No. It's a conversation about your situation and whether my approach fits your context. I sketch how I would proceed. You decide whether that makes sense.

That depends on the context - the scope, the starting situation, what makes sense. A number without that background wouldn't be an honest answer. What I can say: the first step is always a conversation. No commitment, no risk.

By talking. In an initial conversation, we'll clarify your challenge, and I'll outline my approach. You then decide whether the approach resonates with you. My approach is context-sensitive. There's no one-size-fits-all solution, but rather a collaborative analysis of the current situation and the desired outcome. We begin with the vision (where do you want to go?) before delving into the analysis. This way, people think in terms of possibilities rather than limitations.

I don't work with pre-made concepts. The solution is developed collaboratively with you, based on your needs and the specific context. The goal is an organization that understands its own system and can develop it further independently.

Organizational design works on the architecture - on structures, accountabilities, and decision pathways. It works on what the system asks of people.

Organizational development works on behavior - on collaboration, social dynamics, and the patterns that emerge when people interact within organizations. Culture is an emergent property. It reflects the architecture, not the intention.

Both are two sides of the same coin and part of an integrated system: organizational design creates the architecture, organizational development makes it work.

It always begins with understanding before anything is changed. This means: together we clarify where the organization wants to go, where it stands today, and where the gaps are. The form of collaboration arises from what makes sense in the situation and not from a predefined process.

The system usually signals it before anyone can name it. The same problems keep surfacing. Decisions take too long. Good people leave. And at some point leadership asks itself why nothing really changes despite everything. None of that is coincidence. It's the system signaling.