Consulting

The most expensive mistake in business isn't financial - it's cultural. Here's the data... Last month, I watched a "successful" company implode. - Revenue was up 40% - Profits were soaring - Growth was explosive But something was rotting from within. The numbers told one story. The empty desks told another. Get Real-time Interview Assistance Here- https://bit.ly/4h3iGd7 Create Free Cover letter Here- https://bit.ly/406H1rK Get Jobs & Internship Updates Join Below:- . WhatsApp👉 https://lnkd.in/ghPTzV6m . Telegram👉 https://lnkd.in/ePxtYkFH . Here's what the research reveals about culture's true cost: 1. The Hidden Multiplier: • Companies with strong cultures see 72% higher employee engagement • Engaged teams are 21% more profitable • Positive workplace cultures boost productivity by 30% 2. The Expensive Exodus: • Poor culture doubles employee turnover • Each lost employee costs 1.5-2x their salary • High performers flee toxic cultures first But here's what fascinated me most: Louis Gerstner (Former IBM CEO) said it perfectly: "Culture isn't just one aspect of the game - it is the game" The science backs him up: 3 Critical Culture Metrics: • Employee engagement • Customer satisfaction • Cash flow When one falls, the others follow. I learned this lesson the hard way: Skills? Outstanding. Results? Exceptional. Culture? Toxic. Within 6 months: - 4 top performers quit - Client satisfaction plummeted - Innovation stopped Then everything changed. We rebuilt around 3 culture principles: 1. Trust Over Control (Give people autonomy to make decisions) 2. Growth Over Performance (Invest in development, not just results) 3. Purpose Over Profit (Connect work to meaningful impact) The results? • Employee turnover dropped 50% • Productivity jumped 40% • Innovation flourished The Oxford research is clear: A positive culture doesn't just feel better. It performs better. Your culture is your company's immune system. Strong? It fights off problems. Weak? Everything becomes a crisis. Is your culture multiplying your success? Or dividing your potential? The answer might be worth millions. What's one thing you're doing to build a stronger culture?

Modern IIoT systems demand a balance of safety, security, reliability, resilience, and privacy. This isn't just a tech challenge; it's a cultural one, bridging IT's obsession with privacy and OT's focus on safety. The 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐈𝐨𝐓 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐮𝐦’𝐬 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 (𝐈𝐈𝐒𝐅), first released in 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟔, is now on 𝐕𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝟐.𝟎, with its latest update in 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟑. Over the years, it has evolved into a robust guide for securing IIoT systems, addressing the unique challenges of integrating IT and OT. The IISF is designed to help manufacturers build trustworthiness across systems by aligning safety, security, reliability, resilience, and privacy in a single framework. The 𝐈𝐨𝐓 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥 (𝐒𝐌𝐌), first released in 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟖, is a structured framework that builds on the IISF’s principles by helping organizations assess and improve their security practices. 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐝𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐯𝐞? • Securing legacy (brownfield) environments alongside modern, cloud-integrated systems. • Bridging the gap between IT (focused on data security) and OT (focused on operational safety). • Equipping manufacturers with tools to assess risks, address gaps, and build actionable security roadmaps. 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐓𝐨𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 • 𝐈𝐈𝐒𝐅 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 "𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭" 𝐚𝐧𝐝 "𝐖𝐡𝐲": It explains what security goals organizations should aim for and why they matter in an IIoT context. • 𝐒𝐌𝐌 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 "𝐇𝐨𝐰": It helps organizations evaluate their current security maturity, define targets based on IISF principles, and create actionable roadmaps to achieve those targets. 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐔𝐬𝐞 𝐁𝐨𝐭𝐡? Together, the IISF and SMM offer a top-down and bottom-up approach: • Start with the IISF to understand the overarching security needs for your IIoT systems. • Use the SMM to assess where you stand and implement practical improvements to achieve those needs. 𝐃𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐥𝐨𝐚𝐝 𝐈𝐈𝐒𝐅:  https://lnkd.in/eypinq3G 𝐃𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐥𝐨𝐚𝐝 𝐒𝐒𝐌: https://lnkd.in/e398Y9TU ******************************************* • Visit www.jeffwinterinsights.com for access to all my content and to stay current on Industry 4.0 and other cool tech trends • Ring the 🔔 for notifications!

To effectively help their clients, strategy and implementation consultants need to leverage four drivers at the same time: Content, Process, Mindset and Behavior. Master these skills and you will be amongst the best in the world. The classical strategy consultant focuses primarily on the content-aspect of consulting. They do extensive analysis and based on that analysis, they give advice. While this model has been a great source of revenues, it is not enough for real change and effective strategy implementation. To truly achieve organizational change, a strategy and implementation consultant needs to address key drivers. We can organize them along two dimensions: explicit vs. tacit and cognition vs. action. The explicit part of consulting is what we see. It concerns the mechanics of strategy and the steps it takes to develop and implement it. The tacit part is what is under the surface; what happens in people’s mind and what is needed to change their day-to-day behavior. The cognitive part of consulting concerns the mental aspect; what happens in our minds and how we think. The action part concerns what we do; the processes and behaviors required. Based on these two dimensions, these are the four drivers of strategy and implementation consulting: CONTENT The strategy itself, as well as the roadmap and action plans that follow from it. This driver focuses on what the organization should look like in the future (point B), where it stands now (point A) and how to bridge the gap between A and B. PROCESS The steps, actions and tools used to develop and implement strategy. To define points A and B and the actions to bridge the gap between them, you take certain steps and actions and use certain tools to execute them. MINDSET What happens in people’s minds; their values and beliefs; at the top and across the organization. Without the right mindset or shift therein, strategy and implementation will remain unsuccessful. BEHAVIOR In the end, it is people’s behaviors, habits and routines that need to change. Not addressing these will not bring the success you want. Therefore, also behavioral change requires dedicated attention. Unfortunately, there are not many places where you can develop all four skills. It is for this very reason that Timothy Tiryaki and I have developed the Certified Strategy & Implementation Consultant (CSIC) program. It is carefully designed around the four drivers so that you develop all the skills required to be an effective consultant. Our next cohort starts on February 7th and there are still a few spots left. If you have at least 10 years of experience, 5 of which in a facilitating, coaching or managing role, and aspire to enhance your strategy and implementation skills, this program may be for you. Visit our website strategy.inc for all information and registration. Are you ready to develop the skills to master all four drivers? #strategicleadership #changemanagement #growthmindset

🚫 How to Run UX Research Without Access To Users. With practical techniques to avoid guesswork and gather insights if you can’t talk directly to users. Attached cheatsheet (with and without access to users) by Nielsen Norman Group. 🚫 Ask for reasons for no access to users: there might be none. ✅ First, study job openings to map existing workflows/tasks. ✅ Make friends with sales, customer success, support, QA. ✅ Find colleagues who are the closest to your customers. ✅ Convey your questions indirectly via your colleagues. ✅ If you can’t get users to come to you, go where they are. ✅ Ask to observe or shadow customers at their workplace. ✅ Listen in to customer calls and interview call centre staff. ✅ Request access to analytics, CRM reports, call centre logs. ✅ Use Google Trends to find product-related search queries. ✅ Gather insights from search logs, Jira backlog, support tickets. ✅ Explore past/ongoing NPS and Voice-of-Customer programs. ✅ Study reviews, discussions, comments for your product/competitors. ✅ Map key themes and user sentiment on TrustPilot, AppStore etc. ✅ Recruit users via UserTesting, Wynter (B2B), Maze, UserInterviews. ✅ Ask for small but steady commitments: 5 users × 30 mins, 1× month. 🚫 Avoid ad-hoc research: set up regular check-ins and timelines. As H Locke noted, if we shed the light strongly enough from many sources, we might end up getting a glimpse of the truth. Ironically, the stakeholders who can’t give you time or resources to talk to users often are the first to demand evidence to support your initiatives. Sometimes the reason why companies are reluctant to grant access to users is simply the lack of trust. They don’t want to disturb relationships with big clients which is carefully maintained by the customer success team. They might feel that research is merely a technical detail that clients shouldn’t be bothered with. Show that you deeply care about that relationship and that you don’t want to disturb it any way. What you do want though is to reduce costs and risk — the risk of drawing wide-reaching conclusions from very little research, or none at all. Your best shot is to explain research as a powerful risk mitigation tool. And: search for people whose priorities align with yours — people who value and see the impact of UX in their units. They would absolutely love to support your work because it also supports their work — and they will put up a good word for you if they only had known that you existed. ✤ Useful resources: UX Research Cheat Sheet, by Susan Farrell from NN/g (attached) https://lnkd.in/eUTHKWvF What Can You Do When You Have No Access To Users?, by H Locke https://lnkd.in/ewHEKhBS UX Research When You Can’t Talk To Users, by Chris Myhill https://lnkd.in/ez5-b6zf #ux #research

Consulting sells AI, but bills like 1990. Reality caught up to the narrative. Booz Allen's latest results beat expectations: → Revenue: up 12.4% to $12 billion → Adjusted EPS: up 15.5% to $6.35 → GenAI revenue: nearly $800 million, up 30% → Record backlog: $37 billion, book-to-bill of 1.39 Yet the stock crashed 20% in the last 10 days, erasing $3.5 billion in market value. Why? Because beneath strong headline numbers, Goldman Sachs' May 28 downgrade exposed a critical vulnerability: Despite claiming to be an "advanced tech company" with $800M in AI revenue, Booz Allen still derives 98% of its business as a government contractor billing by the hour. The company recently announced 2,500 job cuts (7% of their workforce) due to the Trump administration’s crackdown on federal contracting. I dug into their yearly report to learn more. How Booz Allen Actually Makes Money: The Revenue Reality: → 98% from U.S. government ($10.5B of $10.7B total) → Defense (47%), Civil (34%), Intelligence (17%) → Only 2% commercial revenue 79% of revenue ($8.4B) comes from billing hours: → 55% cost-reimbursable contracts → 24% time-and-materials → Only 21% fixed-price CFO Matt Calderone confirmed their historical growth formula on their earning call: "headcount growth plus 3%". Despite AI claims and the CEO pushing outcome-based contracts for years, only 21% of revenue is fixed-price. Government procurement keeps them billing hours. The Labor Reality: → 36,000 employees driving revenue → 2,500 layoffs (7%) announced after DOGE reviews → Revenue explicitly tied to headcount → When contracts shrink, people get fired The math doesn't lie. You can't justify tech multiples when: → Your entire business depends on one entity → Growth requires hiring more people → Government owns rights to most developed IP  → Margins collapse when contracts face pressure Every firm claiming AI transformation faces this reality: → They pitch cutting-edge technology → They showcase AI capabilities → They demand premium valuations → But their economics remain tied to billable hours When CEO Rozanski said they're "restructuring to match anticipated demand," he revealed the core problem: Revenue directly tracks headcount. Tech companies scale through IP. Traditional consulting scales through hiring - and shrinks through firing. The 20% crash wasn’t about a single quarter. It was Wall Street repricing Booz Allen’s reality - a government contractor at the mercy of federal budgets, not a tech innovator building scalable IP. First, the narrative cracks. Then, the analysts notice. Finally, the market reprices. Booz Allen completed the cycle in 10 days. For consulting firms still betting their "AI story" covers their hourly reality: You're not different. You're just next.

Stuck in an endless loop of client changes? Lost track of what revision this constitutes? Yeah. Been there. Done that. The secret? It's not about saying no. It's about saying yes to the right things upfront. Every project that goes sideways starts the same way: Vague agreements. Fuzzy boundaries. Good intentions. Six weeks later you're bleeding money and everyone's frustrated. Here's my framework after 30 years of running two 8-figure businesses: The SOW is your salvation. Not some boilerplate template. A real document that covers: • Exact deliverables (not "design work" but "3 homepage concepts, 2 rounds of revisions") • Hours of operation ("We respond M-F, 9-5 PST. Weekend requests get Monday responses") • Revision rounds spelled out ("Round 1 includes up to 5 changes. Round 2 includes 3.") • Feedback cycles defined ("48-hour turnaround for client feedback or the project may be delayed or additional fees may be incurred") But here's what most people miss— Don't work on client notes immediately. Client sends 37 pieces of feedback at 11pm Friday? Producer sends conflicting notes from the CEO? Marketing wants one thing, sales wants another? Stop. Collect everything first. Resolve the conflicts. Get on the phone and discuss it with your client to get alignment. Separate the "have to haves" from the "nice to haves". Then present unified changes. "Based on all feedback received, here are the 8 changes we'll implement. This constitutes revision round 2 of 3." Watch how fast the random requests stop. No extra work that goes unappreciated. No more feelings of being taken advantage of. Communicate before the crisis, prevents the crisis from happening. "Just so you know, we're entering round 2. You have one more included. After that, it's $X per additional round." No surprises. No awkward money conversations. No resentment. Scope creep isn't a them problem. It's a you problem. And that's good news, because that means you are in control. They're not trying to take advantage. They just don't know where the boundaries are because you never drew them. Draw the lines early. Communicate them clearly. Everyone wins. What's your most painful scope creep story? What boundary would've prevented it? Small Business Builders #projectmanagement #clientmanagement #businessgrowth

70% of change initiatives fail. (And it's rarely because the idea was bad.) Here's what actually kills transformation: You picked the wrong change model for the job. It's like performing surgery with a hammer. Sure, you're using a tool. But it's the wrong one. I've watched brilliant CEOs tank their companies this way: Using individual coaching (ADKAR) for company-wide transformation. Result: 200 people change. 2,000 don't. Running a massive 8-step program for a simple process fix. Result: 6 months wasted. Team exhausted. Nothing changes. Forcing top-down mandates when they needed subtle nudges. Result: Rebellion. Resentment. Resignation letters. Here's what nobody tells you about change: The size of your change determines your approach. Real examples from the field: 💡 Startup pivoting product: → Used Lewin's 3-stage (unfreeze old way, change, refreeze) → 3 months. Clean transition. Team aligned. 💡 Enterprise going digital: → Used Kotter's 8-step process → Created urgency first. Built coalition. Enabled action. → 18 months later: $50M in new revenue. 💡 Sales team adopting new CRM: → Used Nudge Theory → Made old system harder to access → Put new system as browser homepage → 95% adoption in 2 weeks. Zero complaints. The expensive truth: Wrong model = wasted months + burned budgets + broken trust Right model = faster adoption + sustained results + energized teams Warning signs you're using the wrong model: • High activity, low progress • People comply but don't commit • Changes revert within weeks • Energy drops as you push harder • "This too shall pass" becomes the motto Match your medicine to your ailment: Small behavior change? Nudge it. Individual performance? ADKAR it. Cultural shift? Influence it. Full transformation? Kotter it. Enterprise overhaul? BCG it. Stop treating every change like a nail. Start choosing the right tool for the job. Your next change initiative depends on it. Your team's trust demands it. Your company's future requires it. Save this. Share it with your leadership team. Because the next time someone says "people resist change," you'll know the truth: People don't resist change. They resist the wrong approach to change. P.S. Want a PDF of my Change Management cheat sheet? Get it free: https://lnkd.in/dv7biXUs ♻️ Repost to help a leader in your network. Follow Eric Partaker for more operational insights. — 📢 Want to lead like a world-class CEO? Join my FREE TRAINING: "The 8 Qualities That Separate World-Class CEOs From Everyone Else" Thu Jul 3rd, 12 noon Eastern / 5pm UK time https://lnkd.in/dy-6w_rx 📌 The CEO Accelerator starts July 23rd. 20+ Founders & CEOs have already enrolled. Learn more and apply: https://lnkd.in/dwndXMAk

New VC fund managers do not know that these things they are doing are completely ILLEGAL… ❌ There are very strict rules around fundraising. Yet many new GPs copy what they see others doing — even when it’s illegal. The risk? Trouble today, or 5–10 years down the line when regulators or LPs look closer. Sophisticated LPs know the legal lines — and crossing them exposes both liability and inexperience. Here are the 3 most common fundraising violations (and how to avoid them): 1️⃣ PERFORMANCE-BASED FUNDRAISING COMPENSATION 👩🏾⚖️ Many “Vendors” often say: - “I’ll be a venture partner — give me carry for LPs I bring.” - “We’ll raise for you — just pay a % of capital committed.” 🚫 Illegal without a broker-dealer license ($50K–$150K+ + ongoing compliance). Even employee bonuses tied to fundraising can trigger violations. ✅ Legal way: Pay fixed fees or salaries unrelated to fundraising. Compensate with cash, equity or carry — but not tied to capital raised. 👉 Reality check: As a new manager, it’s extremely unlikely that anyone else can fundraise for you without a track record. You’ll almost always need to do the hard work yourself. 2️⃣ GENERAL SOLICITATION 👨🏻⚖️ New managers assume LPs will roll in if they “go public.” Tactics include: • LinkedIn posts about fundraising • Cold DMs to people • Podcasts/webinars about your fund • “Contact us to invest” buttons on websites 🚫 All illegal — unless you’ve structured under narrow exemptions. Even cold outreach counts as solicitation. ✅ Legal way: You can only pitch people you have pre-existing relationships with who are accredited investors. Network authentically, vuild relationships, then pitch one-on-one. 👉 Reality check: Public fundraising isn’t just illegal — it looks cheap. LPs won’t trust someone blasting cold posts with no track record. VC is trust-based. Public asks scream inexperience. 3️⃣ RAISING FROM EU LPS WITHOUT COMPLIANCE 🧑🏿⚖️ Many assume: • “If a European LP wants in, I can accept the money.” • “Everyone else does it — must be fine.” 🚫 Wrong. The EU regulates under AIFMD (Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive) and MiFID II (Markets in Financial Instruments Directive). Even one EU LP can trigger filings. Regulators act quickly. ✅ Legal way: Work with EU securities counsel. File required notifications in each jurisdiction before accepting European LPs. 👉 Reality check: European LPs expect compliance. Skip it, and you lose credibility. Worse — a violation can come back years later and jeopardize your fund. Breaking the rules — even by accident — is the fastest way to undermine your credibility. And “everyone else does it” is not a defense. The managers who win are the ones who know the rules, build real relationships, and raise the right way. ⚖️ Know the rules. Follow them. Your fund' future depends on it.

The 10Rs in a Circular Economy 🌎 A circular economy isn’t just about recycling—it’s about rethinking how we design, use, and repurpose resources to keep materials in circulation for as long as possible. The 10R framework provides a structured approach to reducing waste and maximizing value at every stage of a product’s lifecycle. At the top of the hierarchy, Refuse (R1) and Rethink (R2) challenge the need for resource use in the first place. By eliminating unnecessary materials and shifting to smarter business models like product-as-a-service, companies can significantly reduce their environmental footprint. Reduce (R3) further minimizes raw material consumption, promoting efficiency in design and production. Keeping products in use for longer is key. Reuse (R4), Repair (R5), Refurbish (R6), and Remanufacture (R7) all extend the lifespan of goods, ensuring they remain functional and valuable rather than being discarded. Whether through resale platforms, repair programs, or remanufactured components, these strategies reduce demand for virgin resources and lower emissions. When direct reuse isn’t possible, Repurpose (R8) and Recycle (R9) come into play. Repurposing allows materials to find a second life in new applications, like repurposing EV batteries for energy storage. Recycling, while essential, is a lower-value strategy, as it requires energy and can degrade material quality. That’s why it should always come after higher-value pathways have been explored. Finally, Recover (R10) ensures that unavoidable waste is converted into useful by-products, such as biogas from organic waste. The further upstream we apply the 10Rs, the greater the impact—reducing waste, conserving resources, and creating a more sustainable economy. Source: Ellen MacArthur Foundation #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #climatechange #circular #circulareconomy

BREAKING! The FDA just released this draft guidance, titled Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Device Software Functions: Lifecycle Management and Marketing Submission Recommendations, that aims to provide industry and FDA staff with a Total Product Life Cycle (TPLC) approach for developing, validating, and maintaining AI-enabled medical devices. The guidance is important even in its draft stage in providing more detailed, AI-specific instructions on what regulators expect in marketing submissions; and how developers can control AI bias. What’s new in it? 1) It requests clear explanations of how and why AI is used within the device. 2) It requires sponsors to provide adequate instructions, warnings, and limitations so that users understand the model’s outputs and scope (e.g., whether further tests or clinical judgment are needed). 3) Encourages sponsors to follow standard risk-management procedures; and stresses that misunderstanding or incorrect interpretation of the AI’s output is a major risk factor. 4) Recommends analyzing performance across subgroups to detect potential AI bias (e.g., different performance in underrepresented demographics). 5) Recommends robust testing (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC, PPV/NPV) on datasets that match the intended clinical conditions. 6) Recognizes that AI performance may drift (e.g., as clinical practice changes), therefore sponsors are advised to maintain ongoing monitoring, identify performance deterioration, and enact timely mitigations. 7) Discusses AI-specific security threats (e.g., data poisoning, model inversion/stealing, adversarial inputs) and encourages sponsors to adopt threat modeling and testing (fuzz testing, penetration testing). 8) And proposed for public-facing FDA summaries (e.g., 510(k) Summaries, De Novo decision summaries) to foster user trust and better understanding of the model’s capabilities and limits.