Matters that fit no category

Organisations have specialists for each of their identified problems. However, the difficulties that genuinely put them at risk are those located at the intersection of several disciplines. No single adviser takes charge of these difficulties as a whole.

The cross-cutting problem: the organisational blind spot between specialists

On the face of it, a customs audit that calls into question the origin of imported goods is a technical matter. It is also a cash-flow issue, since the duties recovered and the penalties weigh on working capital requirements. Moreover, it is a contractual issue, since proof of origin depends on foreign suppliers. In addition, it is a governance issue, since it requires deciding who negotiates, on what mandate and up to what amount. Finally, it is a reputational issue, once banking or commercial partners become aware of it. The freight forwarder, the lawyer, the chartered accountant and the finance department each hold part of it. Yet no one holds all of it.

The situation is common. For example, an internal reorganisation is at once a labour, legal, financial and communication matter. Likewise, an investment project submitted under a public support scheme draws on law, financial analysis, territorial engineering and institutional relations. Similarly, a leadership transition involves governance, taxation, corporate culture and the continuity of key relationships. The segmentation of expertise is useful for dealing with known problems. In each of these cases, however, it becomes an obstacle when the task is to understand their structure.

Why juxtaposing specialists is not enough

The usual response is to bring in several specialists side by side. Each produces a rigorous analysis within its own remit. However, none is responsible for checking the overall consistency. As a result, recommendations contradict one another, timelines overlap and decisions rest on a partial view. This arrangement shifts the cost of coordination onto senior management, precisely when it has the least time available.

The shortcoming lies not in expertise but in architecture. A cross-cutting problem therefore first calls for a diagnosis that restores its structure. That diagnosis identifies the established facts, the applicable rules and the urgent decisions. It also determines which actors to involve and in what order. Only then do the specialists and their areas of expertise find their proper place.

Acting at critical points

The moments at which an organisation tips over are identifiable. They are an audit or a dispute, cash-flow pressure, a conflict between shareholders, a change of leadership, a major investment project and entry into a foreign market. In other words, these are inflection points. A sound decision at this stage avoids years of difficulty. Conversely, an ill-informed decision entrenches them.

The global, strategic, legal and institutional advisory approach finds its justification at these moments. It is, however, no substitute for the lawyer, the chartered accountant or the technical specialist. Instead, it organises the reading of the problem and aligns the applicable rules with economic and institutional constraints. It then carries the decision through to implementation. Crisis management and complex problem-solving form its foundation. Strategy, law, marketing and communication, in turn, are its instruments, deployed according to the nature of the inflection point.

This approach requires discipline. First, it means starting from the facts and the texts, not from the solutions at hand. Next, it means distinguishing the stated request from the real problem. Finally, it means measuring the cost of inaction and recording every decision. In addition, the approach requires strict confidentiality, since the matters concerned go to the heart of organisations.

A doctrine rather than a showcase

The publications of ASKonsult follow a simple rule: set out the mechanisms, never the matters. Thus, each Analysis Note deals with a rule, its conditions and its limits. Similarly, each Regulatory Briefing makes a new text intelligible. Each tool made available, in turn, structures a process. Taken together, they form a doctrine, namely a way of reading critical situations and responding to them. Anyone who tests this doctrine against the texts and the facts can verify it.

Organisations dealing with a matter that fits no category do not need one more adviser. Instead, they need an overall reading, a method and a counterpart who takes responsibility for the consistency of the response.

See also: Guide – Preliminary diagnostic interview; Flash consultation.