Build, buy, or wait: A leader's guide to digital strategy under uncertainty
Technology choices are often made under pressure - pressure to modernize, to respond to shifting client expectations, to demonstrate progress, or to keep pace with rapid advances in AI. In those moments, even experienced leadership teams can fall into familiar traps: over-estimating how differentiated a capability will remain, under-estimating the organizational cost of sustaining it, and committing earlier than the strategy or operating model can realistically support.
After decades of working with leaders through digital and technology-enabled transformations, I’ve seen these dynamics play out again and again. The issue is rarely the quality of the technology itself. It’s the timing of commitment, and how quickly an early decision hardens into something far harder to unwind than anyone intended.
What has changed in today’s AI-accelerated environment is not the nature of these traps, but the margin for error. It has narrowed dramatically.
For small and mid-sized organizations, the consequences are immediate. You don't have specialist teams running parallel experiments or long runways to course correct. A single bad platform decision can absorb scarce capital, distort operating models, and take years to unwind just as the market shifts again.
AI intensified this tension. It is wildly over-hyped as a silver bullet and quietly under-estimated as a structural disruptor. Both positions are dangerous. AI won’t magically fix broken processes or weak strategy, but it will change the economics of how work gets done and where value accrues.
When leaders ask how to approach digital platforms, AI adoption, or operating model design, four questions consistently matter more than the technology itself.
- What specific market problem does this solve, and what is it worth?
- Is this capability genuinely unique, or is it rapidly becoming commoditized?
- What is the true total cost - not just to build, but to run and evolve over time?
- What is the current pace of innovation for this niche?
For many leadership teams, answering these questions leads to the same strategic posture. Move quickly today while preserving options for tomorrow. Not as doctrine, but as a way of staying adaptive without mistaking early commitment for strategic clarity.
Why build versus buy is the wrong starting point
One of the most common traps organizations fall into is treating digital strategy as a series of isolated build-vs-buy decisions. That framing is too narrow, and it usually arrives too late.
A more powerful question is this. How do we preserve optionality as the landscape continues to evolve? Technology decisions often become a proxy for deeper organizational challenges. Following acquisitions or periods of rapid change, pressure frequently surfaces at the front line. Sales teams respond to client feedback. Delivery teams push for speed. Leaders look for visible progress.
In these moments, technology becomes the focal point for action. Not because it is the root problem, but because it is tangible.
The real risk emerges operationally. Poorly sequenced transitions, disruption to the core business, and value that proves smaller or shorter-lived than anticipated. Teams become locked into delivery paths that no longer make commercial sense, while underlying system assumptions remain unchanged.
The issue is rarely technical. It is temporal.
Optimizing for short-term optics, particularly client-facing signals of progress, often comes at the expense of longer-term adaptability. A cleaner interface over an ageing platform may buy temporary parity, but it can also delay the more important work of rethinking what is possible in the near and medium term.
Conservatism often shows up quietly here. Not as risk aversion, but as a preference for extending the familiar rather than exploring what could fundamentally change.
Licensing as a way to buy time and insight
In fast-moving areas such as AI orchestration, many organizations are choosing to license capability rather than build it internally. This is not because licensing is perfect. It rarely is. It introduces constraints and trade-offs. But it was fast. And more importantly, it acknowledged reality.
The pace of change in this space is such that what looks like a good architectural decision today may be actively unhelpful in twelve months. Licensing allowed us to operate right at the edge of what we actually understood at the time - without pretending we knew where the market would land six or twelve months later.
Licensing should not be seen as a lack of ambition. It is often a way of buying time, learning cheaply, and avoiding premature commitment. Building too early doesn’t make you visionary, often it just makes you rigid.
AI is neither a silver bullet nor a feature
Coaching is a useful microcosm of the broader AI debate.
Great AI coaching that is designed with intent and grounded in real coaching methodology can genuinely augment the experience and extend impact. The market is saturated with AI-enabled coaching tools and what is especially disappointing is that many are thin layers of prompts wrapped around a large language model. They are responsive, polite, and superficially impressive - and they largely miss the point.
Effective coaching isn’t about constant responsiveness. It’s about clarity. It’s about bringing experience, structure, credibility, and connection to moments where someone is stuck.
At the other extreme, coaches themselves are often deeply traditional. A heavy pen, a leather-bound notebook, and a Royal Copenhagen mug of coffee are far more likely to be sitting on the desk than the latest GPT or Gemini model.
That conservatism is understandable - coaching is built on trust, presence, and human connection - but it’s increasingly misaligned with how scale and impact are actually created.
The real opportunity for AI is not to replace human work with a chat interface. It is to codify what actually works. The decision points, frameworks, insights, and moments that drive behavior change. AI can then be used to augment and extend that value at scale.
A polished interface over generic capability is not enough. If AI does not strengthen the core value of the work, it is theatre, not transformation.
What this means for leaders
Across all of these examples, the same pattern shows up.
The hardest decisions are rarely about capability, they are about timing, alignment, and conviction.
Building from scratch only makes sense when you can clearly articulate:
- What you believe that the market does not
- Why that belief creates defensible value
- Why you’re willing to concentrate risk behind it
Clear vision scales extraordinarily well when it’s tightly held. The success of narrow, focused Silicon Valley start-ups is testament to that.
Larger organizations often carry a broader set of commitments. That complexity increases when depth of expertise is spread across functions, and even more so when sales teams have significant autonomy at the point of sale. Alignment becomes harder not because people are wrong, but because too many partial truths are competing at once.
In these environments, strategic clarity, not headcount or spend, creates advantage.
This is why many leadership teams choose to license early. Not because building is wrong, but because most organizations have not yet earned the right to build.
Related content
1. La Conversación Ha Cambiado
Durante los últimos dos años, el debate sobre la Inteligencia Artificial ha estado impulsado principalmente por proveedores tecnológicos y firmas de consultoría que animaban a las compañías a acelerar su adopción.
Hoy la conversación es distinta. Son los mercados financieros y los analistas quienes formulan la pregunta clave:
¿Dónde está el retorno?
Los datos muestran que los mercados apenas han incorporado expectativas de mejora de beneficios impulsados por IA en la mayoría de las compañías no tecnológicas. Mientras unas pocas grandes tecnológicas concentran las expectativas, el resto del mercado permanece bajo presión para demostrar impacto real en resultados.
Esto ya no va de ‘hype’ ni de titulares. Va de crear valor real, medible y sostenible.
Y el diagnóstico es claro: el reto no es la tecnología, sino la adopción organizativa.
Ahí es donde está la verdadera oportunidad.
2. Las organizaciones están chocando contra un muro — y lo saben
Tras dos años de programas amplios de IA: licencias masivas, sesiones de “IA para todos”, campañas de concienciación; muchas organizaciones se hacen la misma pregunta incómoda:
¿Y ahora qué?”
Se han lanzado iniciativas. Se han hecho pilotos. Pero el salto hacia un impacto escalable y medible no termina de llegar.
Los equipos utilizan herramientas de IA para ahorrar minutos. Algunos pilotos permanecen en fase de prueba durante meses, incluso años, sin escalar. Y la transición desde la “concienciación en IA” hacia la “IA que genera resultados de negocio” se convierte en un terreno para el que pocas organizaciones estaban realmente preparadas.
El desafío no es empezar. Es escalar.
3. Por Qué Existe Escepticismo: La Realidad Operativa
Cuando analizamos lo que ocurre en la práctica, la realidad operativa ayuda a entender el escepticismo del mercado. En distintos sectores se repiten los mismos patrones:
- Muchas iniciativas de IA se quedan atascadas en el piloto y nunca escalan.
- Un porcentaje importante no consigue generar impacto medible.
- Se produce una “curva J” de productividad: una fase inicial de disrupción antes de que aparezcan los beneficios.
- La “Shadow AI”, empleados utilizando herramientas personales sin gobernanza, se está convirtiendo en la norma, con los riesgos asociados.
El factor limitante no es el acceso a modelos o herramientas.
Es la capacidad y adopción organizativa: procesos, roles, gobernanza, habilidades y disciplina en la generación de valor.
4. Qué Hacen Diferente Las Organizaciones Que Sí Están Escalando La IA Con Éxito
Las compañías que están consiguiendo escalar la IA no necesariamente tienen más presupuesto ni más talento técnico. Lo que tienen es mayor disciplina organizativa.
Hay tres elementos marcan la diferencia:
- Desarrollan capacidades para cambiar comportamientos reales.
No se limitan a solo concienciar. No basta con webinars genéricos de “IA para todos”. Construyen capacidades estructuradas y basadas en roles:
- Directivos capaces de gobernar la estrategia de IA.
- Managers que saben rediseñar procesos y formas de trabajo.
- ‘Power users’ que lideran la identificación y el desarrollo de casos de uso.
- Y perfiles técnicos que llevan esos casos desde la idea hasta producción.
- Construyen cultura de datos, no solo infraestructura.
Los pipelines limpios importan. Pero también importa que exista una comprensión y entendimiento compartido sobre calidad del dato, gobernanza y uso responsable de la IA.
Sin ambas dimensiones, las iniciativas alcanzan rápidamente un techo: técnicamente viables, pero organizativamente bloqueadas.
- Gestionan la IA como una cartera de inversión, no como una lista de proyectos.
Cada iniciativa tiene un caso de negocio.
Los casos de uso se cualifican antes de asignar recursos.
El ROI se mide.
No persiguen cada tendencia. Priorizan con rigor —y detienen lo que no funciona.
Estos patrones no son teóricos ni aspiracionales. Son observables. Y replicables.
5. El Modelo de IA de Netmind: De la Adopción al Impacto a Escala
En Netmind hemos diseñado un enfoque precisamente para cerrar esta brecha entre intención y escala.
Nuestro modelo de IA es un marco integrado para ayudar a las organizaciones a transformar el potencial de la IA en resultados medibles, trabajando de forma coordinada en tres dimensiones interdependientes:
Pilar 1 — Valor De Negocio: Hacer Que Cada Iniciativa Justifique Su Inversión
La IA sin un caso de negocio claro es solo experimentación.
Trabajamos con equipos de liderazgo para establecer una disciplina sólida de generación de valor:
- Identificación de casos de uso de mayor impacto.
- Construcción rigurosa de business cases.
- Definición de métricas y marcos de medición.
- Diseño de estructuras de gobernanza que diferencian programas estratégicos de colecciones de pilotos desconectados.
La pregunta no es “¿qué puede hacer la IA?”, sino:
“¿Qué debería hacer para nosotros y cómo sabremos que está funcionando?”
Pilar 2 — Personas Y Organización: Construir Capacidades Que Perduren
La razón más habitual por la que la IA no escala no es técnica. Es humana.
Los equipos no saben cómo trabajar de forma diferente.
Los managers no saben cómo liderar en entornos híbridos humano-IA.
Los directivos no cuentan con marcos claros para decidir dónde invertir.
Nuestra arquitectura de desarrollo de capacidades cubre toda la organización en tres niveles:
- L100 — AI Fluency: Concienciación amplia: qué es la IA, qué puede y qué no puede hacer, y cómo impacta en cada rol. Es la base. Sin ella, el cambio no se consolida.
- L200 — AI Application: Capacitación práctica basada en roles para managers y responsables de negocio: identificación de casos de uso, rediseño de procesos y liderazgo de la adopción.
- L300 — AI Specialization: Itinerarios avanzados para ‘power users’, ‘champions’ internos y perfiles técnicos que llevan los casos desde concepto hasta producción y consolidan la capacidad a largo plazo.
Un principio clave de nuestro enfoque:
autosuficiencia por encima de dependencia.
No diseñamos programas que requieran soporte externo permanente. Construimos la capacidad interna para que las organizaciones puedan operar, adaptar y escalar por sí mismas.
Pilar 3 — Tecnología Y Datos: La Base Que Permite Avanzar Con Velocidad Y Seguridad
La estrategia y las capacidades necesitan una infraestructura adecuada.
Acompañamos a las organizaciones en el desarrollo de:
- Marcos de gobernanza del dato.
- Estándares de calidad.
- Guardrails de IA responsable
permitiéndolas avanzar de forma rápida y con seguridad, sin introducir nuevos riesgos.
No actuamos como integradores tecnológicos.
Trabajamos desde la perspectiva de negocio y organización, asegurando que las inversiones tecnológicas estén respaldadas por los procesos y capacidades necesarias para generar impacto real.
6. Cómo Trabajamos: Co-Crear En Lugar De Entregar
El modelo tradicional de consultoría en IA sigue siendo, en muchos casos, un modelo de entrega: se construye algo, se transfiere y el proyecto se da por cerrado.
La realidad de lo que suele pasar después es conocida: el traspaso falla, el equipo interno no puede sostenerlo y el piloto no escala.
En Netmind no construimos para las organizaciones. Construimos con ellas. Y desarrollamos sus capacidades para que puedan seguir construyendo sin nosotros.
Cada proyecto se diseña en torno a la co-creación. Nuestros expertos trabajan junto a los equipos internos. La metodología, las herramientas y los marcos de gobernanza se transfieren en tiempo real.
Eso es lo que hace que los resultados sean sostenibles.
Y también lo que convierte la inversión en capacidad en un activo estratégico, no en un coste recurrente.
The Bottom Line
Hoy los mercados dudan de que la mayoría de organizaciones logren capturar valor real de la IA.
Nosotros creemos que se equivocan, que esa predicción solo se cumplirá para quienes la aborden como una herramienta más o como un simple programa formativo y no como una transformación real de cómo se trabaja, cómo se toman decisiones y cómo se genera valor.
Las organizaciones que marcarán la diferencia serán aquellas que desarrollen capacidad organizativa en IA, no solo despliegue tecnológico.
La IA no es solo una herramienta: es una nueva capacidad organizativa.
El verdadero reto ya no es empezar, sino escalar con sentido y estrategia.
In Part 1, I told you about the three decisions we made two years ago and the simulation flywheel that produced our first Applied AI diamond.
Here’s the field-notes version.
Over 80% of our global business have now adopted a new Applied AI approach for doing simulations in the first eight weeks, across 24 countries and every practice.
The flywheel didn’t stop with simulations. It moved into finance, sales enablement, legal, operations, and client delivery. Teams started building agents and bringing them onto their own org charts. We didn’t plan for any of that. We built the conditions for people to find their own breakthroughs.
What it felt like inside the flywheel.
When the simulation team went live with their first clients on the new way of working, the lead person hit a wall. Their words:
“You’re asking too much. You’re making me be a full-stack developer. Up until this point I did a small part, and I sent it to the team, and they built off the back end, and they brought it back. And now I have to end-to-end soup to nuts, basically alone.”
There was graphic UI work nobody had been trained for, the fear of delivering quality below what BTS expects of itself, and the weight of not having a playbook. This was not the joyful adoption story most consultancies tell.
Then something shifted. Six members showed up for product testing, where the usual was two or three. The work created teamwork I hadn’t seen at BTS in years. The breakthrough was not an instantaneous change from skepticism to celebration. It was a breakdown in confidence, then rally, then bonding. If we didn’t make room for the breakdown, we would have lost the rally.
The other breakthrough was global teamwork; not yet a BTS core strength. Our culture is beautiful: high-freedom and entrepreneurial. But people’s first identities are to their countries. Almost every prior attempt we’ve made at a global initiative has failed. The one exception was Covid. So, when I say what happened next surprised me, I mean it.
I asked to join the simulation team’s Slack channel rather than pulling them into status meetings. What I got to watch in the mornings was someone in South Africa waking up, posting “I tried this and got stuck,” then London adding on, then San Francisco weighing in, then a surprise breakthrough overnight from Tokyo. We didn’t engineer that. Curious and determined BTS’ers did. The problem was interesting enough that the org chart didn’t matter. It was amazing to see and a glimpse into the next evolution of the BTS culture.
The pattern: Explore, expand, institutionalize, renew.
What we’ve now seen play out, both inside BTS and with clients, follows the same four-step pattern. Each step asks a specific decision of the leader.
Explore.
Stay stubborn on the aspiration and fluid on the path. Our breakthrough wasn’t the path we originally took. We changed tools and approaches. Nobody could have foreseen that. And if the team had taken the first six months of learnings from AI as their definitive “this is the detailed path we will follow,” we never would have gotten the disruption. Five different tool combinations were tried before we found the one that worked. Companies that lock into a single path or tool too early are betting against compounding capability that doubles roughly every seven months. That is not a bet I’d take.
Expand.
Run the old way and the new way side by side. When the simulation team’s breakthroughs got real, the instinct was to retreat into more internal testing. We did the opposite. They ran old way and new way in parallel on 6 or 8 live client projects across all three geographies. Every single one ended up going live the new way. The backup was always there. They didn’t need it.
Institutionalize.
Burn the boats. The simulation team committed that no new client work would be done the old way after January 1. The other practice leads then committed to dates within Q1, even though most of them had not yet experienced the new way themselves. They had to trust their colleagues. If you can do it for the most complex thing, you could probably do it for the less complex ones. By February 15, we had approaching 90% global adoption across 24 countries, across all practices. I was shocked and proud. We had spent years failing at exactly this kind of global rollout.
Renew.
Treat your agents as contractors. People on our diamond teams are now managing 30+ agents they built themselves. Our teams give agents performance feedback. We terminate their contracts when they don’t deliver. We expand the responsibility of agents when they outperform. The frontier question we’re wrestling with now is token budgeting. Two friends of mine running engineering-heavy companies believe that within 6 - 9 months, their token cost per engineer will exceed the cost of the engineer. Whether that’s the right framing is open. The question is real, and every CEO will be asked some version of it within the year.
What had to be true for this to scale.
Once we achieved this amazing global innovation, the leadership sat down to figure out what made it work. We named five things. None of them were about the technology.
Real pain points as the starting point. We had so many people frustrated from those ways of working, all the back and forth and all the wasted time, that this was gold for them. The old way was already painful. The new way wasn’t a forced disruption; it was relief. Find the workflow where the pain is loudest and start there.
The diamond unlocked creativity, it didn’t constrain it. This was the most differentiated insight, and the one most leaders miss. It wasn't "here's the new tasks and rules." It was, "once you learn how to do this, the sky's the limit. You can be even more creative." If your rollout feels like a new set of rules constraining your people, you’ve built the wrong thing.
Pair deep expertise with fresh eyes. The disproportionate share of our breakthroughs came from a tenured tinkerer with total command of the work, paired with someone new to the role who hadn’t yet built the muscle memory of how it had always been done. Without that pairing, you get incremental improvements to the work you already know how to do, instead of a reinvention.
Refuse the “people are too busy” reflex. When I brought the rollout to the global leadership team, the excuses came fast. “Our people are too busy. They’re burnt out. Q1 is going to be busy. No one’s going to have time.” My response: “This is a chance to eliminate the tasks you dread and expand what you love. I know it is a short push of extra work, and I think after the fact you and your team will feel joy and pride and say it was the best time we ever spent.” This is the moment most AI rollouts die.
Senior leaders must lead by example and do the work themselves. This is not middle manager’s job. This is not something you delegate. Even though you don’t build simulations anymore, you must know what this is. One of our partners proactively put time on senior leaders’ calendars and forced them to do the work. Once they started building, the excitement grew, and they could advocate for the rollout because they understood it. If your executives haven’t put their hands on the keyboard, you don’t have a rollout. You have a memo.
What we’re seeing across clients.
We’re now running this play with client organizations across industries and geographies. The companies whose flywheels are accelerating paired their A-players with their early-career talent, pulled IT and legal into the working sessions, refused the “too busy” reflex, and put their senior leaders’ hands on the keyboard. The companies whose flywheels are stuck almost always have a leadership pattern at the center of the stall. Not a tooling pattern. Not a governance pattern. A leadership pattern.
If this resonates, let’s talk.
If you read Part 1 and asked yourself whether your flywheel was turning, the question I’d add now is sharper: do you have the conditions in place for a diamond to appear? If yes, you’re already moving. If no, the technology will not save you.
Here's where we're starting with clients: a working session, half day to a full day, with a small group that owns one of your highest-friction processes. Together we map where your first diamond is most likely to land, how to set up the side-by-side trial, and what your version of "burn the boats" should look like.
The destination, if we do this right, is a self-reliant culture of applied AI inside your company. 5, 10, 15 diamonds compounding into a fundamentally different way of operating. From what I have experienced this is a once in a career opportunity for dramatic shareholder value creation if you get that muscle going. I say that because I'm watching it happen, in real time, inside our own company and across our client base.
If you want to get your flywheels spinning and map your first diamond, start here. Bring your hardest workflow. We'll bring the playbook.
Three decisions that changed everything.
Two years ago, we made three deliberate decisions about how BTS would move with Applied AI.
We would become our own Customer Zero.
While others were building strategies, defining governance, and waiting for clarity, we made a different call: we decided not to wait. Not because the stakes were low, but because they were high. And because in a space evolving this quickly, clarity wouldn’t come from planning. It would come from movement.
So instead of starting with a roadmap, we started with three principles:
- No top-down mandate. The people closest to the work figure it out.
- IT must evolve from gatekeeper to enabler - leading AI trials and fast experimentation.
- Don’t wait for certainty.
We set the organization in motion, and once we did, things started to move quickly.
What if we started this company today?
Waiting for certainty is itself a choice, and it’s costing companies more than they realize.
We started where we knew the work best: our simulations. No perfect plan, just teams moving, trying, and iterating.
Simulations are core to who we are at BTS. Companies that simulate don’t just make better decisions; they execute faster and build more engaged cultures.
The team asked a simple question:
"What if we were to start our company today?”
That question started the flywheel.
They asked IT for a few licenses and started building - vibe-coding, writing agents, and testing tools - moving at a pace that would make any VC-backed start-up smile.
The messy middle.
At first, the team was underwhelmed.
The early reports were blunt:
“Not good with math.”
“Poor graph capabilities.”
The team wasn't discouraged. They kept tinkering - jumping between tools, staying on top of new releases, experimenting constantly.
This was a small team, across 24 countries, building off each other’s ideas. Laughing at crazy creations. Breaking things. Iterating in a sandbox alongside real clientwork.
Each cycle produced something:
- A sharper scenario
- A faster build
- A more powerful simulation
The flywheel was turning, and it was generating something real.
When the diamond appeared.
Then something shifted.
The team moved into client trials across five countries. They figured out ISO compliance and built the architecture to handle the complexity, the “spaghetti.”
And what emerged wasn’t incremental:
- What used to take weeks started happening in days.
- Limited creativity started to feel like unlimited innovation.
- Clients became self-serving.
- Agentic simulations were built directly into client systems for real-time updates and preparation.
This was our first AI diamond - a high-impact outcome created by many cycles of experimentation compounding into real value.
It only appeared because we kept the flywheel turning, each cycle increasing the odds that something would break through.
95% adoption in eight weeks.
Then it was time to take the AI diamond global.
BTS is decentralized and highly entrepreneurial. We operate across 24 countries and 38 offices, where local teams have real autonomy.
And historically? That’s meant a low appetite for adopting something built somewhere else and pushed from the center.
So we expected resistance.
Instead, something surprising happened.
In the first eight weeks, we saw 95% adoption across our global footprint.
It felt completely different from our own digital initiatives, ERP implementations, top-down rollouts of the past.
This moved on its own. Why?
We realized it didn’t start with a framework or a model, it started with a feeling.
The feeling of being at the leading edge of one’s craft and profession.
- Joy
- Excitement
- Pride
As we watched this play out across teams it stopped feeling like isolated wins.
There was a pattern to it. A repeatable, organic, innovation motion.
And the flywheel didn’t stop with simulations.
It spread across finance, sales enablement, legal, operations, and client delivery. Some cycles led to small improvements, and others revealed new diamonds.
Not becausewe planned for them, but because we built the conditions for people to find them.
The question I'd ask any CEO right now: Is your flywheel turning, or are you still waiting for the perfect plan?
In part 2, I’ll share the key success factors behind the breakthrough, and what we’re now seeing across more than 120 global clients.
Related content
É possível mudar a cultura de uma organização?
Hoje em dia, poucas organizações não estão envolvidas em um (ou vários) processos de transformação cultural. Novas formas de trabalhar em organizações mais horizontais e adaptativas, melhorias na cultura de segurança, orientação ao cliente, transformações nas áreas comerciais e excelência operacional, entre outros.
E é aqui que surge uma das grandes perguntas:
É possível mudar a cultura de uma organização? E, se sim, como fazer isso?
Para ajudar a responder a essas perguntas—frequentes entre nossos clientes e amplamente discutidas—gostaria de compartilhar o que aprendemos na BTS ao longo dos últimos 38 anos sobre o que funciona e o que não funciona (até agora, pois em transformação cultural estamos sempre aprendendo).
A boa notícia é que a resposta é sim.
A dificuldade está na segunda pergunta: como fazer isso?
Um projeto? Uma iniciativa?
Um ponto importante é que a transformação cultural não é um projeto com início e fim, mas sim um processo contínuo e em evolução. Isso muitas vezes gera tensão em organizações acostumadas a uma lógica de projetos.
O que é crítico e frequentemente ignorado?
Existem elementos que, quando considerados e aplicados corretamente, tornam a transformação muito mais eficaz. No entanto, muitas vezes são ignorados.
Esses elementos são:
- Envolver as pessoas. Quanto maior o envolvimento em todos os níveis, maior a probabilidade de implementação das mudanças.
- Tornar a mudança tangível e vivida no dia a dia, conectando teoria e prática. Transparência é fundamental.
- Toda mudança tem impactos positivos e negativos — ambos devem ser comunicados com clareza.
- Mudança cultural exige tempo e transformação de mindsets e estruturas organizacionais.
- A cultura deve estar conectada à estratégia.
Como estruturamos a transformação cultural?
Nosso modelo se baseia em quatro etapas: definir resultados, criar líderes de mudança, incorporar mudanças e sustentar novas formas de trabalho.
1. Definir resultados
O primeiro passo é estabelecer resultados claros e alinhamento executivo. É necessário conectar propósito, visão e objetivos organizacionais.
Ações:
- Coleta de dados (entrevistas, focus groups, visitas)
- Diagnósticos culturais
- Definição de expectativas (Leadership Profiles
2. Criar líderes de mudança
Todos os líderes devem atuar como agentes de mudança. É fundamental engajá-los emocional e racionalmente.
Ações:
- Programas de liderança
- Playbooks
- Feedback contínuo
3. Incorporar mudanças
É essencial transformar mentalidades e sistemas organizacionais.
Ações:
- Coaching
- Sprints culturais
- Cascata organizacional
- Avaliações comportamentais
4. Sustentar o novo modelo
Garantir continuidade através de redes, dados e suporte contínuo.
Ações:
- Integração com processos de talento
- Uso de IA no dia a dia
- Monitoramento da transformação
- Comunidades de prática
A importância de ser paciente e impaciente ao mesmo tempo
Transformações culturais são complexas e não têm fórmula única.
Ser estrategicamente paciente e taticamente ágil é essencial para ajustar e evoluir continuamente.
Esse equilíbrio permite transformar a jornada em algo positivo e sustentável.
Este é apenas um resumo.
Se quiser aprofundar com exemplos e práticas:
Baixe o PDF completo e acesse todo o conteúdo.
Si può cambiare la cultura di un’organizzazione?
Oggi, poche organizzazioni non sono immerse in uno (o più) processi di trasformazione culturale. Nuovi modi di lavorare in organizzazioni più piatte e adattive, miglioramenti nella cultura della sicurezza, orientamento al cliente, trasformazioni delle aree commerciali e miglioramento dell’eccellenza operativa, per citarne alcuni.
Ed è qui che nasce una delle grandi domande:
Si può cambiare la cultura di un’organizzazione? E, se sì, come si fa?
Per aiutare a rispondere a queste domande—che i nostri clienti ci pongono spesso e su cui esiste molta letteratura—vorrei condividere ciò che in BTS abbiamo imparato negli ultimi 38 anni su ciò che funziona e ciò che non funziona (finora, perché nel cambiamento culturale non si smette mai di imparare).
La buona notizia è che la risposta alla domanda se si possa cambiare la cultura di un’organizzazione è sì.
La difficoltà sta nel rispondere alla seconda: come si fa?
Un progetto? Un’iniziativa?
Un aspetto importante da considerare è che i processi di cambiamento o trasformazione culturale non sono progetti con un inizio e una fine; sono processi in continua evoluzione. Questo spesso genera tensione nelle organizzazioni abituate a un approccio basato sui progetti.
Cosa è critico e spesso viene ignorato?
Esistono diversi elementi che, se considerati e utilizzati correttamente, rendono gli sforzi di trasformazione molto più efficaci. Purtroppo, spesso vengono ignorati.
Questi elementi critici sono:
- Coinvolgere le persone. Più le persone (a tutti i livelli) sono coinvolte nella trasformazione, maggiori sono le probabilità che implementino i cambiamenti richiesti.
- Per comprendere il cambiamento, bisogna renderlo tangibile e sperimentarlo. Ciò significa collegare il quadro teorico alle azioni quotidiane. Spiegare il quadro completo con trasparenza è fondamentale.
- Tutti i cambiamenti portano aspetti positivi, ma anche impatti negativi. Spiegare il quadro completo con trasparenza è fondamentale.
- Cambiare la cultura richiede tempo e implica identificare e modificare i “mindset” e le strutture quotidiane (simboli) che definiscono come si fanno le cose nell’organizzazione.
- La cultura deve essere fortemente connessa alla strategia.
Come consigliamo di strutturare i processi di cambiamento culturale?
Il nostro approccio si compone di quattro fasi: definire i risultati, creare leader del cambiamento, incorporare i cambiamenti chiave e sostenere i nuovi modi di lavorare.
1. Definire i risultati
Il primo passo in qualsiasi processo di trasformazione è stabilire risultati chiari. È fondamentale identificare i driver della trasformazione e definire i risultati desiderati in modo da ottenere un vero allineamento a livello esecutivo. Man mano che si procede, è necessario collegare lo scopo e la visione, comprendendo da dove si viene, dove si è e dove si vuole andare. Inoltre, è essenziale collegare la trasformazione agli obiettivi organizzativi.
Alcune azioni rilevanti in questa fase sono:
- Raccolta di informazioni (interviste, focus group, visite operative, …)
- Diagnosi culturali
- Definizione delle aspettative (Leadership Profiles
2. Creare leader del cambiamento
In BTS crediamo che tutti i leader siano anche leader del cambiamento. Adottare una mentalità da “leader del cambiamento” richiede che i leader sperimentino e vedano ciò che ci si aspetta da loro. Fin dall’inizio è fondamentale promuovere l’azione attraverso il “lavoro reale”, come stabilire nuove priorità e comunicare in modo trasparente ed efficace.
I leader devono essere coinvolti (emotivamente e razionalmente) nel cambiamento e devono capire come possono influenzare la cultura attraverso azioni concrete quotidiane.
Infine, è necessario fornire supporto continuo per i cambiamenti più difficili di mentalità e comportamento e raccogliere feedback su ciò che funziona e ciò che non funziona in questa fase.
Alcune azioni rilevanti in questa fase sono:
- Sviluppo di playbook per ruoli critici
- Implementazione di programmi di leadership e cambiamento
- Feedback loops con i livelli esecutivi
3. Incorporare i cambiamenti chiave
Per ottenere un cambiamento significativo, è essenziale identificare i modelli mentali attuali e introdurne di nuovi che supportino lo stato desiderato. Creare routine e simboli che rafforzino il cambiamento, così come identificare processi, pratiche, eventi o norme ancorate ai vecchi modi di lavorare, è fondamentale.
Co-creare nuovi modi di lavorare per un’attivazione immediata aiuta a consolidare questi cambiamenti. Con il progresso, modificare sistemi e processi che supportano e rafforzano i cambiamenti è essenziale per il successo a lungo termine.
Alcune azioni rilevanti in questa fase sono:
- Coaching per leader
- Cultural sprints
- Cascading del cambiamento nell’organizzazione
- Assessment per misurare i cambiamenti comportamentali
4. Sostenere i nuovi modi di lavorare
Il cambiamento non è solo uno sforzo individuale, ma anche un fenomeno sociale. Per questo è necessario creare reti sociali che supportino i cambiamenti di mentalità e comportamento. Interventi con supporto individuale per ruoli critici e momenti specifici, così come l’integrazione dei nuovi modi di lavorare, garantiscono la continuità del cambiamento.
Infine, è necessario utilizzare i dati per analizzare ciò che funziona e ciò che non funziona, permettendo di definire nuove azioni e interventi.
Alcune azioni rilevanti in questa fase sono:
- Integrazione dei playbook nel ciclo di talent management
- Pratica dei nuovi comportamenti con bot basati su IA
- Creazione di un ufficio per monitorare il cambiamento e definire nuove azioni
- Creazione e lancio di Comunità di Pratica (CoP)
L’importanza di essere pazienti e impazienti allo stesso tempo
I processi di trasformazione culturale sono tra i più complessi, poiché non esiste una ricetta unica.
Essere strategicamente pazienti (con risultati chiari ed evitando cambiamenti erratici), ma tatticamente impazienti (agendo nelle fasi descritte e adattando in base a ciò che funziona e ciò che non funziona) è fondamentale.
Questo approccio permette di trasformare questi percorsi in esperienze arricchenti per l’organizzazione, e non in processi dolorosi che lasciano cicatrici nella memoria collettiva.
Questo è solo un riassunto.
Se vuoi approfondire l’approccio completo, esempi e chiavi pratiche:
Scarica il PDF completo e accedi a tutti i contenuti.
Can an organization’s culture be changed?
Nowadays, there are few organizations that are not immersed in one (or several) cultural transformation processes. New ways of working in flatter and more adaptive organizations, improvements in safety culture, customer-centric transformations, changes in commercial areas, and improvements in operational excellence, to name a few.
And this is where one of the big questions arises:
Can an organization’s culture be changed? And if so, how is it done?
To help answer these questions—often asked by our clients and widely discussed—I would like to share what we at BTS have learned over the past 38 years about what works and what doesn’t (so far, since in cultural transformation one never stops learning).
The good news is that the answer to whether an organization’s culture can be changed is yes.
The difficulty comes in answering the second: how is it done?
A project? An initiative?
An important point to consider is that cultural change or transformation processes are not projects with a beginning and an end; they are ongoing, evolving processes. This often creates tension in organizations that are used to a project-based approach.
What is critical and often overlooked?
There are several elements that, if considered and properly used, will make transformation efforts much more effective. Unfortunately, they are often overlooked.
These critical elements are:
- Involve people. The more individuals (at all levels) are engaged in the transformation, the higher the likelihood that they will implement the required changes.
- To understand change, it must be made tangible and experienced. This means connecting the theoretical framework with day-to-day actions. Explaining the full picture with transparency is key.
- All changes bring positive aspects, but also negative impacts. Explaining the full picture with transparency is key.
- Changing culture takes time and requires identifying and shifting mindsets and daily structures (symbols) that define how things are done in the organization.
- Culture must be strongly connected to strategy.
How do we recommend structuring cultural change processes?
Our approach consists of four stages: setting outcomes, creating change leaders, embedding key changes, and sustaining new ways of working.
1. Set outcomes
The first step in any transformation process is to establish clear outcomes. It is crucial to identify the drivers of the transformation and define the desired results in a way that achieves true executive alignment. As you move forward, you must connect the dots between purpose and vision, understanding where you come from, where you are, and where you want to go. Additionally, it is essential to link the transformation to organizational goals.
Some relevant actions in this phase are:
- Information gathering (interviews, focus groups, operational visits, …)
- Cultural diagnostics
- Definition of expectations (Leadership Profiles
2. Create change leaders
At BTS, we believe that all leaders are also change leaders. Adopting a “change leader” mindset requires leaders to experience and see what is expected of them. From the outset, it is vital to drive action through ‘real work’, such as setting new priorities and communicating transparently and effectively.
Leaders must be engaged (emotionally and rationally) in the change and shown how they can impact culture through concrete day-to-day actions.
Finally, it is necessary to provide ongoing support for the most challenging mindset and behavior changes and gather feedback on what works and what doesn’t at this stage.
Some relevant actions in this phase are:
- Development of playbooks for critical roles
- Deployment of leadership and change programs
- Feedback loops with executive levels
3. Embed key changes
To achieve meaningful change, it is essential to identify current mindsets and introduce new ones that support the desired state. Creating routines and symbols that reinforce change, as well as identifying processes, practices, events, or norms anchored in old ways of working, is crucial.
Co-creating new ways of working for immediate activation helps cement these changes. As progress is made, changing the systems and processes that support and reinforce key changes is essential for long-term success.
Some relevant actions in this phase are:
- Coaching for leaders
- Running cultural sprints
- Cascading the change across the organization
- Assessments to measure behavior changes
4. Sustain new ways of working
Change is not only an individual effort but also a social phenomenon. Therefore, it is necessary to provide the social networks needed to support mindset and behavior changes. Intervening with individual support for critical roles and specific periods, as well as embedding new ways of working, ensures the continuity of change.
Finally, data must be used to analyze what works and what doesn’t, enabling the creation of the next set of interventions and necessary support.
Some relevant actions in this phase are:
- Integration of playbooks into the organization’s talent cycle
- Practice of new behaviors in daily work with AI-powered bots
- Design of an office to monitor change and define new actions
- Design and launch of Communities of Practice (CoP)
The importance of being patient and impatient at the same time
Cultural transformation processes are among the most challenging elements, as there is never a single recipe.
Being strategically patient (with clear desired outcomes and avoiding erratic changes), but tactically impatient (taking action in the phases outlined above and observing what works and what doesn’t, in order to pivot and adjust) is key in transformation processes.
The 4-phase approach helps achieve this, enabling these journeys to become an enriching experience for the organization, rather than a painful one that leaves scars in the collective memory.
This is just a summary.
If you want to dive deeper into the full approach, examples, and practical insights:
Download the full PDF and access all the content.