In addition to the required expertise, the right and effective structure is important for the success of a company. This can equally mean that almost any additional structure is a hindrance, but also that it is essential that certain processes  are strictly adhered to in order to ensure the success of the.

In our experience, it is crucial to find the right compromise for the combination of the market to be served, the own products and the customers. The greatest difficulties arise when a company sells ostensibly similar products into completely different markets, or when a company wants to expand into the next larger or next smaller market segment with an existing successful product.

If the process or structure is too complex, it will rarely be economically competitive and will probably not be flexible enough to respond to customer requirements. If the process or structure is not sufficient, the company is at great risk of running into recourse claims.

An example of this is the different customer requirements for a smaller industrial turbine for power generation, which is to be supplied to a medium-sized industrial customer and to the oil and gas industry. The turbine and its auxiliary units, i.e. the actual product, may be 100% identical and have been designed by the same engineers, but the project effort required for successful project completion is nevertheless orders of magnitude higher for delivery to the oil and gas customer.

If the “oil and gas” process is now used for the medium-sized industrial customer, the sale will not be made there due to the costs. If, on the other hand, the “industrial power generation” process is used to calculate the price for the oil and gas customer, it may be possible to win the contract because of the low price, but in the end the customer will not make a profit but a loss.

Through our many years of working with a wide variety of customers from a range of industries, we are able to identify such constraints and use them to develop the most effective processes and structures for you. The simplest approach is: Does the end customer benefit from the expenditure and is he willing to pay for it, or not? This does not only have to refer directly to the products, but also, for example, to a possible shorter delivery time if you standardize certain sub-components that do not bring any direct added value for the customer but only have to “work”, thus allowing you to spend more time on the actual core functions of the products during the project phase.

Regarding our basic working philosophy and methodology, we would like to refer to the corresponding texts in the “About Us” section.