Strategists in Human Capital!
Affinity International Consulting presents Futurepoint

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Why Intrapreneurs Are Not Rewarded Like Sales People and Why This Needs To Change

Why Intrapreneurs Are Not Rewarded Like Sales People and Why This Needs To Change

Added on August 6, 2015 by Alexander Osterwalder.
Intrapreneurs--people who build new ventures inside of a company--create billion dollar businesses for their companies, but they’re not rewarded like salespeople who also create billion dollar revenues for their companies. Why is that the case? Financial reward is not everything, but it’s an important one to retaining and rewarding talent that is responsible for your company’s future. In this post I share a few thoughts on what’s happening today, and why it should be changed.
Entrepreneurs will risk almost everything to build a company, and they’re rewarded for the success they create as founders and main shareholders. Intrapreneurs on the other hand might build billion dollar businesses for a company and enjoy continued job security. But the bonuses intrapreneurs get as rewards are usually nowhere near the value they create for their employers. Entrepreneurs enjoy a valued stake in the businesses they create. Why can’t something like that exist internally for intrapreneurs?
Why this isn’t the case today.
Sales teams have clear incentives for growing revenue. For intrapreneurs the correlation between results and financial reward structure are a lot less obvious. 
Sales teams have clear incentives for growing revenue. For intrapreneurs the correlation between results and financial reward structure are a lot less obvious. 
A good example of reward structures that are closely related to value created exist in sales teams inside most big companies. Sales generates revenue for a company, but within a known business model and value proposition. They close deals, churn out numbers, and are rewarded well to achieve these goals (a really good sales person can oftentimes earn more than the CEO). It’s a linear process that nobody questions because it’s just part of doing well in that role.
I asked Steve Blank, father of the Lean Startup movement, why this compensation system wasn't applied to intrapreneurship. “I think it’s because there’s an ‘apparent’ direct cause and effect for sales people that goes on outside the building,” said Steve over email. But building future growth engines aren’t as linear. “Intrapreneurs appear to be peers of people inside the building who are doing the normal day-to-day execution of the existing business processes," says Blank. 
Today, the people responsible for new growth engines within a company are essentially seen as project managers tasked with leading a new growth initiative. In fact, they are rarely called "intrapreneurs". If a successful future business model is found, the people in these roles are more likely to receive a bonus or promotion similar to that of a successful project manager, rather than a bonus for "finding and building" a million (or even billion) dollar growth engine.
Hence, it’s not enough to call these people managers, project managers, or product managers. These roles deserve to be seen as something bigger, and they deserve a title that represents their responsibility for building the future of a company.
Why this should be the case.
An intrapreneur is going to do more than just manage or oversee a task. To succeed they need to be "all-in" and search and validate a business model just like a start-up entrepreneur does. That's what will propel your business into the future.
We’ve written before about the risks associated with being an innovator/entrepreneur in a big company: it can be career suicide. There’s no prestige related to the role and responsibility; and for the most part an intrapreneur is more likely to undermine his or her career.
Let’s say your intrapreneur enjoys autonomous decision making within your culture and one day creates a $1 billion business. Maybe that person might have a shot at being CEO in the future, or be rewarded with a cushy title like Senior VP. Is that enough? To be honest it sounds a bit random--and what if he or she doesn’t get to be CEO one day? Then what? Ultimately talent will leave, and your company risks becoming disposable because you no longer have the people that could invent your future.
So how do we reward intrapreneurs? What’s their incentive to do a good job?
Be creative to reward the best people.
The question I want to pose here is this: what’s the best way for people to participate in the value they create for the company? It’s a tricky challenge.
I don’t believe it’s enough to give intrapreneurs an overall bonus or options plan structure based on the whole company. After all, many sales people are primarily reward based on their direct results and only secondarily based on the company's performance. The top sales person earns well even when a company is not performing well. Similarly, intrapreneurs work on one particular initiative, and they need to be rewarded for that particular initiative. Maybe you share part of the revenue with the people who helped create it? Perhaps companies could create an internal stock market where participants own and earn a stake in their efforts. What if intrapreneurs are allowed to invest their own money because they truly believe in the initiative? What sort of timeline do intrapreneurs have to earn from their efforts?
I asked Henry Chesbrough, inventor of “the Open Innovation” concept, if he knew of any examples where intrapreneurs were rewarded accordingly for their efforts. Chesbrough shared a personal example while building Plus Development, a subsidiary inside Quantum tasked with developing end-user mass storage products back in 1984:
“There was a team of four people who started up Plus, and I was the youngest, most junior person on the team. We all got stock in the company, with Quantum taking 80% of the stock in return for funding us and granting us IP rights. Yet our small percentage still ended up being worth a lot when Quantum bought back the remaining 20% of stock in 1988, at a valuation of roughly $100 million. I’d estimate that our founding CEO, Steve Berkley, made several million dollars from the gain on his portion of the stock (he personally held perhaps 4% of the outstanding stock).”
Chesbrough’s example is essentially a large company investing in a spinoff startup. Cisco has done this for years. It may not be the absolute approach, but it may offer some guidance for the types of structures companies could build for their internal initiatives.
Like I said: money isn’t everything, but we do need to take financials into account when retaining and rewarding top talent. It’ll help keep people inside the company, and it’ll ensure the right people are around to explore and invent the future of your company.

Thursday, August 18, 2016

What Nestlé Would Have To Do To Monetize Its Healthcare Bets

What Nestlé Would Have To Do To Monetize Its Healthcare Bets

Added on August 15, 2016 by Alexander Osterwalder.
How capable is your organization at exploring and scaling new business models? It’s a question I’m exploring around Nestlé’s bold bet into the healthcare space. In this post I’ll look at why Nestlé’s new journey could prove more challenging than the company may realize. I also offer an approach for you to assess how prepared your organization is to explore its future success.
Nestlé is making some bold changes to take advantage of what it believes is the next big growth engine for consumer products: life sciences and healthcare.
Long-time Nestlé chairman and former CEO, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, has even recruited an outsider health sector CEO, Ulf Mark Schneider, with no food related experience to captain this new journey.  
Is Nestlé capable of inventing and growing business models at the intersection of food and health? The strategy sounds exciting but it poses a couple of substantial management challenges I’m not sure Nestlé is aware of. To Nestlé’s credit, the company has already built a health, science, and skin health business that is worth $2 billion today, but that growth is largely because of technology and scientific innovation. That type of innovation can only take you so far.
For Nestlé, this journey into food and pharma will require looking far beyond technology innovation, and toward business model innovation skills. It will also require the appropriate organizational and management structures required to successfully invent and scale new business models. I suspect the company might lack these skills or underestimate the challenges related to business model innovation.
Here’s why I think Nestlé is a great execution business that might struggle to sustain aggressive growth targets while trying to monetize future bets in the health-pharma space.
Growth challenges after 150 years of expansion.
Nestlé has done a lot of things really well in its 150 year old history. The existing brand portfolio is astonishing. It’s the largest food company in the world (ranked by revenues), and has 29 so-called “billionaire” brands including household names like Nespresso, Nescafé, KitKat, Smarties, and Maggi that each generate over $1 billion in sales every year.
Nestlé has proven that it’s outstanding at operating and improving its existing business model(s). However, I wonder if the  organization is ready and able to create new large-scale business models merging food and health. I suspect, Nestlé will struggle to go beyond what the company already does extremely well.
The organization’s growth goals--known as the “Nestlé model”--target  5-6% year-over-year growth. Even at 5% annual growth, that would mean adding over $4 billion in additional revenue every year. In other words, it’s as if Nestlé has to consistently churn out a $4 billion start-up every year.
Growth of that level will be very hard to sustain without business model innovation. Nestlé knows this, too. The organization missed its “Nestlé model” targets three years in a row. The company’s 2015 earnings report displayed Nestlé’s weakest annual growth in six years, with organic growth at 4.2%. Current Nestlé CEO, Paul Bulcke expects growth to remain soft this year as well.
For Nestlé to continually grow its existing business into double digit billions--alongside its new involvement in healthcare--will require much more than what’s been accomplished to-date.
Intentionally search for and scale business models that monetize new opportunities.
Like many organizations Nestlé is world class at managing and extending its existing business model by growing its product portfolio. However, I suspect the company is less well equipped when it comes to entirely new value propositions and business models.
I believe the company is not yet what is often called an “ambidextrous organization”-- something it has to become if it really wants to succeed in new areas outside its core traditional food business. That means Nestlé has to become world class at simultaneouslyimproving its existing business model while creating and operating an organizational space to invent future business models at the same time.
It’s a very hard thing to do and only few companies succeed at being excellent at both so far.
There are examples of business model innovation inside Nestlé, but like in other established companies the new business models were rather accidental occurrences. Nespresso, a business success for Nestlé, did not happen intentionally. The technology innovation was intentional, but figuring out how the company could monetize the product and address the market was accidental. Eric Favre, inventor of the Nespresso machine, spent 10 years perfecting the technology.  However, Nespresso’s first business model failed and the project nearly went bust. Nespresso didn’t succeed until Jean-Paul Gaillard was brought in to lead the company and transform its business model.
This whole process took a long time, and I don’t think Nestlé knows how to replicate that type of success. I’m sure this is not because the company lacks talented and smart people or the skillset. I suspect it’s because Nestlé lacks an organizational culture that can create another Nespresso. There is no space inside Nestlé where people can design and test radically new value propositions and business models that differ from Nestlé’s traditional models.
Kodak is an example of a cutting edge company that went bankrupt because it failed to design and scale business models to monetize its technology innovations--they invented the digital camera! Even if this is an overplayed example, it’s a precursor of what can happen to companies that focus solely on technology innovation.
A Nestlé that’s world class at expanding beyond its core.
Nestlé’s evolution into a truly 21st century company that can invent and scale new business models will require a transformation of its structure in a similar fashion to what I proposed in my “organizational chart of the future”. In this org chart, one person is responsible for managing the present business, and another person is responsible for managing the future. Who will fulfill those respective roles for Nestlé to achieve its mission?
Recruiting Schneider as CEO with a background in health and sciences is a great start. Recent rumblings suggest that outgoing CEO Bulcke will move into the role of chairman and replace Brabeck. But it’s unclear who will run the food business, and who will explore healthcare opportunities. Will Schneider do both? Or will Nestlé make use of a powerful duo in Bulcke taking care of the food business while Schneider goes off to explore healthcare opportunities. That would be a very real representation of the improve-invent spectrum I outlined earlier.
It’s true that having two people at the very top might not be realistic. The CEO can do both jobs of maintaining the existing business while exploring new ones, but inevitably one is going to suffer. Today, in most companies it’s the future that suffers at the expense of the present. 

If Nestlé really wants to win in this field, the company has to churn out and scale winning business models and value propositions. And in this case, the winning business models and value propositions won’t be specific to food or specific to pharma, they are going to be at the intersection of  the two different fields and it’s likely these will require models that have never been seen or done before.
More importantly, whatever Nestlé manages to achieve in this “sweet spot” will also uncategorize the company from its food and beverage labelling. That might be a good thing. Apple is an example of a company that has been incredibly successful at designing superior business models that protect and declassify them from any particular industry. Apple reinvented itself as a hardware company and then expanded into business models for music and software which was the foundation for its success with the iPhone. Amazon is another example. The e-commerce player has not only succeeded in the B2C space of online retail, it’s also now leading in the completely different B2B business of selling server space through its Amazon Web Services offering.
The way I’ve assessed Nestlé’s current and future challenges is an approach you can apply to your own organization’s ability to monetize new business ideas.
At our Strategyzer Peer Learning Summit last year, we had attendees fill out an assessment sheet to see how organizations scored on their ability to develop new business models and value proposition.
The framework allows you to measure your organization against three key areas:
  • Leadership: How does management or executives support the strategy, allocate resources, give legitimacy and power to the idea?
  • Culture & Processes: How does the culture use tools or methodologies to realize the strategy?
  • Organizational Design: How is the organization designed to reward and incentivize experiments around business models and value propositions? What is this project’s relationship to the existing business?
Try it out. Use the assessment sheet to score how your organization currently performs in these three areas. This will provide a tangible framework for discussing and capturing your current state internally.

Sunday, August 7, 2016

Introduction To Strategic Management

Introduction To Strategic Management 

Alfred D. Chandler, an American business historian, defined strategy as follows: Strategy is the determination of the basic long-term goals and objectives of an enterprise, and the adoption of courses of action and the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out those goals.
Here A. Chandler believes that strategy consists of equal importance to defining objectives and goals as it is to providing the measures for attaining them. Strategic management is a consistent level of managerial activity of setting up goals and tactics and ensures a variety of decisions by the top management to successfully achieve those aims or goals in the long term and at the same time providing for adaptive responses in the short term. This provides an overall direction to an organisation. The strategic management process consists of three components: Strategic analysis, strategic choices and strategic implementation. These components are vital in a firm as it appraises the business and industries in which the firm is a part of. It also brings about a healthy competition and helps in defining of attainable goals in present and future and also reevaluates each strategy. The Components Of Strategic Management Process, in its plainest sense, is fixing tactical decisions, evaluating the strength and recognising the critical external factors, which may play a part in influencing the position of the firm and also defining the factors that bring about the implementation of a firm through these components. Different from the "classic" business planning, Strategic management focus involves Mission, Vision and Out-of-the -box thinking. Top management uses strategic management to describe where and when they would want to position their firm in the industry. Strategic planning helps assess the firm's opportunities and threats, exposes its strengths and weaknesses as well as encourages the firm to adapt. A SWOT analysis, strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats, is an excellent way to help develop a strategic plan. Like used by many Fortune 500 companies, these four components pose as the building blocks of a strategic plan for a firm's existence. Similarly, PEST analysis (Political, Environmental, Social and Demographic and Technological factors) is a examination of the external macro-environmental in which in firm exist. It helps to examine the effect of these influences on the firm as opportunity and threat in the SWOT analysis. It is also used for assessing the market rise and fall, and as such the position, potential and direction of the firm. The BCG (Boston Consulting Group) Matrix is a four-celled matrix; it is the most renowned strategic planning tool. It provides a graphical representation for the firm to examine diverse companies in its portfolio. It provides the management with a comparative analysis of firm's potential and the evaluation of environment, which it operates in.
Organisation is a term that can be studied as a process as well as a structure. In a fixed sense, organisation is a structure, where a team of people functions and tries to accomplish a certain objective.
In the words of Kast and Rosenzweig, "structure is the established pattern of relationships among the component parts of the organisation". In this sense, the network of relationships among individuals and positions in the firm are refers to as an organisational structure.
Organisational structure defines how responsibility, roles and power are coordinated, controlled, how information moves between the different stages of management and how they are assigned. When the most of the decision making power and control over departments and division lie with the top level management it is know as Centralised structure. In a decentralised structure, the decision making power is distributed over the departments and allowing them to enjoy certain degrees of freedom. There are four major components that affect organisational structures, they are, Environment, Strategy, Technology and Human Resource. Environment being are very volatile factor itself, managers will face more problems depending on how fast it changes. Thus, structures need to be more flexible in order to face these changes; this would also suggest the need to decentralise authority. Various strategies would need to utilise different structures. Such as a differentiation strategy would require a flexible structure and low cost would need a more formal one. Organisation structures are also determined by what type of technology is being used. For instance, a company that has an automated operational system would opt for a decentralised structure because the progress of employees would be monitored and the immediate supervisor would be able to provide guidance and when needed. One of the most commonly found structures found within firms is the functional structure, it consist of small units or departments which are grouped or identified by speciality, like finance, IT, logistics, sales, human resource, and so on. This distinguishes the departments by product produce by each unit or geographical region; this enables managers to maintain more control over each group. This structure is based on high specialisation and high control and efficiency concept. In terms of effectiveness, the functional structure is most effective in small to medium size firms that only deal with a few product and services. A matrix structure is an organisation reporting structure frequently used for project-based teams. This structure uses both departments as well as products as determinate s to group teams together; this allows ideas to flow between various parts of the organisation. This is a complex structure of reporting relationships and has proven to be very flexible and can respond rapidly to change. It is effective for a large organisation with a large number of products and services.
A strategic group is a concept used in strategic management where companies that are a part of the same industry and provide similar business models and/or similar strategies are grouped together. For instance, the fast food industry can be divided into different fast food joints in terms of pizza or burgers, which can be based on different variables like time, price, presentation, etc. The number and the composition of the groups within the industry depend on the dimensions used to define them. Strategic management experts mainly use two-dimensional grid in order to justify their direct competitors, those with similar strategic models, and their indirect rivals. M. Hunt (1972) devised the term Strategic Group whist analysing the appliance industry after discovering the high level of competitive rivalry. He the then subscribed this to the subgroups existing the industry. This then caused the industry to undergo rapid innovation, price reduction, increase in quality and lower profitability than normal economic models would deliver. M. Porter (1980) developed the concept and explained strategic groups in terms of Mobility Barriers.

Value Chain Analysis

This analysis focuses on every level of the business that it goes through from raw materials to the final user. The goal is to maximise value at the least possible cost.
For one to better understand the activities from which an organisation creates shareholder value and competitive advantage, it has been proven useful to simplify the business system into series of value-generated activities, also known as value chain. Michael Porter, in his book Competitive advantage (1985), introduced a value chain model that consists of arrange of activities that was found to be common to a wide range of firms. M. Porter identified these activities and classified them into primary and support activities. The primary activities include Service, Marketing & Sales, Operations, Inbound and Outbound Logistics. Theses activities are supported by four components Infrastructure of the firm, Human Resource Management, Procurement and Technology Development. The main goal of the value chain analysis is these activities need to provide a higher level of customer satisfaction that exceeds the cost of them, thus creating profit margin. In other words, the firm's margin depends on how effective the firm is on performing these activities efficiently, so that the level of customer satisfaction is sufficient enough for them to pay for the products that exceed the cost of the activity itself. By re-configuring the value chain a firm may be able to achieve a competitive advantage by providing better differentiation or through lower costs. Value chain activities are not inaccessible from one another but rather one activity often affects the cost or the performance of the other. There may exist linkage between primary activities or between primary and support activities. The value chain analysis is a flexible tool for a firm; it's competitors and the industry. It can be used to create or study the competitive advantage on both cost and differentiation. Cost advantage is done through a better understanding and squeezing out the cost from value adding activities and differentiation is achieved by focusing over those activities with core capabilities in order to out preform the competitors. It provides a deeper understanding of the firm's strengthens and weaknesses. The main advantage of value chain is that it is adaptable to any type of business, big or small. However, M. Porter's book Competitive Advantage, the value chain is largely focused on manufacturing industry, thus puts off other types of business. Due to the complexity of the value chain analysis and the scope and scale of the value chain has proven to be intimidating, it is time consuming. To understand the firm competitors one must identify and examine the key differences and strategy drivers, hence, needing substantial information. The business information system is not always structured to draw out information easily for a value chain analysis.

Thursday, August 4, 2016

Best Practices: How To Use The Culture Map

Best Practices: How To Use The Culture Map

Added on January 11, 2016 by Kavi Guppta.
Since Dave Gray and Strategyzer launched the Culture Map, thousands of people around the world have downloaded the tool to help them design their corporate culture. In this post, we collected 7 best practices from Dave Gray and Alex Osterwalder for using the Culture Map in collaborative sessions.
Get leadership or teams into a room to map out and discuss your company’s existing or desired culture. Collaboration will be key, so try out the following approach:
  1. 10+ minutes: Individually map your as-is culture. Think hard about enablers and blockers.
  2. 60+ minutes: Gather your team, map and discuss your as-is culture.
  3. 180+ minutes: Design a workshop to move from an existing culture to a desired culture.
1. Imagine your corporate culture as a garden.
Dave Gray explains how the analogy of a garden helps leadership and teams to visualize their culture within the Culture Map.
  • The outcomes in your culture are the fruits. These are the things you want your culture to achieve, or what you want to “harvest” from your garden.
  • The behaviors are the heart of your culture. They’re the positive or negative actions people perform everyday that will result in a good or bad harvest.
  • The enablers and blockers are the elements that allow your garden to flourish or fail. For example, weeds, pests, bad weather, or lack of knowledge might be hindering your garden. Where as fertilizer, expertise in gardening specific crops, or good land might be helping your garden to grow.  
2. Work in slices.
Focus on discussing one area of your culture at a time. Whether you started by mapping out an outcome or a behavior, it’s important to conduct the conversation around that space before trying to tackle other areas of your culture.
3. Tell stories and be specific.
There can be a tendency to describe behaviors in an abstract way. In your Culture Map exercise you might hear people say “There’s a lack of teamwork” or “People are lazy”. What does that mean? What’s actually happening? Managers and teams have probably talked to each other so much about these issues, that it’s become an easy way to explain negative results.
Get participants to tell a story with specific examples. Have them describe a scene in the movie where they can provide detail around the lack of teamwork. This might result in a more specific example like “People agree to something in a meeting, but leave and do their own things”.  It’s also important that participants get into the habit of sharing evidence rather than simply stating opinions, so specific stories of behavior (good and bad) can be based on proof rather than a rumour. 
4. Start by mapping out behaviors.
It’s up to you to decide if your session should start top down by tackling outcomes and then the associated behaviors, enablers and blockers. But Dave Gray has found that starting with behaviors can be an easy place to start. Behaviors are the things you see everyday; the things people go to the bar or out to lunch to talk about. 

Focus the conversation by asking these questions: What does a great day at work look like? What does a bad day at work look like? Participants might respond that a great day meant getting a lot accomplished. Why? Because there were no meetings.
5. Discuss how leadership, culture & processes, and organizational design impact your culture.
Ask the team: what causes and influences our behaviors? What are you as a leader saying or doing to enable these behaviors? How are people rewarded for their behaviors in your culture (both positive and negative)? What are the unwritten rules? How does your current process help or hinder your culture? This is the space to assess your current culture, and the space where you can design the culture that you want.
6. Place the Culture Map in a visible space after the session.
Now that you’ve got an aspirational map of the culture you want after a workshop or offsite, take that map and place it in a space where everyone can see it and be reminded of the tasks ahead. Put them up in meeting rooms so decisions can be made inline with the information on your Culture Map. At XPLANE, Dave Gray explains how a version of the company’s Culture Map hangs in the lobby to keep the map fresh in people’s minds.
7. Make sure it’s a living document.
Look at the map you’ve created and frequently assess if your culture has moved from the current state to its desired state. Has the culture you mapped out enacted enablers that resulted in the behaviors and outcomes you desired? How have hurtful blockers been removed from your culture? Your teams can regroup once every quarter or at frequent intervals throughout the year to assess, learn, and evolve the company’s Culture Map. Integrate the document into existing company processes to ensure all leaders and teams follow the desired culture that was created. 
The process of regularly separating outcomes, behaviors, enablers and blockers will allow your team to organize and assess the elements that should remain or be removed. Participants will also recognize that everything is within the power of the company to change

Wednesday, August 3, 2016

How To Capture Customer Jobs, Pains, & Gains That Aren’t Subjective

How To Capture Customer Jobs, Pains, & Gains That Aren’t Subjective

In this post, we explain how to eliminate the subjective or biased aspects of your value proposition design through customer interviews and experiments. These two activities will help you gather very solid and quantitative customer evidence as you design your value proposition.
To really remove bias or subjective thinking when capturing jobs, pains, and gains, you need to distinguish between what customers say and what customers do. To start, you’ll want to conduct what Steve Blank, father of the Lean Startup movement, calls “customer discovery”. This is where you will talk to customers about their jobs, pains, and gains. After those interviews, you will conduct customer experiments to further eliminate the subjective aspects.
So you're task is to go from customer discovery, where you learn your first insights, towards providing real solid evidence from experiments.
Capture what customers say
Let’s start with the customer discovery interviews.
You will need to get out of the building and talk to 50 or 100 hundred people to gather initial insights on your customers. These insights will be important to the customer experiments you design later on.
Always start the conversation with what your customers are interested in. That’s number one, and that’s very important. With this in mind, you won’t start out by biasing the conversation around what you are interested in.
Keep these tips in mind when conducting customer interviews to remove any bias:
  1. Avoid selling your value proposition. Don’t start off with trying to gauge interest in your solution or proposed value proposition--put that in the back of your head and really focus on the jobs, pains, and gains to understand what matters to customers.
  2. Avoid asking for opinions. In your customer interviews, make sure you don't ask about opinions. So rather than asking somebody, “would you do this?” or “would you do that”, you would instead ask, “when is the last time you bought a similar product?” or “when is the last time you had this particular job to be done?”. This way you will encourage answers where your interview subjects can explain when they may have done a specific type of action or job-to-be-done.
  3. Gather quantitative answers. If your subjects point out an important job but they can't come up with an instance where they've actually done it, then they're probably not being honest. Try to gather quantitative answers. For example, you could ask “what does earning more money mean to you? Is 10% more?” Do your subjects agree or give a more substantial number? This approach will allow you to get into instances and concrete quantities to understand how they measure success and how they measure failure.

Sample list of colleges, our clients have attended.

Process Overview

Continual Professional Development

We provide comprehensive continual professional development to professional associations auch as The Irish Law Society, Institute of Engineers of Ireland, The Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland and Association of Chartered Certified Accountants and other leading professional associations.

Questions to ask Yourself

Drop us your email

In return, as a valued client, we will provide you with discount vouchers on select upcoming programmes. You will also receive advance purchase notification on "high demand" master class programmes.


Please note that we take your privacy seriously

Specialist Training

If you are a Corporate entity, SME, or a "not for profit" organisation with a specific niche training requirement, please contact us.

With our extensive national and world-wide network of training consultants, we are able to identify, source and fully arrange your training completely in line with your requirements.

Strategic Management

Strategic Management

We are very proud to deliver the only short course on strategic management available in Ireland. This course has been designed to be delivered in house and is specifically tailored for the Irish multi national IDA high value manufacturing and services sector. The programme is delivered over 20 hours as an integrated format over modules decided by the client. Strategy only works when everyone is on the same page and for this reason we offer this programme for each management forum to take advantage of this unique opportunity. It is fundamental knowledge that companies that have a strong foundation and understanding of strategy and how it shapes future sustainable success are the business units that achieve prolonged success within the greater company structure. Simply put, the business unit that talks the language of the CEO attracts the greatest interest and capital input. Success is always built on strategy. See a sample of our strategic training work.
Providing management solutions and training through consultancy contracts in operations and HR management.
Website by: Déise Design