Frequently asked questions

In my experience, there is usually a decision that nobody wants to make. In projects I have worked on, the cause often lay not in the planning but in decisions that kept being put off.

Typical examples are a sub-project without benefit that is politically protected, a contradictory requirement that nobody names, or a necessary escalation that is seen as a career risk. Instead of bringing about the decision, people keep working around it. The project moves, but not forward.

Workshops, meetings and implemented features are outputs, not automatically impact. A more useful question is: which decision is currently being avoided rather than made?

There is no general answer, but the question deserves a deliberate decision rather than a state of limbo. At every decision point I check: What do we know now that we did not know before? Is the goal still meaningful and achievable? Are benefit, effort and risk still justifiable?

A project is not continued just because time, money or energy have already been invested. I only recommend stopping, however, once alternatives such as adjusting, pausing or redirecting have been examined. A well-founded stop is not a failure but a decision. HERMES explicitly provides for it as a decision of the project sponsor, for example when economic viability is lacking or risks are too high.

Five questions make it visible, and I clarify them before significant decisions: Who makes the decision? Who prepares it in substance? Who must be heard or involved beforehand? Who must be informed afterwards? What happens if no agreement is reached?

The right to decide and the duty to communicate are not the same thing. Responsibility without information, authority and decision rights does not hold, and whoever decides must also answer for the consequences. The business decision remains with you.

Not necessarily. Often the problem is that facts, assumptions and interpretations are being mixed up. Facts are verifiable observations or reliable data, assumptions are provisional explanations, and interpretations give facts meaning and depend on perspective. Interests influence which information is emphasised or left out.

Anyone who does not maintain this distinction builds decisions on a foundation nobody has checked. It helps to make goals, assumptions, risks, dependencies, roles and responsibilities visible, and to name what is not known openly instead of covering it with false certainty.

By first making the different perspectives visible together and only then setting priorities. An IT target state does not start with a technology decision, but with a shared understanding of problems, priorities and responsibilities.

In a mandate for a public organisation, I designed and moderated focused workshops for this, took up business and technical perspectives and structured needs, dependencies and priorities. The result was a jointly supported target state, concrete measures and a schedule. In a municipality in the canton of Bern, a similar approach across administration and schools led to prioritised fields of action and an implementation plan.

Usually through small, everyday observations before any key figure turns: routine work is delayed, Friday's report only arrives on Monday, a quiet unease sets in, small conflicts appear where there were none before, and people start looking for someone to blame.

In small organisations, calling across the room is a strength, not an omission. But the limit is built in: put simply, the number of possible communication paths grows much faster than the number of people. In my experience, the critical moment is not a particular headcount. It is reached when so much that is new comes together at once that well-practised teams and routines can no longer carry it.

Because good improvisation works for a long time, and that is exactly why nobody notices what it costs. Pulling the new out of one's own trouser pocket creates solutions that cannot be repeated, compared or developed further. In my experience, as the organisation grows, the strength of individuals quietly turns into a vulnerability of the whole.

A method does not mean a rulebook or a straitjacket, but a manageable number of clear principles of action that everyone can follow. It does not have to be one particular method; your own is possible too. Its value: even a less experienced person can make a strong contribution with it.

The context is lost first: why something was decided and which exception was accepted in day-to-day work. Minutes show what was decided, rarely why.

It becomes a real problem as soon as a decision should build on an earlier one and nobody can say any more what supported it. Then either a new decision is made without knowing the old reasoning, or the old decision is continued incorrectly. With partners, a fixed-term mandate often also ends experience that was never recorded anywhere. This knowledge can only be kept if you deliberately set things up for it.

Check it with one simple question: if your provider changes the terms tomorrow, raises prices or restricts access, do your knowledge and your ability to decide stay with you, or do they leave with the tool?

The greater dependency arises where company knowledge, decision logic and operational execution converge in a single platform. If the provider then changes prices, terms, access rights or interfaces, you may lose not just a tool but access to your own working context. The more decisive knowledge sits only in one platform or in an integration nobody can trace, the harder a switch becomes.

Because technical functionality is not yet organisational effectiveness. Once the technology works, the real work begins: clarifying which decisions the system prepares, who takes them over and how the organisation works with it.

A system can be technically implemented without having arrived in the organisation. Implementation is provisioning; adoption only shows in real behaviour. AI therefore only becomes effective when technology and organisational implementation work together: the system works, and the organisation has clarified how it works with it.

Not necessarily. External support is not worthwhile for tasks that can be done just as well internally. Even a paid clarification may show that nothing further needs to be done at the moment, that you continue on your own, or that another specialist is a better fit.

Beforehand, you can use a thinking tool to check for yourself what will hold for your next initiative and which step makes sense. If you would like to talk it through, a free fit conversation of 20 to 30 minutes checks whether the task, the collaboration and the framework conditions fit together. It may end with "not a fit".

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. Yet objectives, requirements, options or risks are not clear enough. Sometimes 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.

Radical Change is Hosang Consulting's own perspective, not an established scientific standard model. Within it, 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 is no longer enough when activity is high but decisions still take too long. The same applies when responsibility is spread across roles and nobody truly carries it. A third sign: a structural problem keeps getting a new tool instead of real 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.

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

The same applies if the only aim is to justify, after the fact, a decision already made. It also applies if key information is deliberately withheld, or if nobody is willing to consider visible 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 a considerable part of my time in selected non-commercial tasks. This is not a mathematical quota or a free offer. It is 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.

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 the way I work. Clients are not passed from a sales conversation to an unrelated or constantly changing delivery team.

I take overall responsibility for Hosang Consulting engagements. Depending on the assignment, specialised business partners work independently within their agreed areas of responsibility. For HR and recruiting topics, I work together with Elizabeth Kunhimon; for external support in project management, with an experienced business partner. I lead the engagements of the Institute for Applied Project Failure together with Dorian Ferrari.

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

Business analysis creates clarity about needs, requirements and the solution space – objectives, interests and dependencies, before a solution is defined.

Project management creates the organisational framework, plans and steers implementation, and ensures that decisions, risks and dependencies are dealt with.

Depending on the context, I work with HERMES or with classical, agile or hybrid approaches. HERMES itself supports different forms of delivery. In practice, the two roles work together rather than staying strictly separate.

I do both.

An engagement may begin with a situation review, a clarification before an important decision or executive sparring. If the situation requires it, I also take on project leadership, transformation leadership or specific implementation work. This is always for a limited time.

The appropriate role is agreed at the outset and reviewed throughout the engagement. My aim is not to take on as much responsibility as possible. I take on the responsibility the initiative needs and the organisation can carry.

An engagement begins with a free fit conversation of 20 to 30 minutes 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 who are needed.

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 and honest feedback. People affected by the change or who must carry it later also need to take an active part.

A transformation cannot be delegated entirely to an external party. I can structure, lead, challenge and implement. However, the organisation must be ready to take ownership and support the change in daily work.

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.

I charge on a time-and-effort basis. The rate depends on the task, the responsibility and the surrounding conditions, and is set out in the proposal.

The first fit conversation of 20 to 30 minutes is free of charge. For every paid step, we agree a cost ceiling in advance.

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

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 an oversized consulting apparatus, but also an artificial limit to what one person can do.

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.

In my work, I use QUENARIS as a digital working and organisational system. Disclosure: I also work at Mattli Digital myself, which implements QUENARIS technically, and I can directly influence the functional scope of QUENARIS. Hosang Consulting remains technology-open: QUENARIS is one possible solution, but not a required outcome of an engagement. Where QUENARIS is part of a client solution, this is explicitly agreed.

Organisational memory is what an organisation knows about itself, its decisions and the reasons behind them. It does not depend on which people happen to be there at the time.

It does not form on its own. Knowledge leaves an organisation with every staff change, at every team boundary and at the end of every external collaboration. That happens whenever nobody deliberately holds on to it.

An organisational memory keeps experience usable – for the next decision, not just for the archive.

I offer coaching and sparring for leaders myself, as Sparring & Enablement.

Executive search is not a service of Hosang Consulting. If you want to fill a leadership position, I am happy to put you in touch with my business partner Heinz Brägger, Partner and Practice Lead Change & Transformation at Leverage Experts. He offers executive search independently.

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

Leading an initiative for a limited time: external project leadership and time-limited operational leadership roles in initiatives.

External support and an independent outside perspective: time-limited support for the project lead, a status assessment or work on specific tasks when no new project lead is needed. Leadership and decisions remain with you.

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 need for accountability. Scope and duration are no larger than effective delivery requires.

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.

Confidential information is used only for the agreed purpose of the engagement. Only those who need it for their work can access it.

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 make organisations, individuals or business situations identifiable. 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 but still lets me present the situation, approach and key findings clearly.

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 an integral part of my way of working, but no substitute for human work. Quality comes from experience, context, direction, review and human judgement. Whoever approves a result is responsible for it; the depth of review depends on the risk.

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 is an AI agent (software) from MATTLI-DIGITAL, not a human being. He supports me 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 keep an overview, not to decide. He does not make independent strategic or business decisions.