121 lines
No EOL
5.4 KiB
Markdown
121 lines
No EOL
5.4 KiB
Markdown
1. What does the steering committee actually need?
|
|
Explicit needs:
|
|
• Clear next steps and feeling of moving in the right direction (Head BU)
|
|
• Clarity on procurement's role and extent of support expected (Procurement)
|
|
• Concrete deliverables for the upcoming period (IT)
|
|
• Full understanding of current status and clarity on next steps (Person Head)
|
|
Underlying needs they truly require:
|
|
• Simplicity over complexity - Person Head's visceral reaction to the cause-effect diagram ("it drives me crazy") reveals deep frustration with overcomplicated approaches
|
|
• Internal ownership - Procurement's blunt statement about developing strategy in-house shows fear of consultant-driven solutions
|
|
• Quick tangible wins - Person Head explicitly wants to identify where DSH can "generate the first real tangible benefits"
|
|
• Alignment without lengthy processes - Multiple stakeholders emphasize existing knowledge but lack of execution
|
|
|
|
2. What are they missing now?
|
|
Critical gaps identified:
|
|
• Process automation and self-service capabilities - explicitly called out as lagging
|
|
• Alignment between BU and IT - described as "disconnect" or "misalignment"
|
|
• Process management maturity - Person Head notes "immaturity on case management"
|
|
• Strategic use of existing IT capabilities - "outstandingly good functionalities... but we're not using them strategically"
|
|
• Integration of procurement in innovation - tension around underutilizing integrated utility advantages
|
|
• Clear ownership model - Person Head asks "what is my role here?"
|
|
|
|
3. What context is needed for Phase 1 proposition?
|
|
Key contextual elements:
|
|
• Organization operates on thin margins, requiring high efficiency (Person Head's emphasis)
|
|
• One shared IT platform across countries - major competitive advantage not fully leveraged
|
|
• Strong push for 5 concrete topics: sourcing strategy, supplier strategy, AI, integrated utility, automation
|
|
• AI should be a component, not the umbrella - Person Head explicitly rejects AI as overarching theme
|
|
• Need for harmonized hardware portfolio with limited international suppliers
|
|
• Balance between pioneering spirit (past) and corporate structure (present)
|
|
|
|
4. What approach should we continue with?
|
|
Recommended approach:
|
|
1. Abandon complex methodologies - The cause-effect diagram approach clearly failed
|
|
2. Simple three-step process:
|
|
o Define 5-year desired state in simple words
|
|
o Identify path from current to desired state
|
|
o Agree on concrete milestones
|
|
3. Focus on facilitation, not direction - Enable internal teams to develop strategy
|
|
4. Start with pilot use cases - Demonstrate value through quick wins
|
|
5. Weekly alignment sessions rather than extensive analysis phases
|
|
|
|
5. How do we identify deliverables at the right level?
|
|
Framework for right-level deliverables:
|
|
• Not too high: Avoid "TED talk" level abstractions about AI transformation
|
|
• Not too low: Don't dive into technical specifications immediately
|
|
• Sweet spot: Process-level improvements with clear business impact
|
|
o Example: "AI agent automating specific process X with human check cycle"
|
|
o Example: "Procurement harmonization saving €X through Y suppliers"
|
|
• Test: Can Person Head explain it to his team in 2 minutes and show value?
|
|
• Milestone-based: Each deliverable should show progress within 3-4 weeks
|
|
|
|
6. How should we shape the next offering?
|
|
Phase 1 offering structure:
|
|
Week 1-2: Alignment Sprint
|
|
• Workshop with all stakeholders to define 5-year vision (max 2 pages)
|
|
• Identify 5 priority areas with owners
|
|
• Create simple one-page roadmap
|
|
Week 3-6: Quick Win Identification
|
|
• 2-3 concrete AI/automation use cases
|
|
• 1 procurement harmonization opportunity
|
|
• 1 integrated utility leverage point
|
|
• Each with clear business case and 90-day implementation plan
|
|
Week 7-8: Capability Building Plan
|
|
• How to build AI capabilities internally
|
|
• Process management improvement approach
|
|
• Alignment mechanisms between BU/IT/Procurement
|
|
Deliverables format:
|
|
• No complex diagrams - Simple lists and tables
|
|
• Executive summaries - 1-page max per topic
|
|
• Action-oriented - Every document ends with "who does what by when"
|
|
• Co-created - Stakeholders involved in creation, not just validation
|
|
Critical success factors:
|
|
• Person Head and Head BU must see themselves as co-authors, not recipients
|
|
• Procurement must feel their expertise is driving sourcing strategy
|
|
• IT must own the technical roadmap
|
|
• Consultants act as facilitators and capability builders, not strategy definers
|
|
|
|
|
|
7. Seven Major Topics to Focus On
|
|
Based on stakeholder input, consolidate around these priorities:
|
|
|
|
Process Automation & Self-Service
|
|
|
|
Current gap: Manual processes, poor user experience
|
|
Quick win: 2-3 specific process automations within 90 days
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strategic Sourcing Harmonization
|
|
|
|
Leverage international scale for hardware procurement
|
|
Define supplier strategy (sophisticated platforms vs. commodity)
|
|
|
|
|
|
AI Integration (Targeted)
|
|
|
|
Not as umbrella, but specific use cases
|
|
Focus: Process efficiency, not transformation theater
|
|
|
|
|
|
Integrated Utility Leverage
|
|
|
|
Underutilized competitive advantage
|
|
Cross-selling and customer loyalty opportunities
|
|
|
|
|
|
BU-IT Alignment
|
|
|
|
Address "disconnect" explicitly mentioned
|
|
Create structured collaboration mechanisms
|
|
|
|
|
|
Process Management Maturity
|
|
|
|
Pair process managers with developers
|
|
Build case management capabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utilization of Existing IT Capabilities
|
|
|
|
"Outstandingly good functionalities" not strategically deployed
|
|
Quick win: Activate underused features |