Option 1

Do nothing except engage in “fire fighting” crises from time to time to cure symptoms rather tha causes ! This condems an organisation, its corporate personnel and its customers at best, to mediocratity of performance and results or, at worst, failure. Seeking a merger by an (acquired) organisation is failure, by any name, as it usually involves a relatively weak or poorly performing organisation recognising its inabilities, conceding that it cannot succeed on its own and that it needs the shelter and support of a stronger organisation, irrespective of how such a realisation and decion is dressed up for external consumption. This is not a good option as it can incur excessive costs in an era where costs have to be reduced.

Option 2

Expend significant amounts of finance employing “traditional” consultants on a fragmented basis to provide “out of date”, one dimensional solutions that do not move the organisation forward appreciably.This approach is also likely to involve inhouse “fire fighting” caused by the gaps left by the “traditional” consultants and the fragmented approach. Potentially this can be an even less effective option as it can incur not just excessive but also unnecessary costs due to incorrect or out of date advice in an era where costs have to be reduced.

Option 3

Execute development and progress solely inhouse (the likely option under current conditions). However this too may not again move the organisation significantly forward and can even be counterproductive. The reason is self evident. Directors and Managers are heavily distracted from their operational roles and demands. Critically this approach can distract them by their have to waste time, effort and funds on seeking out and learning the latest techniques and methodologies in areas under development. To recap, this option is equally likely to result in “firefighting” crises. Why ? Because senior management are distracted from their operational priorities in the “quest for the best” methods of achieving the desired objectives. Whilst initially appearing to save costs, the reality is that significant cost escalation can arise at some point in the short to medium term due to the right resources not being directed to the right issues at the right time with the right, modern solutions. To also reiterate, current operations may not receive the management attention that is acutely needed and that the environment demands at a time of major national, regional and local transition.  

PROSPA Option

Use PROSPA’s services. Besides providing modern, effective solutions, the PROSPA service model has the twin goals of minimising advisory / consulting costs as well as knowledge transfer of the latest methodologies to clients. Work is led by PROSPA personnel  in partnership with management and staff of the client to provide cross-functional solutions rather than the fragmented approaches and one dimensional solutions of the past. The PROSPA approach addresses corporate Structure, Processes and Culture in a particular coordinated and integrated cross-functional sequence, that is tailor made to each individual client’s requirements. The approach is based on the combined decades of experience, skills and knowledge of PROSPA’s various specialists and leading sector experts. PROSPA has personnel in virtually every discipline that is employed by the sector. Such PROSPA personnel are dedicated to providing PROSPA’s clients with the latest techniques and methodologies followed by working closely with the client through to practical completion, sign-off and post assignment follow-up at a time to be agreed with each client.

For further details or a no obligation, no fee discussion contact Ron Mendes:

Mobile: 07970 784482

Email: ron@prospa.org.uk