Back to the OP's topic . . .
I agree that we'll find that the 3/20 structure is here to stay for a few years to let the dust settle. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these mega-districts actually get split back up due to the shear geography that they cover.
As for the departmental consolidations, many of the departments that were affected this past year are still reeling from the reorganizations. Again, it's time to let the dust settle for a little while.
If you keep consolidating to no end, there comes a point where the original cost savings are negated with people in new roles and responsibilities as well as severance packages.
As you said, the 3 / 20 setup is here to stay. At least for a while. Hopefully we grow so much that we need to expand them.
They came about because there was an initial proposal for district / region consolidations for 2010. It was another incremental step like the previous ones had been. Scott Davis asked why we kept doing it a little at a time. Why didn't we just determine what the end game should be and make the change all at once. Hence, the name transformation.
I'm sure there were many proposals, but the 3/20 stuck. Is it right? The best? I don't know. If this doesn't work, I don't know what will. Myron now has lots of power. His staff is not just operations. He has to see the whole picture since he is responsible for P&L. I guess we will see what happens.
Will corporate consolidate? I don't know... But....
Take a look. Stoffel retired and no replacement was named. His responsibilities were reassigned. Will that happen with other management committee members? That is a start. Combine at the top and then have the next level look at ways to consolidate.
Corporate should be smaller. How did they ever fit in that little office park in Greenwich?