The newly appointed CEO of an exchange-traded wind power producer wanted to reorient the company.
The CEO commissioned us to develop a process for changing the company’s strategy. The goal was to give the company a common direction, despite the existence of conflicting interests.
The process began with a management conference at which the company introduced a range of strategic initiatives. While these were initially well received, the players later criticized the lack of an overarching context and complained that important fields of activity remained unclear.
Indeed, different parts of the company were pursuing conflicting goals. The company spared no effort to expand its market position in terms of sales, but at the same time a burgeoning bureaucracy was trying to control its every move through centralized decision-making. Meanwhile, the production division was focused on innovation, which led to constant technological advances. This, in turn, ruled out standardization in procurement, installation, and service.
Over the course of the strategic process, we gradually defined approaches on four levels: financial goals, products and markets, value chains, and interdepartmental services. Working together with the entire board of directors, the first reporting level, and upper management, we defined strategic directions and long-term goals and assigned them within the organization. Distinct topics were handled by separate groups, working in cycles to deliver direction-defining decisions—over and above business areas and interdepartmental boundaries.
We supported the company for three years at crucial, direction-defining junctures. Although the process was still underway, we were gradually able to reorient the organization in collaboration with top management at the annual management conference.
By the end of our assignment, the company had created a road map that laid out its course of action for the next five years. Where necessary, the players agreed on a common direction. Although it seems paradoxical, this was not the result of a debate over the company’s actual direction, but came about by deciding on its concrete goal, for example, by determining the markets it needed to develop. In addition, work on the contents led to a transformation of company culture. Our road map enabled top management to communicate exactly what the strategy entailed, and to set concrete goals for all the company’s business areas.
Dr. Bennet van Well | P +49 (4106) 617-0 | E BennetvanWell@metaplan.com