Welcome to the show. I’m Will, here with Winter, and Winter, I want to start with a number that trips up almost every new provider: 36. There are 36 NDIS registration groups, and the rookie move is to open that list and think, beauty, I’ll just tick everything that sounds useful. More boxes, more services, more revenue. And that is often the FASTEST way to slow your whole business down. Thirty-six is exactly the kind of number that turns strategy into shopping. You stop asking, “What can we deliver well?” and start building a wish list. Like a compliance version of online browsing at midnight. That’s it. Because choosing registration groups is not just picking services. Each choice changes your audit pathway, your compliance obligations, the qualifications your workforce has to prove, the cost of getting registered, and honestly the shape of the business you’re building. It’s not admin. It’s architecture. Wait -- “architecture” is the bit I want to pull on. If I tick one extra group, what actually changes? Not in theory. In practice. In practice, low-risk groups usually sit in the verification pathway. That audit is more focused on things like qualifications, experience, and insurance. But higher-risk or more complex supports sit in the certification pathway, tied to the Core and Specialist Modules of the NDIS Practice Standards. And here’s the gotcha that catches people -- if you select even ONE certification group, your whole registration moves into certification. One group? So not “that group gets a tougher check.” Your entire application gets escalated? Exactly. The whole thing. More demanding, more expensive, more time-consuming. There’s no little side door where the rest stays verification. One certification-level support changes the pathway for everything on the application. That “one group changes everything” line is the one I’d want written on a sticky note above the laptop. Because I can absolutely imagine someone thinking, “Well, while we’re here, maybe we add this one aspirational support...” and suddenly they’ve bought themselves a much bigger audit. Yep. And sometimes people do it for completely understandable reasons. They want room to grow. They want flexibility. They don’t want to come back later and apply again. But if the business today doesn’t have the systems, workforce, and resources to support that scope, the application gets heavier before the business gets stronger. I’m gonna push you a little here, because I know what some listeners are thinking. Isn’t it smart to register broadly early, so you’ve got options? If the market shifts, if referrals come in, if you wanna scale -- why not secure the permission now? Because permission you can’t operationalise is not really an asset. If your workers can’t demonstrate the required qualifications during audit, you can end up with delays, groups removed from scope, conditions imposed, or a failed audit. And worse than that, there’s a participant safety issue. You do not want to be registered for supports your organisation cannot safely deliver. That’s the tension, isn’t it? Broad ambition versus actual capability. And in NDIS, capability is not vibes. It’s evidence. Qualifications. Systems. Insurance. Audit readiness. Spot on. So the starting point is not the list of 36. It’s a brutally honest business review: what supports are we genuinely equipped to deliver RIGHT NOW, who are we best placed to serve, what does our workforce actually hold in qualifications and experience, and can we afford the pathway we’re triggering? If you answer those before you open the portal, you’re already ahead of a lot of new providers. So if the first mistake is building a wish list, the obvious next question is: what’s the better filter? And for me it starts very simply -- what can you safely deliver today? Not next year, not after a few hires, not once everything is humming. Today. Right. And that decision framework is pretty practical. What supports can you deliver safely now? Does your current workforce hold the qualifications each selected group requires? Are you actually prepared for verification, or for certification if that’s what the groups trigger? Is there demonstrated demand in your service area? And does this line up with the provider you want to become over the next three to five years? That “three to five years” bit matters. Because successful providers usually don’t try to be everything. They build a niche. Maybe it’s therapeutic services, maybe psychosocial supports, maybe culturally specific services, maybe a regional gap where participants are underserved. Your registration groups are basically the formal version of that choice. Yes -- the formal expression of your niche. If you want to be known for specialised behaviour support, or for serving a particular cultural community, or for a rural service model that actually reaches people, your registration scope should reflect that from day one. Specialists often build stronger referral pathways because people know exactly what they do. And that’s a better growth story than “we do a bit of everything.” Because “bit of everything” sounds flexible, but it can also sound generic. In a crowded market, generic is hard work. It is. And this is where over-registering becomes a strategic mistake, not just a compliance mistake. You widen your audit scope, you have to prove compliance across more standards, and if the evidence isn’t there, the application can be delayed or narrowed. So the broad strategy actually leaves you with less scope than you wanted. Let me try to say that back. Over-registering feels like expansion, but it can produce contraction -- slower approval, groups removed, conditions imposed. So the “bigger start” ends up smaller. That’s exactly it. And there’s another layer: local demand. The smartest group selection isn’t always the most popular service nationally. It’s the mix of what you can do well and what participants in your area actually need. If your region is saturated in one support type but underserved in CALD communities, rural access, or sensory-based activities, that matters. The word you used there -- “underserved” -- that’s the commercial and mission sweet spot, isn’t it? A real open opportunity in disability support, locally or nationally, instead of just following the crowd. Yeah, and 2026 makes this even more important. The NDIA is aiming to introduce planning changes from mid-2026. They’re meant to roll out gradually and make the scheme fairer, easier to navigate, and more flexible. But those changes may affect which supports are funded under which categories, how budgets are structured, and how flexibility works across support types. So if funding logic shifts in mid-2026, you don’t want a registration strategy frozen in the assumptions of an earlier system. You want groups that still make sense in how supports are funded in practice. Exactly. Your registration is not just about getting approved once. It’s about staying aligned with participant need, workforce capability, and the way the scheme actually operates as it changes. Which kind of leaves the real question hanging there, doesn’t it? When you strip away the temptation to tick boxes, what provider model are you REALLY building -- and do your registration groups prove it?
Audio Coursesby Jellypod