the alignment plan (training, coaching, mentoring);
c) any reorganization investments (tools, infrastructure, recruiting);
d) the operation of the maintenance cycle once autonomy is achieved (alignment lead time, tracking tools).
The organization shall determine and provide the tools needed to manage the alignment cycle, appropriate to its size and maturity. This may range from a simple shared dashboard to an integrated information system, including S-O-I profile visualization tools.
The organization shall:
a) determine the competencies needed to conduct the alignment cycle autonomously (at a minimum: understanding of the R6 model, ability to interpret an S-O-I profile, ability to facilitate a co-construction workshop);
b) ensure that the alignment lead possesses these competencies, or plan the necessary actions to acquire them (training provided by the consulting organization as part of the competency transfer specified in R6-02, Clause 8.8);
c) progressively develop an alignment culture within the management team, so that reading S-O-I misalignments becomes a management reflex rather than an exceptional exercise.
Persons performing work within the alignment perimeter shall be made aware of:
a) the purpose of the alignment initiative: to improve how the system works, not to judge individuals;
b) their role in the initiative: participation in interviews (where applicable), implementation of alignment plan actions within their area;
c) the diagnostic results, insofar as those results concern them: the organization shall determine the appropriate level of transparency (organization-wide report, unit-level report, targeted manager briefing);
d) the expected benefits: reduction of inconsistencies, role clarification, better fit between requirements and resources.
NOTE — Awareness cannot be a one-time exercise. It shall accompany each alignment cycle, with messaging adapted to the stage of the initiative.
The organization shall determine the internal and external communications relevant to its alignment initiative.
Critical communications shall include at a minimum:
a) launch communication: explanation of the initiative to all affected employees before data collection begins (why, how, anonymity guarantees, use of results);
b) findings communication: sharing of diagnostic results at the defined level of transparency; this communication shall be honest, including on weaknesses, while remaining constructive and action-oriented;
c) progress communication: regular updates on alignment plan progress, results achieved, and adjustments decided;
d) external communication (where applicable): if the organization wishes to present its alignment initiative to clients, partners, or certification bodies.
The organization's alignment system shall include the documented information required by this document and any documented information the organization determines is necessary for the effectiveness of its initiative.
The level of formalization shall be proportionate to the organization's size and complexity. A 30-person SME does not need the same documentation apparatus as a 500-person group.
The organization shall maintain at a minimum:
a) the scope of the alignment system (4.3);
b) the alignment policy (5.2);
c) the dated S-O-I alignment profile (results of the initial diagnosis and follow-up diagnoses);
d) the alignment target (6.2.1);
e) the current alignment plan (6.2.2), with progress status;
f) records of alignment reviews (9.3);
g) records of nonconformity and corrective action (10.2).
Documented information shall be controlled to ensure its availability, suitability, and protection. Data from critical incident interviews shall be protected in accordance with the confidentiality commitments made to respondents.
The organization shall plan, implement, and control the processes needed for the alignment cycle, consistent with the requirements of the other clauses of this document.
Where the organization has an existing management system (ISO 9001, ISO 42001, etc.), the alignment cycle processes shall be integrated into the existing process map, not treated as a parallel system.
The initial diagnosis is triggered by the leadership decision to engage in the alignment initiative. It is conducted in accordance with R6-02 requirements (Clauses 8.2 through 8.5) when an external consulting organization is involved, or in accordance with equivalent protocols when the organization has the necessary internal competencies.
During the initial diagnosis, the organization shall:
a) facilitate access by the consulting organization (or internal team) to the people, documents, and locations needed for data collection;
b) ensure that employees selected for interviews have the necessary time and have been informed in advance about the initiative (purpose, anonymity, use of results);
c) refrain from any pressure on interview content: not select respondents based on expected results, not communicate instructions to employees about what they should or should not say;
d) actively participate in the reporting and co-construction of the alignment plan (see R6-02, Clause 8.5).
At the conclusion of the diagnosis, the organization shall formally validate the S-O-I alignment profile produced. Validation means acknowledging the results, including uncomfortable results, and is not contingent on agreement with leadership preferences. A diagnosis that is contested but not invalidated by factual evidence shall be accepted.
The alignment plan is co-constructed with the consulting organization (where applicable) following the diagnostic report presentation. The organization is responsible for:
a) prioritizing the misalignments to be addressed, based on their strategic impact and the available absorption capacity;
b) assigning owners for each action;
c) setting realistic timelines;
d) allocating the necessary resources.
The alignment plan may include interventions at each level:
Level S (strategic):
a) clarification or reformulation of the strategy when the diagnosis reveals ambiguities or inconsistencies in strategic logics;
b) adjustment of strategic ambition when a structural gap between strategy and organizational capabilities cannot be closed within a realistic timeframe;
c) formalization of trade-offs between strategic polarities (e.g., clarifying the organization's position on the innovation/compliance axis).
Level O (organizational):
a) strengthening a deficient organizational capability (process restructuring, revision of coordination mechanisms, clarification of decision-making boundaries);
b) rebalancing between organizational polarities (e.g., increasing the decision-making autonomy of frontline managers without losing overall coherence);
c) reducing organizational debt (addressing accumulated ambiguities, eliminating redundancies, clarifying roles).
Level I (individual):
a) developing competencies identified as deficient relative to the targeted organizational capabilities (training, mentoring, coaching);
b) reassignment or recruitment when the competency gap cannot be closed through development;
c) adapting evaluation and recognition criteria to align them with the I6 competencies required by the strategy.
The alignment plan shall respect the dependency logic between levels:
a) strategic clarifications (S) shall precede organizational interventions (O); otherwise, the organization risks being structured for a strategy that will be changed;
b) organizational interventions (O) shall precede or accompany individual competency development (I); otherwise, people are trained to operate in a system that does not yet exist;
c) iterations are normal and expected: feedback from the I level may inform an adjustment at the O level, which may itself prompt a revision at the S level.
The organization shall implement the alignment plan actions in accordance with the defined priorities and timelines. Implementation is the organization's responsibility, not the consulting organization's. The latter may provide support, but the organization must have the will and the authority to act.
Where the organization has a management system conforming to an ISO standard (9001, 42001, etc.), it shall integrate the R6 alignment cycle into its existing processes:
a) the S-O-I alignment diagnosis feeds the understanding of the organization's context (Clause 4 of the applicable standard);
b) identified misalignments are treated as risks and opportunities (Clause 6 of the applicable standard);
c) alignment plan actions are integrated into existing action plans, not managed in a parallel apparatus;
d) S-O-I coherence indicators are integrated into the performance dashboard (Clause 9 of the applicable standard);
e) the alignment review is integrated into the management review (Clause 9.3 of the applicable standard), not treated as a separate governance instance.
S-O-I alignment is not a state to be reached but a balance to be maintained. The organization shall establish a regular maintenance cycle, with a frequency adapted to its pace of change and its size.
Each cycle shall include:
a) a streamlined data collection (targeted interviews, tracking indicators, field observations) to update the alignment profile;
b) an analysis of developments since the previous cycle and relative to the alignment target;
c) an update of the alignment plan based on observed results and any changes in context;
d) a report to leadership as part of the review specified in 9.3.
The maintenance cycle frequency shall be determined by the organization based on:
a) the pace of change in its context (an organization in rapid transformation requires more frequent cycles);
b) its absorption capacity;
c) the cadence of its other governance cycles (management review, strategic review).
As a guideline: a comprehensive diagnosis every 18 to 24 months, supplemented by streamlined checkpoints every 6 months, constitutes a reasonable cadence for an SME/mid-cap.
The organization shall plan and pursue the progressive acquisition of autonomy in conducting the alignment cycle. The objective is for the organization to be capable, over time, of:
a) conducting streamlined internal diagnoses (targeted interviews, indicator interpretation);
b) updating its S-O-I alignment profile;
c) adjusting its alignment plan;
d) engaging the consulting organization only for comprehensive diagnoses, complex situations, or periodic recalibration.
The targeted autonomy level and transfer timeline shall be defined with the consulting organization from the engagement scoping stage (see R6-02, Clause 8.8).
The organization shall determine what needs to be monitored and measured to evaluate the performance of its alignment system.
The organization shall monitor at a minimum:
a) alignment profile evolution: comparison between the current profile, the previous profile, and the target, across each S-O-I dimension;
b) alignment plan progress: completion rate of planned actions, schedule adherence;
c) perceived impact: evolution of manager and employee perceptions on the issues identified as problematic during the diagnosis (role clarity, goal-resource consistency, coordination quality);
d) correlated operational indicators: if a specific misalignment has been identified as the cause of an operational dysfunction (delays, errors, recurring conflicts, turnover), the evolution of the corresponding operational indicator shall be tracked;
e) alignment cycle maturity itself: is the organization conducting its cycles on schedule? are the results being used to make decisions? is the alignment lead able to fulfill their role?
Indicator analysis shall respect the principle of non-normativity: a low maturity level on a given dimension is not necessarily a problem if it is consistent with the strategy. It is the misalignment between levels that constitutes the signal for action, not the absolute level.
The organization shall, at planned intervals, verify that its alignment system conforms to the requirements of this document and is effectively implemented.
The audit may be integrated into the existing internal audit program (ISO 9001, ISO 42001, etc.). Specific audit points include:
a) is the alignment cycle being conducted at the planned frequency?
b) are diagnostic results formally validated and documented?
c) is the alignment plan being updated and tracked?
d) are planned actions actually being implemented?
e) is leadership using diagnostic results in its decisions?
f) is interview data confidentiality being maintained?
Top management shall, at planned intervals, review the S-O-I coherence of the organization. This review shall be integrated into the existing management review or constitute a dedicated agenda item.
The review shall take into account:
a) the status of actions from the previous review;
b) the evolution of the S-O-I alignment profile since the last review;
c) changes in internal or external context that may affect S-O-I coherence (strategic change, reorganization, market development, crisis event);
d) the progress and results of the current alignment plan;
e) internal audit results on alignment points;
f) opportunities for improvement.
Outputs shall include:
a) decisions on adjustments to the alignment target or alignment plan;
b) identified resource needs;
c) where applicable, the decision to trigger a new comprehensive diagnostic cycle.
The organization shall determine and select opportunities for improving its S-O-I coherence and its alignment system, and take the necessary actions.
Improvement operates on two distinct planes:
a) improvement of organizational coherence itself: reducing misalignments, developing capabilities and competencies, refining strategy; this is the direct purpose of the alignment plan;
b) improvement of the alignment system: refining the diagnosis, governance, and tracking processes, strengthening internal competency, optimizing tools.
When a nonconformity occurs in the alignment system, the organization shall:
a) react to control and correct it;
b) evaluate whether action is needed to eliminate the cause(s) so that it does not recur;
c) implement any corrective action needed;
d) review the effectiveness of the corrective action;
e) make changes to the alignment system, if necessary.
Nonconformities specific to the alignment system include:
The organization shall continually improve the suitability, adequacy, and effectiveness of its alignment system.
Continual improvement shall focus in particular on:
a) diagnostic depth: over successive cycles, the organization refines its understanding of its own mechanics, detects recurring patterns, and develops an ability to anticipate misalignments;
b) cycle responsiveness: reducing the time between detection of a misalignment and implementation of corrective action;
c) integration into day-to-day management: reading S-O-I coherence becomes a management reflex integrated into everyday decisions, not an isolated periodic exercise;
d) collective competence: managers progressively develop the ability to identify misalignment symptoms in their area and escalate information without waiting for a formal diagnosis;
e) knowledge capitalization: each cycle produces insights that deepen the organization's self-understanding and feed subsequent cycles.
The long-term objective is for the alignment cycle to become as natural and non-negotiable as the annual financial close: an ordinary act of management, not an exceptional project.
R6-03 — Version 0.1 — February 2026 IOD Ingénierie SARL