DIAGNOSTIC PACKAGE · FIXED PRICE · FOUR WEEKS
The Steering Audit
A structural assessment of your transformation program’s steerability—before the next major investment decision is on the table. Four weeks. Fixed price. Four layers. A Program Steerability Score, a Stability Report, and a 90-minute executive debriefing.
AFTER FOUR WEEKS, YOU'LL KNOW
Where your program crashes.
The Steerability Score for your program.
Aggregated from four layers—Purpose & Outcome, Decision Architecture, Steering Logic, Power & Reality. A number on a scale of 1 to 5, accompanied by the classification: Critically Constrained, At Risk, or Steerable. Not an opinion. A diagnosis.
The Stability Report — 14 to 16 slides.
Cockpit slide, layer slides with structural findings, implications, and actions. Suitable for the Steering Committee; not written in a consultant’s style. Immediate actions where layers are critical. Structural measures where resilience is needed. Recommendations for areas where optimization is possible.
A 90-minute executive debriefing.
A private discussion of the findings in a small group. You decide who attends. You decide what is subsequently presented to the Steering Committee.
THE METHOD
Four layers. Two dimensions.
Controllability is not a single factor. It is a layered structure. Four layers are stacked on top of one another—if the bottom layer fails, the top layer cannot hold. The audit examines each layer individually, then how they interact.
Layer 1 · Purpose & Outcome
Is there a shared, documented vision—and do the key stakeholders support it?
Layer 2 · Decision Architecture
Who decides what—formally versus in practice? Where do decision-making processes break down?
Layer 3 · Steering Logic
What are the key performance indicators based on? Are the KPIs consistent, forward-looking, and aligned with the business model?
Layer 4 · Power & Reality
Who has formal responsibility, and who has actual power? Self-interest, capacity, and portfolio realities.
For each layer, I measure two factors. The score on a scale of 1 to 5—how far apart are the concept and actual practice? And the Maturity Fit—does the concept align with your organization’s level of maturity? A high score alone isn’t enough. A concept that’s five years ahead of its time can’t be managed.
Aggregated across the four layers, this yields the Program Steerability Score—classified as Critically Constrained, At Risk, or Steerable.
Highlight structures, not individuals. The audit identifies where critical issues lie—not who is to blame. This is essential for the findings to gain traction within the steering committee.
RECOGNITION LOGIC
Six patterns that lead to structural failures in programs.
Over the course of more than twenty years in finance and SAP transformation programs, six patterns have emerged. They do not all occur at the same time. But if three of them apply, control is at risk—regardless of how polished the dashboard looks.
1 · No shared vision
The program charter exists on paper. In interviews with five key individuals, five different answers emerge to the question of what the ultimate goal is.
2 · Clients with a vested interest opposed to the program
The official sponsor stands to gain structurally if the program is not completed. This is not stated explicitly, but it influences every decision.
3 · Program management avoids conflict
Escalations are simply left to run their course rather than being resolved. The Steering Committee does not receive proposals for decision-making, but rather status reports.
4 · Methodological conflicts in KPI logic
Earned value, sales forecasting, and project controlling all use different metrics. Each system is correct—and none of them can be used for management purposes.
5 · Asymmetric business unit investment
Two-thirds of the organization supports the program. One-third is structurally opposed to it. The program’s resource allocation does not take this into account.
6 · The Illusion of Capacity
On paper, resources are allocated. In reality, the same people are involved in three parallel programs. No one is keeping track of the overall workload.
The audit systematically examines which of these patterns are present in your organization—and which are not. Findings, not diagnoses of individuals.
GETTING STARTED
Two calls. No hourly rate. No proposal.
Before an audit begins, we hold two structured meetings to determine whether it’s the right fit for your situation. No price discussions over the phone. No lectures on methodology. Two meetings, then an informed decision—on both sides.
Call 1 · 30 minutes · Needs assessment
I’m listening. What’s the context behind your question about taxability? What’s the scope, the situation, and the timeline? No sales pitch. No price range. No proposal. By the end of the call, I’ll know if the audit format is a good fit for your situation—and you’ll know how I work.
Call 2 · 45 minutes · Outline, process, fixed price
Seven to ten days after Call 1. I’ll provide you with a structured outline: an audit plan tailored to your event, a four-week schedule, an interview framework, and a report structure. Fixed price. Clear description of the process. Your key concerns—backup, confidentiality, and the report’s intended audience—will be directly addressed.
A written offer will be provided only after Call 2 has been accepted by both parties. The audit will begin only after the offer has been signed.
TWO FORMATS
Full-frame or compact.
The audit is available in two formats. Both follow the same methodology—Four Layers, Score, Maturity Fit, Classification. The difference lies in the depth of the interviews, the breadth of triangulation, and the duration of the audit. We’ll determine which format best suits your situation during Call 2.
Full-frame · Four weeks
For corporations with annual revenue of €200 million or more and a complex software architecture—typically SAP S/4HANA, a finance operating model, multiple business units, and an international presence. Three rounds of interviews, extensive document analysis, a stability report comprising 14–16 slides, and a 90-minute executive debriefing with the steering committee or a select group of sponsors.
Compact · Two to three weeks
For high-growth SMEs with annual revenue in the range of €100–200 million, featuring targeted programs—typically a business unit or a clearly defined transformation project. Shorter interviews, same methodology, a Stability Report with 8–10 slides, and a 60-minute debriefing.
Both formats are fixed-price. Both formats follow the same methodological approach. The scope of the audit is reduced, but not its depth.
THE NEXT STEP
Before making the next major investment decision.
If you recognize yourself in any of the six structural patterns—even just three of them—it’s worth having a conversation. Not for an audit. But to determine whether an audit is the right fit for your situation.
Thirty minutes. No pitch. No hourly rate.
Cordula Buss · Plan A2C · Structure First