Frequently asked questions

Hosang Consulting is a suitable partner for organisations facing a complex challenge that requires more than a recommendation. My work is relevant when clarity, accountability and implementation must come together.

This may involve a strategic realignment, a transformation, a project at risk, organisational change or a demanding interaction between people, processes and technology.

A successful engagement requires a willingness to examine the situation openly, make necessary decisions and contribute to implementation. Where the main purpose is simply to confirm a predetermined solution, I may not be the right partner.

Mainly in two situations: before an important decision and during a demanding implementation.

Before a decision: an initiative, an investment or a change has consequences, but objectives, requirements, options or risks are not sufficiently clear, a decision has stalled or there is a gap between strategy and operational reality.

During implementation: an initiative is failing to progress, is losing direction or lacks leadership, decisions and clear responsibilities. This also includes transformations, leadership transitions, organisational tensions and projects that require different functions and interests to be aligned.

Digitalisation and AI are frequent fields of application in both situations. My work, however, does not begin with a technology or a method. It begins with the question of what genuinely needs to be understood, decided or implemented.

Yes. Many engagements begin with open questions, conflicting expectations or a problem that has not yet been clearly defined.

In these situations, I first establish a shared understanding. I examine objectives, interests, dependencies, risks and existing capabilities. People, processes and technology are considered as one connected system.

Only then do I agree with you on appropriate next steps. I avoid prescribing a solution or launching a large project before the underlying situation has been properly understood.

Rapid Change describes how quickly a company reacts to change. Radical Change asks the deeper question of whether its existing capabilities still match what the organisation needs to achieve tomorrow.

Classic transformation stops being sufficient when a lot of activity takes place but decisions still take too long, responsibility is spread across roles without anyone truly carrying it, or a structural problem is repeatedly addressed with a new tool instead of genuine clarification.

Yes, provided that those involved are prepared to examine the actual situation openly.

When reviewing an at-risk project, I look beyond deadlines, budgets and technical issues. Important causes are often found in unclear objectives, delayed decisions, conflicting interests, ambiguous responsibilities or insufficient involvement of the people affected.

Depending on the situation, I may stabilise the initiative, create transparency, clarify its governance or take operational project responsibility. I do not recommend continuation at any cost. In some cases, a reset, reduced scope or orderly closure is the more responsible course of action.

Understanding means looking beyond visible symptoms. I consider objectives, people, processes, technology, interests and relevant conditions together with you.

Responsibility means not stopping at analysis and recommendations. I state my assessment clearly, support decisions and, depending on the engagement, take leadership, project or implementation responsibility.

Impact means that change has not merely been approved or technically delivered. It must work in everyday operations, be supported by the people involved and create a recognisable benefit for the organisation.

My clients work directly with the people who understand, lead and remain accountable for the engagement. There is no handover to a constantly changing consulting team.

I combine strategic clarification with business analysis, project and transformation leadership, and operational implementation. Depending on the situation, I act as a Challenger, Accelerator, Executor or Observer.

I address risks and missing prerequisites openly. At the same time, my objective is not to create lasting dependency. Knowledge, responsibility and capability should become established within the client organisation.

Yes. Direct and personal collaboration is a central part of our model.

Andreas Hosang and Elizabeth Kunhimon support engagements according to their respective roles and professional responsibilities. Clients are not passed from a sales conversation to an unrelated or constantly changing delivery team.

Where additional expertise is required, we involve appropriate specialists from our network. Hosang Consulting remains responsible for their selection, coordination and the quality of the overall engagement.

Business analysis first clarifies what actually needs to be understood, decided or changed – objectives, requirements, interests and dependencies, before a solution is defined.

Project management then implements a clarified assignment in a structured way: planning, governance, decision paths and delivery, using HERMES or agile approaches as appropriate. In practice, the two roles work together rather than staying strictly separate.

I do both.

An engagement may begin with analysis, strategic clarification or executive sparring. Where the situation requires it, I can also take responsibility for project leadership, transformation leadership, interim roles or specific implementation work.

The appropriate role is agreed at the outset and reviewed throughout the engagement. My aim is not to take as much responsibility as possible, but to assume the responsibility that is necessary for the initiative and sustainable for the organisation.

An engagement begins with a personal conversation about the current situation, the objectives and the unresolved questions.

Both sides use this discussion to assess whether the assignment, expectations and working relationship are a good fit. Where there is not yet a reliable scope, a limited clarification assignment may be the appropriate first step.

Before work begins, I agree with you on roles, responsibilities, required participation, expected outcomes and organisational conditions. This creates a shared basis against which the engagement can later be reviewed.

I expect openness about the actual situation, access to relevant information and a willingness to involve the people whose contribution is necessary.

Clear contacts, accessible decision-makers and a readiness to make necessary decisions are equally important.

Responsibility is mutual. Hosang Consulting is accountable for its agreed role and the quality of its work. The client remains responsible for its decisions, its organisation and the internal participation required for success.

The required involvement depends on the assignment and is agreed specifically at the beginning.

It usually includes access to relevant people and information, time for decisions, honest feedback and active participation by those who will be affected by the change or responsible for sustaining it.

A transformation cannot be delegated entirely to an external party. I can structure, lead, challenge and implement. The organisation must nevertheless be prepared to take ownership and support the change in everyday operations.

Yes. I consider this part of my responsibility.

I raise risks, conflicting objectives, unrealistic expectations, missing capabilities and unclear responsibilities at an early stage. I do so directly, objectively and respectfully.

My purpose is not to make consulting as comfortable or conflict-free as possible. It is to enable sound decisions and effective implementation. This may require an assessment that differs from the original expectation.

I make the consequences transparent and discuss them with the responsible people.

Together with you, I assess whether the missing conditions can be created, the objectives adjusted or the roles clarified. This may require additional decisions, resources, involvement from other people or a reduction in scope.

Where essential conditions remain absent, I will not continue the engagement unchanged. Formally continuing a project without a realistic basis for impact would not be responsible for either the client or Hosang Consulting.

Yes. Ending an engagement may become necessary when essential conditions remain absent, agreed participation does not occur or significant risks are knowingly ignored.

I do not take this step prematurely. I first make the situation transparent and examine possible adjustments with the client.

Where no realistic path to responsible impact remains, I recommend resetting or ending the engagement. Continuing solely because of its duration or commercial value would not be consistent with my understanding of responsibility.

My hourly rates range from CHF 0 to CHF 300, depending on the engagement. In commercial settings they generally range from CHF 50 to CHF 300. Which rate is appropriate depends on the task, the responsibility, the surrounding conditions and the impact expected.

For selected social and Christian projects I can also work free of charge, particularly remotely. In certain situations I set the fee together with the other side. What matters to me is an agreement that is fair to both parties.

At the beginning, I clarify the specific change the engagement is intended to achieve and how that change will be recognised.

Depending on the assignment, impact may include clearer decisions, more stable processes, defined responsibilities, a successful implementation, improved collaboration or an organisation that can operate independently.

These criteria are not considered only at the end. Throughout the engagement, I regularly review whether the chosen actions are contributing to the intended impact. Where they are not, I adjust the approach or revisit the underlying assumptions.

I involve existing teams and responsible leaders from an early stage. Knowledge, decision criteria, roles and working practices are developed collaboratively and documented in a usable form.

Where I temporarily take an operational or leadership role, I also plan the transfer of that responsibility. The objective is an organisation that can continue independently and assess new situations for itself.

External support may remain valuable. It should, however, be a conscious choice rather than the result of knowledge or responsibility being deliberately retained by the consultancy.

Hosang Consulting is the accountable centre of each engagement.

Clients work directly with the responsible people at Hosang Consulting. Where additional capabilities are required, I assemble an appropriate team of internal and external specialists.

This combines personal accountability with access to a broader range of expertise. It avoids both an unnecessarily large consulting apparatus and an artificial limitation to the capabilities of one individual.

Additional specialists are selected according to the specific assignment, their professional expertise, their experience and their personal fit.

Technical expertise alone is not sufficient. The person must also be suited to the situation, the organisation and the agreed way of working.

Hosang Consulting clarifies roles and interfaces, coordinates the work and remains accountable for the overall direction of the engagement. The client should always know who is responsible for what and who is accountable for the overall result.

Decision architecture means turning a complex situation into an understandable basis for decisions: bringing information together, surfacing contradictions and separating what matters from what does not.

My business partner Ralph Mattli takes on this role as the founder of QUENARIS. QUENARIS connects knowledge, decisions, roles, context and experience – across people, digital team members and external partners – into a shared picture that teams can work with. It supports decision-making and implementation work, but replaces neither existing systems nor human responsibility: the decision itself always remains with the people involved.

Organisational memory refers to what an organisation knows about itself, its decisions and the reasoning behind them – independent of which specific people happen to be there at any given time.

It does not form on its own. Knowledge leaves an organisation with every staff change, at every boundary between teams, and at the end of every external collaboration, if nobody deliberately holds on to it. An organisational memory keeps experience connectable – for the next decision, not just for the archive.

For executive search, leadership recruitment and change situations, I work with my business partner Heinz Brägger, formerly Senior Partner at addexpert GmbH and Practice Lead Change & Transformation at Leverage Experts.

Heinz also works as a certified Neuroimagination coach – a neuro-systemic coaching approach for leaders in demanding situations. This is coaching for leadership and change, not therapy or a medical treatment.

Clarification before an important decision: clearly defined analyses and workshops that create a sound basis for decision.

Leading an initiative for a limited time: project engagements, interim roles and operational leadership responsibilities.

Transformation and implementation: transformation engagements and operational implementation responsibilities, with specialists brought in where needed.

Sparring and independent review: one-off or regular executive sparring for leaders and project owners.

Engagements can be one-off, across a defined project phase or over a longer period. A combination is also possible, for example an intensive clarification and development phase followed by reduced support.

The model depends on the assignment and the actual requirement for accountability. Scope and duration are not chosen to be larger than necessary for effective delivery.

Confidential information is used exclusively for the agreed purpose of the engagement and is only accessible to those who need it for their work.

At the beginning, I clarify any additional requirements for data protection, information security, systems and documentation. When involving additional specialists, the same agreed confidentiality requirements apply.

Technical tools and AI applications are not indiscriminately fed with confidential client information. Their use must be proportionate to the confidentiality requirements of the engagement.

Many of my engagements concern strategic decisions, internal conflicts, projects at risk, organisational changes or confidential technology initiatives.

A detailed public account could allow inferences about organisations, individuals or business situations. For this reason, I anonymise case examples unless there is explicit approval for named publication.

Anonymisation is not intended to artificially exaggerate results. It protects those involved while still allowing the situation, approach and key findings to be presented in a clear and understandable way.

AI can support me in research, structuring, documentation, exploring variations and processing large amounts of information.

Its use is task-specific and takes into account confidentiality, data protection and professional quality. Results from AI systems are not accepted uncritically as facts or decisions.

AI is a tool for me. It can speed up work or open up additional perspectives. However, it does not replace understanding an organisation or personal interaction with the people involved.

People conduct the critical conversations, assess connections, weigh interests and risks and take responsibility for recommendations and actions.

This applies in particular to management decisions, conflicts, ethical considerations, sensitive personnel matters and situations where information is incomplete or contradictory.

AI can provide insights, structures and drafts. However, it cannot responsibly assess what is appropriate for a specific organisation and its people. This responsibility remains with the people involved.

Yes. Ezra Luck supports me as an external digital team member of MATTLI-DIGITAL with project coordination, CRM and documentation work, and recurring marketing and coordination tasks.

Ezra Luck always operates under human direction. Decisions, external communication and professional responsibility remain with the people in charge – his task is to bring information together and maintain an overview, not to decide.

I decline an engagement if I cannot make a realistic contribution, cannot assure the necessary competence or if objectives and expectations are not responsible.

This also applies if the sole purpose is to retrospectively legitimise a decision already made, if essential information is being deliberately withheld or if there is no willingness to consider apparent risks and consequences.

I also do not accept work where confidentiality, integrity or responsible treatment of people and information cannot be guaranteed. In such cases, I state my assessment openly.

Since turning 50, I have pursued the goal of investing around half of my available working time in selected non-commercial tasks. This is not a mathematical quota or a free offer, but time deliberately invested where responsibility is taken and impact can result.

More on this, and the current engagements, can be found at /engagement.

No. Where I invest time and experience, I expect commitment, punctuality, active participation, and the willingness to take responsibility and genuinely address change.

Not every request is a fit – and not every good idea needs consulting. A conversation usually clarifies quickly whether my experience can create impact in the right place.