How to build a business – Strategy Execution Cycle

August 3, 2013

Building a Business starts with an idea, which is then converted into action.

Simple and straightforward, but not always enough to be successful. Libraries can be filled with books about how this conversion is done, and usually the terms Strategy and Management are introduced on the first page. It is not always clear what is meant by the terms, and the explaining usually involves many more terms, like mission, vision, leadership. Once you are sufficiently confused you are lucky if you can understand where the author is taking you. Bullshit Bingo is never far away.

What is a Strategy really: is it a statement, or a plan, or just a hypothesis about value creation?

And what about Management? Sometimes you are introduced to the world of let it all run it’s course, your people will know what to do, the collective will manage itself (as Ricardo Semmler does), and sometimes to give every single employee a specific responsibility and task, and constantly measure how the task is performed, with Key Performance Indicators (Robert Kaplan).

Unless you want to turn into a one-man show, it is important is to be able to share your idea with others: Why do you want to do it, what do you want to do and for whom. And how will you be successful: Can you identify what the success-factors are, decide which of the underlying activities are vital and are you able to measure if they are performed up to the standard you have set for yourself and your business?

There is no single truth of course: are we talking about a bar in Berlin, a multi-national enterprise run from the United States, or a Production Plant in China? Hardly the same thing. Where you do it matters a lot: Context is crucial.

Equally important is who you have around you. Can you inspire them and share your vision and some of your responsibilities with them, delegate some of the vital activities to them? Time to get organized.

This requires planning and probably money. Decisions are needed on what initiatives have priority are and how they are funded.

Once you are in business the execution of your idea needs constant evaluation and adjustment, just like a hypothesis needs testing and change.

We believe these are five steps that not only reflect common sense but are also universally crucial to bring a business idea to fruition. We have called this approach SCOPE. An acronym where each letter represents a stage in the process of Strategy Execution:

Strategy – Context – Organisation – Planning – Execution

For Qhuba and its clients we have taken the “buffet approach”. You will pass all the five stations, but what you use from the process and the templates depends on your needs and appetite. The full cycle looks like this:

Slide2

In the middle the basic templates for communication:

  1. The Business Blueprint, which describes the building blocks behind the idea: the values, and the vision, the words you want to own and the x-factor you think you have. In short: the success-factors
  2. The Strategy Map, which describes the value creating activities through series of cause and effect linkages, clustered per success-factor
  3. The Scorecard, which describe the objectives per activity per success-factor.

Nothing is new here, nothing is revolutionary. The Plane, the Crew with the Flight Plan and the Cockpit, if you like analogies.

The only aim is to make a clearly defined approach with unequivocal terms and definitions and some practical tools available for all.

In five short articles we will describe the five steps, as well as the three tools, and then we will go through the whole sequence for our own company.

If you like the approach you might want to do the same for yours.


How to build a business – Agility and Innovation

March 24, 2013

Recently someone drew my attention to the report NL2030, published by BCG. The authors believe that in the Netherlands, to enable further growth of our prosperity and wellbeing we need to adopt a radically new business model. That raises some interesting questions, such as “Does something like  Dutch business model even exist?”, “what would it be based on?”, and: “why does it need to change?”.

The premise of the argument of the authors seems to be that country specific advantages that we used to have in the past, such as geographical location, infrastructure, and the associated foreign language skills and commercial spirit, no longer give us a any benefits. Thus, we are dependent on business benefits.

The World is flat

Ok. What do companies have to deal with? They are faced with an accelerating speed of change, mostly through technological innovations, with customers who have more and more specific wishes, and with a world that becomes flatter. I assume the authors are referring to Friedman’s idea of a global marketplace and almost realtime access to data, information and ideas from virtually anywhere

At first sight it seems to me that those are circumstances in which good companies could flourish.

The final step in the reasoning of BCG: If changes take place faster and faster we need innovation talent and social adaptability. People that love change and a society that facilitates it. And unfortunately – says BCG – those are not qualities that The Netherlands excels in.

The World Economic Forum, by the way, does not agree. In their “Global Competitiveness Report 2012-2013” they rank The Netherlands in the top ten, and they say: ”

The Netherlands continues to progress in the rankings, moving up to 5th place this year. The improvement reflects a continued strengthening of its innovative capacity as well as the heightened efficiency and stability of its financial markets. Overall, Dutch businesses are highly sophisticated (4th) and innovative (9th), and the country is rapidly and aggressively harnessing new technologies for productivity improvements (9th). Its excellent educational system (ranked 5th for health and primary education and 6th for its higher education and training) and efficient markets—especially its goods market (6th)—are highly supportive of business activity. And although the country has registered fiscal deficits in recent years (5.0 percent of GDP in 2011), its macroeconomic environment is more stable than that of a number of other advanced economies. Last but not least, the quality of its infrastructure is among the best in the world, reflecting excellent facilities for maritime, air, and railroad transport, ranked 1st, 4th, and 9th, respectively.”

WEF Framework

For this ranking the WEF not only considers the traditional country-specific conditions such as infrastructure and education, but also markets as well as “Business Sophistication and Innovation”.

True or not, BCG makes a number of recommendations that are valuable, such as: Find opportunities in international niches, instead of catering with a broad portfolio of products or services, exclusively for the domestic market. And another one that makes sense: Based on expertise, focus on process orchestration (from design to production to sales and distribution) and not on performing all the activities yourself.

Finally they sketch the agenda for the Dutch government, and frankly I got a little confused here. Of course, good education is important, and of course we must educate scientists to conduct fundamental research. And naturally talent should be encouraged, and for some students we need to accommodate more generic international courses such as those offered by University Colleges. But how is that different from what our education system offers already and why not leave those choices up to young people? They will choose what they want, and what the market needs.

The labor market will become more flexible much faster than the government can take measures to stimulate this. Professionals trade historic rights for autonomy, relevance and networks of peers. Unions are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

The government should just step back. Buy-in from society, changing laws and regulating the labor market? No idea how that would help anyone. De-regulation would help, but if making laws is core business, what can we expect from a government.

Companies can orchestrate processes, but the government cannot orchestrate businesses. Entrepreneurs will.

The most useful recommendation is perhaps: to use more English as business language. The size of our own market is the limiting factor, but now the world becomes easily accessible; many markets are global, technologies enable shorter go-to-market times, and there is no reason why we should address these opportunities as a country, or why companies should be chauvinistic. And we don’t. In our company we have been communicating in English from day one. We have employed people from the US, South Africa, Australia and other countries.  Starting a business in The Netherlands is not difficult, and many of the best-educated and most innovative people are independent, or are willing to accept positions in those companies where their talents are appreciated and developed.

Business Sophistication and Innovation are the key enablers for success in a rapidly changing world: Agility as a strategy. Most large companies have been mainly striving for efficiencies, and cannot adapt or adopt change.

So, that brings us back to Thomas Friedman (The World is Flat) and John Kotter’s article in the Harvard Business Review (“Accelerate“).

This last article has received quite a bit of attention in the industry. Kotter explains why change is unnatural to large hierarchical organizations, and why a better approach, which he calls a dual operating system, is needed to be both agile and efficient.

He proposes the creation of a volunteer (self steering) tribe drawn from people from all corners of the organization, at all levels. These people will form a network that works in parallel with the existing hierarchical structures.

The two entities form a Dual Operating System, each contributing to the vitality and viability of the organization in a different and complementary way. The network’s task is to propose and co-creation the strategies of the future, while the hierarchy continues to operate as efficiently as possible. Exploration and exploitation as two sides to the same coin. Highly aligned, but loosely coupled.

The network strategy will involve no additional costs or overheads, as staff are invited to volunteer their time, knowledge and ideas to contribute to the future of the organization in a capacity that differs from the date-to-day work.

Good companies in the Netherlands and in other countries understand that besides Exploitation Exploration is crucial. That changes are opportunities and not always threats. For years we have been calling this the power of the Network, of Intrapreneurship and of Effectuation – and we have never needed the Government (or BCG) to help us with it.


How to build a business – demotions

March 14, 2013

There has been a lot of publicity lately about demotions and salary cuts for older employees in IT Services companies like Capgemini, whose market value does no longer justify their salaries.

 

Like they did not see that one coming.

 

What is this fuss all about?

 

Of course people are aware that the number of years you are with the company and the number of times you had your salary raised has no correlation to the value you will bring to the clients. Many years with the company? Maybe that has given you insights in the internal organization, or maybe you can manage or coach younger colleagues. That is not very interesting for a client, who wants practical knowledge, results and tangible benefits.

 

 

Especially now, with a much more dynamic and flexible labour market, clients are much more critical and service providers see rates that feel the pressure of the crisis. So how could they have put themselves in this situation? Probably everyone has always been focused on the short-term, because collective labour agreements have dictated that salaries be raised every year, because clients were never the most important stakeholder in companies like this?

In The Netherlands we have almost four hundred collective labour agreements. In only six of them demotion as an instrument is part of the agreement. Unions, whose members are to be found under the older employees, have every intention to keep treating demotions as a taboo.

 

The whole idea of demotion is not new of course. In 2000 the Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid published a report suggesting that “the salary profile and the productivity profile” are getting out of sync. Their solution: more flexibility in salaries, no automatic correlation between age and salary increases, and ultimately demotion.

 

So what is the alternative and how could they have prevented this?

 

First of all, is seems more logical to correlate pay directly to productivity or market value. This can be done by paying basic salaries, plus additional components for both individual market value (measured through billable revenues) and company performance.

 

The question both companies and their employees will have to start asking themselves is how they can influence revenues per employee. Market value is determined by what clients are willing to pay based on the perceived benefits – although most people seem to think rates are determined by smart sales people. The employee feels he has limited influence on his market value. This of course is not true.

It can be increased by development though experience, training and smart matching. The first two are up to the professional. Matching – placing the professional on the assignments where he or she can add most value – is usually done by sales people. Unfortunately usually the match is made based on competences in CV’s and not on Character, Values, Culture and soft skills.

 

Our solution: make groups of professionals responsible for their own success and value. Self Steering teams determine what kind of professional education and training they need, and they are stimulated to build a network of clients. With some commercial training they are able to help the sales people not only with leads and opportunities, but also with better matches for proper rates.

The budget available for salaries and other compensation has a direct correlation with the revenues generated. The team members together determine their  own salaries. Demotion: a concept of the past.


How to build a business – Net Promoter Score

January 30, 2013

Two things have always been crucial in the assignments we do for our clients: what are the benefits we create (expressed in Economic Value or Cash Value Added) and are they truly excited and delighted by what we do. Over qualified resources, continuous support by peers and validation of the results are key in accomplishing this. But at least as important: are we able to measure and prove it? benefits Management has developed into something of a specialism, especially if you do not only measure in financial or quantitative terms, but also in areas like Risk, Scalability, Agility, Motivation.

Customer satisfaction, or even Client Delight is another challenge. Luckily this topic has been addressed some twenty years ago, by Fred Reichheld, a consultant from Bain & Company. He spent years researching enthusiasm, loyalty and commitment in customer relationships. Surveys did not seem to provide the answers he was looking for, partly because the answers from dissatisfied, undifferentiated and enthusiastic customers were so different that they could not drive any management decisions on improvement.
For answers he focussed on the happy customers only and decided to measure their enthusiasm by asking them one question, that he thought related directly to their loyalty: how willing were they to recommend the firm. We see this unpaid marketing department at work every day, nowadays through recommendations on the internet, and more than anything else, by the Like button of Facebook.

Like

Back then, it was a new concept, which he called Net Promoter Score, or NPS. More than the financial benefits our clients have, and definitely more than the revenue we generate, the level of loyalty created is key to success, and yes it is similarly important to measure the level of frustration and disappointment of those who might become active detractors.

With growth come more formalized processes, more dashboards and reports. close relations and intuition alone is no longer enough to keep track of our performance, and the time has come to also implement this process: Basically all that is required are three steps

Step 1.: ask each and every client one question: “How likely are you to recommend us?”, and have them score the likelihood on an eleven-point scale from 0 to 10

Step 2: Break the results up in three categories: those  that gave ratings from 0 to 6 are “Detractors”, the one that logged a 7 or 8 are “passively satisfied”, and only the score of 9 and 10 represent the “Promoters”.

Step 3: Compute the score by only looking at the difference between the Detractors and promoters: %Promoters – %Detractors = %Net Promoters.

NPS

So far so good. That is to say: there is potentially a lot wrong with NPS. A 0 score and a 6  have the same impact on the score, but from the client’s perspective there is probably a large difference. Also 0% detractors and 60% promoters gives the same result as 20% detractors and 80% promoters. So we want more: we want to know what are the reasons behind the score, and we want to be able to act on specific cases if there is reason. It is a one-question-only thing some say. If you do not understand the data you cannot act others argue. It seemed so simple

Now, three decisions need to be taken. Do we ask this question only, or do we ask more to find out what drove the score? Do we ask the questions ourselves, or do we get more honest answers if someone else asks them, and do we ask face-to-face, by phone, or by mail/online?

More discussions. We asked for advice. The specialists gave us options. One question, a few questions, many questions. Open questions, closed questions. Damn.

We asked more advice. some of the reactions were outspoken, almost emotional:

On line surveys are no more effective than written… only difference is the envelope.

The problems with written/on-lines include…

  •  Only outliers are motivated to respond… those who are very happy or very unhappy… so you get skewed results.
  • You don’t know who actually responded (the VP’s emo-punk daughter? An Admin? The dog?
  • The spontaneity (and any associated honesty) is lost.

Why in the world would anyone follow-up by phone to a written survey?

Respondents should NEVER be “followed-up” on unless they specifically request it.

Even if their responses are negative!

No respondent wants to justify their response or discuss it further… unless they ask for it.

The right way to do it is to be sure you ask enough open-ended questions in the survey to get the info you need without follow-up.

When you follow-up (and especially if you quiz them on any response), you bias or destroy their future cooperation.

Phone is best, 3rd party, brief is good.

Okay, we got the message.

So this is what our survey looks like. Two questions, preceded by an e-mail, asked by phone, by someone the client does not have a personal relation with:

1. Based on the work Qhuba did for you, how likely is it that you would recommend Qhuba, on a scale from 0 tot 10?

2. What factor had the most impact on your answer

  • the character and behavior of the resource (like integrity, cooperation)
  • the competences of the resource (knowledge, execution power)
  • the benefits realised versus the cost
  • the cooperation with other people in our firm
  • the relation and connection you have with our network
  • something else

Now I have one last question: How likely do you think it is that the NPS score we log and the answers to these questions will help us create more value for happier clients?


How to build a business – Conversations

January 27, 2013

In the KLM lounge of Atatürk Airport in Istanbul, waiting for my return flight to Amsterdam, I  am going through my notes. The last two days were good: lots of conversations with people in charge of Telecom Operators in both Turkey and Saudi Arabia. This involved multiple diners and lunches, and real exchanges on personal, business, political and cultural subjects. In Europe, a meeting usually lasts exactly one hour, involves one cup of coffee and one topic. For people in sales chances are they want to pitch something, hoping this is a solution to the problem they assume their client has. If so: deal. If not: off you go.

In our business, we believe finding the problem, or the opportunity is more important than solving it. So we want to listen, ask questions and find out what is driving who, and why.

Now I am going back to the first pages of my notebook, and find scribblings I made last summer. I think I turned them into another blog posting already:

In our search for what is cooking in our network and in the world of Strategy Execution we have organized What’s Qooking events: a combination of content and cooking in a workshop format. With small groups of twelve to fifteen people we have listened, cooked, discussed and eaten. To take this one level higher – and because cooking with a group involves quite a few concession in timing and results – we have decided to look for top chefs to do the cooking for us. Where to find the chefs?

Looking for a book called ‘In search of the stars”, about all he sixty-eight three star restaurants in Europe, I went to a bookstore and guess what: the clerk was a foody too. High class cooking, but lately mostly with insects. The new world: as nutritious, and much less of a burden on the environment.  I was not immediately enthusiastic, but he invited me for a workshop anyway. For this, he had chartered a local chef to cook in the bookstore. 

Now this chef had once had a very talented sous-chef, who became a freelance home-cook, and was looking for new clients. Introductions were made.

This is the point: you go somewhere to buy something. A simple transaction. But when you have the time and the curiosity to turn a transaction into interaction you will discover the Power of Conversations.

So, this is how we got to know a very enthousiastic young cook, who now cooks at home every month, for a group of ten to fourteen people, who do not have to participate in peeling the potatoes and cutting the onions, but can spend an evening having conversations. We call them the Third Thursday diners and believe me, everyone is looking forward to What’s Qooking this month.

And something else about questions and conversations: they are not only the key to finding things out, and getting to know people, they are the key to sales as well.

Sales has for a long time been our biggest challenge. Not because we could not sell, but because we did not want to.

In our network, where prospects or clients can be tomorrow’s staff or partners, we prefer interaction over transaction. Actually we want someone we are having a conversation with to clearly indicate that he wants to be a client for a while, instead of us telling him we want to be a supplier.

This posed two problems: our partners, who felt this way, were reluctant to show commercial behavior, and our commercial people, who did not have this reluctance, did not have peer-to-peer conversations.

The conversations of course serve many purposes (relationship, interest and curiosity) as well as finding the issues that keep our clients from sleeping at night, or from implementing their strategies. So finding the problem is not the issue, positioning ourselves to solve the problem is.

Traditionally, the ABC of sales people was: “Always Be Closing”.

Daniel Pink, in his recent book “To sell is human” proposes to replace this with a new ABC: Attunement, Buoyancy, Clarity.

Attunement: Bringing yourself in harmony with individuals, groups and contexts. This takes a bit more humility and curiosity than most people can muster. If you do not connect, and if you do not both inspect (ask questions) and respond (listen to the answers and do something with the information provided) you will not sell.

Buoyancy: Dealing with an ocean of rejection

Clarity: the capacity to make sense of murky situations, as Daniel Pink says. Identifying and framing problems takes two long-standing skills and turns them upside down. First in the past salespeople were adept at accessing information. Today they must be skilled at curating it – sorting through the massive troves of data and presenting to others the most relevant and clarifying pieces. Second, in the past, the best salespeople were skilled at answering questions. Today, they must to be good at asking questions – uncovering possibilities, surfacing latent issues and finding unexpected problems.

Big words. Not sure if they will stick. We are not sure if they cover the whole approach we have to sales either. Our way is CCCCC: Connections, Confidentiality, Conversations, Clarity, Cooperation. We hope they are so obvious  they don’t require a book to explain them.


How to build a business – the American Dream

October 29, 2012

The American Dream: it does not exist.

From rags to riches on the basis of an excess of ambition and talent is a nice story, but in practice there is more to it. Malcolm Gladwell, who previously wrote books like The Tipping Point and Blink published an entertaining book about why some people are much more likely to succeed than others. Outliers.

The summary: origins, environment, and coincidence are just as important as intelligence, talent, ambition and perseverance. It would like to add (Gladwell does not): the ability to recognize opportunities and to grab them with both hands. I have written a blog about this ability – Effectuation – earlier.

Therefore, contrary to the stories that usually circulate about highly successful people – a story that focuses on intelligence and ambition, Outliers argues that if we want to understand how some people succeed, we must study in detail things like their background, their generation, their family, their place of birth, and even their birth date. These usually drive the coincidences that make them who they are. There is also such a thing as “making enough hours”. This is the “10,000 hours theory”, developed and popularized by Dr. Anders Ericsson, who basically found out that spending massive amounts of practice hours on a specific subject will lead to expert mastery in that field, more than talent will. Or the other way around: virtually no one who did not spent ten thousand hours of something, became really good at it. Whether a person has the opportunity to make those hours depends on… coincidences and perseverance.

The story of success is much more complex and interesting than it appears to be at first.

The logic that Gladwell uses to explain the success of the Beatles, Bill Gates, Asians in Mathematics, Jewish takeover lawyers and others is peculiar and interesting. It is all about coincidences. For Gates: the availability of sufficient computer time at exactly the right time, for the lawyers: they were all born from garment makers around 1930, they do not have to fight in the war, were not eligible for the WASP Wall Street firms, and had, around 1970, sufficient experience with acquisitions, which until then were not fancy. Before 1970 Yankee law firms refused to do this inferior work, which after the ‘70s was considered to most prestigious legal work.

So it boils down to: talent, ambition, and ten thousand hours of experience. Character and competence. We should start asking our candidates whether they have ten thousand flying hours. For those who join us as Professional (sometimes call the “professor” role) this will not be a problem. For entrepreneurs (the pilots in the plain), the headhunters, the networkers and sales-people that might be a challenge.

 

Thousands of hours experience with a specific task, seems contradictory to what Ricardo Semler propagates in his book The Seven Day Weekend.

The title is misleading. Weekend does not mean doing nothing but: do things that you like and make you happy. Semler, then CEO of Semco, a company with roots in Sao Paolo,  introduced a style of leadership that took liberalism and democracy as a starting point. Why do most people in most countries agree that democracy is the best way of governing, but why are most businesses organized along dictatorial line? Companies and the Roman army have many similarities. Companies and kindergartens have many similarities. What are the similarities between armies and kindergartens? 1. Decisions are made for you. 2. Personal initiative is not really appreciated and 3. Hardly anyone really enjoys it.

Semler turns it around: If employees care first and foremost about their self-interest, if Management refuses to impose (or even take) decisions, if there is a culture of transparency and trust, intrinsic motivation and peer pressure will do the rest. This involves making employees responsible for a lot more than putting in the hours.

It has taken decades to turn his business around to a democratic, innovative and successful enterprise, where employees determine their own working hours, their own salary, their location and decide who will be their bosses and their colleagues.

How nice is that: A company where people may attend the meetings they want to attend and all business information is available for everyone.

Employees are no longer just a means of production, but adult people with talents and ambitions who are asking, as many times as possible, the question “why?”.

It would be quite something if this could work, and I am convinced that it can work. I am not so sure if we have the patience and time to make all the mistakes, and to accept everyone making all the mistakes that are part and parcel to such a process.

 

But then, why not? If we are able to select and interest only the most talented people, with the highest integrity, and if we can all be fully transparent about our intentions, we will get there. First we will be looking for people with 10,000 hours on the clock.


How to build a business – Ten Questions

October 16, 2012

We have been in business for several years, we have more than sixty world-class people working with us, worked for eighty-eight world-class clients, held one hundred and fifty-three management meetings and published numerous internal and external documents. At some point it seemed to make sense to bring it all back to ten basic questions. The answer to those questions should describe all the major aspects of our business. Answers that all of our people should be able to give, when the questions are asked.

 

Here are the questions:

1. Where do we come from?

2. Why do we exist?

3. What do we look for in our resources ?

4. How do we behave?

5. What do we do?

6. How will we succeed?

7. What is the one most important thing right now?

8. Who must do what?

9. How are we organized?

10. How we make decisions and deliver on them?

 

And here are the answers

 

1. Where do we come from?

Qhuba, founded in 2007, is a fast-growing network organisation with more than sixty Partners, Staff and Associates (‘Qhubans’). Qhuba means drive, the drive to work together, to learn, to grow and to succeed.

 

2. Why do we exist?

We exist because we believe running companies can be fun and strategies can be implemented successfully when people of character and competence work together.

Qhuba believes that strategies are best executed by a multi-disciplinary leadership team that takes collective responsibility.

 

 

3. What do we look for in Qhubans ?

Regardless of whether they are Clients, Candidates, Network Partners, Prospects, Associates, Staff, Associate Partners, Partners, Managing Partners, Equity Partners, Practice Directors, Shareholders, or Friends, we expect:

  • Character (Integrity and Intentions)
  • Competencies (Hard and soft skills)
  • Network
  • Track record
  • A drive for Autonomy, Mastery, Contribution and working with Peers.

 

4. How do we behave?

We are Independent, Reliable, Uncompromising, Connected

 

5. What do we do?

When organizations look for support in the successful execution of their strategies, we provide (introductions to) people with the right character and competence. We can do this based on Client Value Pricing, on temporary assignments, on the client’s payroll, for a success fee or without a fee.

 

6. How will we succeed?

Together Qhubans use conversations to build a network of world-class professionals to make clients successful by providing capable people and by arranging introductions, opportunities and exposure, meanwhile building a highly recognised organisation as a platform for professional and personal growth.

 

7. What is most important right now?

Increasing Reputation in our network

  • Increase NPS with clients by delivering results
  • Increase credibility with prospective clients through content-marketing, sales and references
  • Increase Trust within Qhubans through growth and success
  • Increase Reputation with candidates through marketing

 

 

8. Who must do what?

Strategy, Structure and Reputation:   Wouter Hasekamp

Network:                                              Tjibbe van der Zeeuw (Liesbeth Hans)

Knowledge and Research                   Liesbeth Hans

Publications:                                      Hotze Zijlstra

Marketing:                                           Wouter Hasekamp, Rachelle Nall

Enablement and Support:                  Dennis van Alphen (Tom Kisters, RikJan Kruithof)

Portfolio:                                             Partners and Practice Directors (Peter Rappange, Mohammed Chaaibi, Gerard Kok, Evert-Jan Tazelaar)

Sales:                                                 Mario School (Susanne van Kleef, Gerard Kok, Evert-Jan Tazelaar)

Delivery:                                             Tjibbe van der Zeeuw (Beatrice Friebel)

 

 

 

9. How are we organized?

Qhuba is organised in Practices that address specific areas of expertise, without losing sight of the collective goal: strategy implementation across disciplines. Practices in the portfolio of Qhuba are:

  • Interim Management
  • Recruitment & Executive Search
  • Programme and Portfolio Management
  • Lean and Transformation
  • Finance and Benefits Management
  • Sourcing Support
  • Lean IT
  • Cloud Consulting
  • The Qloud Company

 

 

10. How we make decisions and deliver on them?

We believe in Collective Leadership: given our values and despite different intentions and goals we want to be able to operate as a tribe of peers, each contributing as a person and as a professional, without giving up our autonomy. Starting points for this ‘Tribal Democracy’ are:

  • Freedom of Thought
  • Freedom of Speech
  • Freedom of Choice
  • Freedom of Dissent
  • Radical Transparency

 

 

Conditions for participation in decision-making are:

  • Trust, which consists of Character (Integrity & Intentions) and Competence (Capabilities & Results)
  • Transparency of Information and Opinion. Silence equals disagreement. This is our first rule of engagement.
  • Commitment, both active commitment and formal commitment. This is the second rule of engagement
  • Accountability; there is zero-tolerance for lack of Trust, lack of Integrity, lack of Transparency, lack of Commitment, but also for Passivity, broken promises, non-performance
  • A shared definition of success made measurable and a focus on results. One team, one goal.

 

Success is measured by:

  • Client Benefits Realized and Nett Promoter Score
  • Staff retention en recruitment
  • Revenue – Margin – Profit