COMPANY PLAYBOOK
dxw
System principles
- Keep working agreements public and correctable.
- Make hiring assurance checks and offer conditions visible from the start.
- Carry the outcome of every bid into future bid and strategy decisions.
Tensions and trade-offs
- A public, contributable playbook creates shared memory, but ownership and the boundary between public and private information need continuing management.
- Structured hiring and bid controls reduce risk, but can lengthen decisions and burden low-risk cases.
PRACTICES
How dxw builds its operating system
Govern an open playbook through shared agreement
Ways of working live in a public playbook; employees can propose corrections and changes are expected to reflect shared agreement rather than personal preference.
- How it works
- Employees can propose playbook changes; accepted edits keep shared working agreements and decision context accessible.
- Why it is used
- Moves process knowledge beyond manager transmission, broadens contribution and makes organizational memory visible.
- Trade-off
- Document maintenance needs explicit ownership, while public openness requires careful boundaries around sensitive or client-bound information.
- Best fit
- Knowledge-work teams able to work in writing and seeking shared processes with external accountability.
Structured hiring with pre-offer conditions
Candidates move through defined stages, while right-to-work and client-contract BPSS or BS7858 checks are tied to offer conditions.
- How it works
- Selection stages, owners and required assurance checks are defined in one hiring flow; an unconditional start is not assumed before relevant checks complete.
- Why it is used
- Makes candidate experience more consistent and surfaces client-contract and legal eligibility risk before employment begins.
- Trade-off
- Additional checks can increase time and candidate burden; applying every check to every role risks unnecessary data collection and exclusion.
- Best fit
- Roles with verification duties arising from public-service work, regulation or client contracts.
Shared bid decisions and post-bid feedback
Sales opportunities are tracked on a shared board, surfaced in a weekly cadence and opened to cross-team bid input; post-bid feedback informs later proposals.
- How it works
- An opportunity moves through one sales surface; the bid decision accepts shared input, and win-or-loss feedback is added to future proposal and strategy context.
- Why it is used
- Avoids concentrating sales knowledge in one person, brings delivery risk into bid decisions and turns outcomes into organizational learning.
- Trade-off
- Broad participation can slow decisions; without consistent classification, anecdotes can steer strategy too strongly.
- Best fit
- Project and consulting work where proposal quality depends on sales, delivery and specialist judgment together.
Set AI boundaries by task and data
dxw’s guidance updated 23 September 2026 names company-administered tools; client data requires permission before use in a tool not provided by that client. Making decisions with AI is not allowed; external content and agentic actions need special care.
- How it works
- An approved-tool list, client restrictions and an internal/external task matrix sit together; people remain responsible for the output they use.
- Why it is used
- Turns ambiguous tool and data use into visible permission and review points.
- Trade-off
- Adds review overhead; this guidance does not cover building AI into client services.
- Best fit
- Service teams handling client data and using AI for varied tasks.
Delegate subcontractor day-rate decisions by gross margin
dxw Delivery Leads can agree a subcontractor (“dxw friend”) day rate when the resulting gross margin exceeds 45%. A proposed rate yielding less than 45% goes to the relevant Director; the page does not specify the decision path at exactly 45%. Note (5 Oct 2026): the source page now returns 404 and no new address was found; the details above reflect the 25 Sep 2026 reading and can no longer be verified.
- How it works
- Day-rate authority depends on the resulting gross margin, not a percentage of the subcontractor fee.
- Why it is used
- Gives delivery leads room to act while escalating low-margin commitments.
- Trade-off
- The margin calculation must be reliable; authority at exactly 45% is unspecified and needs clarification.
- Best fit
- Consultancies with project-based subcontracting and measurable margins.
Reward philosophy: median target, annual equity audit, priority for those low in their range
dxw ties its pay approach to four principles: transparency, fairness, competitiveness and commercial sensibility. A salary point or band is published for every role, and base pay targets the market median. The annual pay review takes place in October; increases depend on affordability, and people lower in their market range are prioritised over a flat percentage for everyone. The gender pay gap is published every year, role-level disparities are tracked and an annual pay equity audit is run.
- How it works
- An external benchmarking tool builds a range for each role, to be integrated into existing salary structures over 12–18 months. Limited off-cycle adjustments are allowed for promotions, role changes or hiring and retention pressure. The total reward package covers benefits as well as salary (flexible working, pension matching, healthcare, leave, equipment budgets).
- Why it is used
- To hold transparency and equity in the same frame as what the company can afford, and to share financial context with staff.
- Trade-off
- Increases are targeted, so not everyone gets one each year; many benefits are discretionary and may change with business needs. Benchmarking is new, so salary structures are still being adapted, and the page gives no actual gap figures or outcomes.
- Best fit
- Small and mid-sized companies that can set up role and band structures and are ready to share financial context with staff.