Consulting
Services in detail
Both formats share the same point of reference: the Innovator’s Dilemma as a structural risk of successful organisations. They differ in depth and duration — the assessment delivers the diagnosis, the escape project changes the structures.
Format 1 · Focused engagement
Dilemma Assessment
Starting point
Your organisation is successful in its core business — and precisely for that reason unsure whether it would recognise disruptive developments in time and answer them adequately. The first signals may already be there: new entrants at the low end of the market, customer groups content with “worse” solutions, internal initiatives that keep failing in budget rounds.
Approach
The assessment analyses your exposure along three questions: Which performance dimensions of your offering already exceed what relevant customer groups can absorb? Which technologies or business models are developing below your market — and at what rate of improvement? And how would your current resource-allocation processes react to a disruptive attack? The basis is a set of interviews, a structured review of portfolio and metric logic, and a disruption analysis of the market environment.
Result
A results memo with findings and priorities: where your organisation is exposed, which developments deserve observation, which demand immediate action — and which structural changes would have the greatest leverage. The memo is written to be discussed at board level.
Format 2 · Consulting project
Escape Project
Starting point
The diagnosis is on the table — from an assessment or from your own insight. Your organisation knows where it is vulnerable and wants to draw the consequences: building disruptive businesses seriously instead of letting them starve inside the structures of the core.
Approach
The escape project works on structures, not on intentions. That includes building separate units for disruptive ventures — with their own mandate, their own cost structure, and metrics that fit an emerging business. It includes rebalancing the innovation portfolio between improving the existing and exploring the new. And it includes anchoring in leadership: decision paths, reporting lines and escalation rules that prevent the core business from reabsorbing the new units at the first budget squeeze.
Result
Working structures instead of a concept paper: units up and running, a rebalanced portfolio with fitting yardsticks, and accompaniment through the first cycles — until the new businesses generate their own evidence and the organisation has learned to work with two logics at once.
Beyond the formats
The portfolio
Alongside the two formats: innovation strategy — from taking stock to the roadmap; innovation portfolio audits as an independent review of running initiatives; foresight and scenarios, AI-assisted via picturesoftomorrow.com; and workshops and executive education on disruption, ambidexterity and the instruments of innovation management.
Contact
Both formats begin with an informal conversation about your situation:
Responsible: Prof. Dr. Ulf Pillkahn — Innovation Management, FOM University of Applied Sciences / Technical University of Munich.