Client value is the core focus of our services. Find below some case studies to illustrate this value focus.
One division of the client was responsible for important parts of the innovation portfolio.
The division was accountable for results essential for global product launch.
In a period of six months, the division had missed every single target several times.
After 3 Months Fire Fighting
Project Plan Match
After 9 Months Performance Improvement
Target Backlog Eliminated
Using our Triple-A assessment methodology for an audit of the division made the core weaknesses transparent. Application of our methodology for process constraint elimination identified factors severely limiting performance on the division and process level.
The detailed analysis generated transparency and understanding for the root causes of the previous process failure. Four clearly defined action fields were identified and the observed deficiencies were addressed with corrective actions.
Constant integration of top management in all processes facilitated the immediate transfer of observation to corrective actions.
The client was operating in a highly competitive environment and did not match competitor benchmarks in the innovation field. Requesting competitive advantages, company management demanded drastically reduced project timelines from the Innovation Unit.
The existing strategic concept was expected to fail since several Innovation divisions were suspected to operate highly ineffectively in a competitive scenario.
After 9 Months
Industry Benchmarks Achieved
After 18 Months
Initial steps were audits and assessment of all Innovation divisions. Based on these results, a project and process landscape was drawn, outlining organisational and procedural weaknesses and threats.
Threats and weaknesses made transparent was the core step towards a controlled change process. Using this better understanding, fast-track activities were initiated, aimed at demonstrating the general feasibility of the strategy.
The resulting management confidence paved the way towards a sustainable change process that delivered a competitive Innovation Unit, matching competitor benchmarks within 9 months and belonging to “best in class” within 18 months.
The client, a globally operating company, intended to improve the existing product portfolio with cutting-edge innovations. For cost reasons, a virtual innovation model was chosen.
Since European Service Providers did not match the investment plans, the sourcing department transferred the majority of innovation activities to Asia.
Once established, the performance of this strategy was depressing. Quality of services was sub-standard. Time lines were not matched. Performance deficits required follow up investments.
25% MORE in 3 Months
40% LESS in 6 Months
In a first step root causes for the insufficient output were identified. Installing and training a specialised outsourcing management team improved process speed and RoI by 25% in 3 months.
A Nearshoring concept established an extensive panel of Eastern European Service Providers. By transferring innovation activities to Eastern Europe, costs could be reduced by 40% compared to Western Europe.
The "Nearshoring to Eastern Europe" concept was supported by the extensive network HENRICH Life Science R&D Consulting maintains in this region.
For several years turnover and profit of the client were in decline, mainly due to competition from low cost countries. To address this threat, the company intended to focus on the innovation field and to build a competitive product portfolio. Significant resources were invested but the strategy failed to perform.
Neither time lines nor milestones were met and projects were far from achieving value generating objectives.
Audits and interviews allowed to identify the root causes for the process failure. Due to missing experience in the Innovation field, the company had established a problematic process landscape. Important innovation processes were neither effective nor efficient.
First to be eliminated were the Innovation blocks - processes crucial for Innovation success but running with low efficiency. This increased Innovation speed by 40%, followed by matched time lines.
Processes with low effectiveness with regard to achievement of objectives were eliminated in the second step. As a result, the total resource demand of the Innovation projects could be reduced by 30%.