How we work

The respon­si­ble mana­ger often only has one shot to get the imple­men­ta­ti­on right. Fail­u­re of imple­men­ta­ti­on will result in the loss of the owners­hip of the pro­ject – with nega­ti­ve con­se­quen­ces for the pri­or owner. The­re­fo­re, the­re is a lar­ge incen­ti­ve to care­ful­ly pre­pa­re the pro­ject and look for con­sul­ting part­ners, who are wil­ling to take the risks with you and exp­lain why they are able to con­trol the risk.

SOICON is a reli­able part­ner and goes the way of pro­ject pre­pa­ra­ti­on and imple­men­ta­ti­on with you. Two rea­sons why SOICON’s approach is con­vin­cing and how it dif­fers from other approa­ches:

Comprehensive Scope

SOICON’s expe­ri­ence shows that stra­te­gy papers are fol­lo­wed by a moment of truth. It can be a big advan­ta­ge when pre­pa­ra­ti­ons are done by the Top Manage­ment and when the Midd­le Manage­ment respon­si­ble for chan­ge is invol­ved, but the Midd­le Manage­ment should also be able to con­tri­bu­te their own ide­as.

The­re­fo­re, SOICON links three cru­cial pro­ces­ses into one over­all view:

- pro­ces­ses for stra­te­gy defi­ni­ti­on
O - pro­ces­ses for deri­ving the orga­niz­a­tio­nal con­se­quen­ces
I   - pro­ces­ses for the imple­men­ta­ti­on with sta­ke­hol­ders on site

The­se aspects are, in par­al­lel, con­ti­nuous­ly con­si­de­red, with chan­ging weights; so, for instance, the imple­men­ta­ti­on obsta­cles are not “for­got­ten” during the stra­te­gy defi­ni­ti­on.

Cer­tain­ly, the Top Manage­ment can­not deal with all details of the imple­men­ta­ti­on. Howe­ver, the con­sul­tants respon­si­ble for the pro­ject have to address this com­pre­hen­si­blee scope, if they want to gua­ran­tee suc­cess, and they have to acqui­re rele­vant infor­ma­ti­on from the orga­niz­a­ti­on and deal with it.

Active Implementation

On behalf of the Top Manage­ment, the pro­ject needs to be mana­ged loyal­ly. For SOICON, this means that we repre­sent the inte­rests of our cli­ents, and actively invol­ve the Midd­le Manage­ment.

The term loyal­ty, the­re­fo­re, does not inclu­de sealing-off with respect to the orga­niz­a­ti­on, becau­se this would built up a fatal heri­ta­ge for the imple­men­ta­ti­on pha­se, whe­ther due to mis­sing infor­ma­ti­on from insi­de the orga­niz­a­ti­on, or due to mistrust during the roll­out.
SOICON’s expe­ri­en­ces show: If a repre­sen­ta­ti­ve of the Midd­le Manage­ment is invi­ted to par­ti­ci­pa­te in the design, this is appre­cia­ted. The limi­ta­ti­ons set by the Top Manage­ment are accep­ted. Fur­ther­mo­re, a gli­ding chan­ge into the line of respon­si­bi­li­ties can be pre­pa­red by means of the invol­ve­ment. Not every line mana­ger is an excel­lent Chan­ge Mana­ger.

Thus, the “stee­ring hand” is com­ple­men­ted by a “sup­por­ting hand”, to secu­re the chan­ge pro­cess.

%d bloggers like this: