Menedżerowie Archive


BCG – How Complicated Is Your Company?


Around the world, economic growth is slowing down. In developed and emerging economies alike, growth rates have declined considerably from their peaks, and there is little evidence that they will rise substantially any time soon. Anemic expansion of labor productivity is largely to blame. As Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman wrote in The Age of Diminished Expectations, “Productivity isn’t everything, but in the long run it is almost everything. A country’s ability to improve its standard of living over time depends almost entirely on its ability to raise its output per worker.”

True, many factors can affect the rise and fall of labor productivity in the short term, including political instability, changing regulations, business cycles, technology investment, and the difficulty of improving the service sector’s productivity. But we believe that the underlying cause of the recent slowdown has been the ongoing, long-term rise of complicatedness, a phenomenon we first measured in one of our previous publications on Smart Simplicity, “Smart Rules: Six Ways to Get People to Solve Problems Without You.”1 We define complicatedness as the increase in organizational structures, processes, procedures, decision rights, metrics, scorecards, and committees that companies impose to manage the escalating complexity of their external business environment.

We recently surveyed executives and employees at more than 1,000 companies about their perceptions of the nature and degree of complicatedness at their organizations. The results highlight the strong connection between complicatedness and performance and indicate where companies should concentrate their efforts to simplify.

By Reinhard Messenböck , Yves Morieux , Jaap Backx , and Donat Wunderlich



EY – Engineering the engineering org

How can companies design their engineering functions to strike the right balance between market responsiveness and operational efficiency?

Harnessing and optimizing engineering talent is paramount to success in the technology sector, but our experience has shown that there is no single way to accomplish this when it comes to designing an engineering organizational structure. Some structures optimize solution time-to-market, while others optimize operational efficiency. If an organization leans too far in either direction, it risks falling behind competitors in cost structure, innovation or speed-to-market. How can companies design their engineering functions to strike the right balance between market responsiveness and operational efficiency? It is worth noting that what is right for one company in its current form (stage in the product life cycle, competitive landscape, etc.) may not be right for another or for that same company five years from now. In short, there is no right structure — only the right structure at the right time for a given company.

Know your options. There are a wide variety of options when it comes to engineering organizational structures. For this analysis we have grouped them into three categories: vertically oriented, horizontally oriented and hybrid.

  1. Vertically oriented structure where engineering is part of each business unit (BU)
  2. Horizontally oriented structure where engineering is a stand-alone organization
  3. Hybrid structures that use hard and dotted lines to matrix engineers between an engineering organization and BUs

To assess where their company lies on this spectrum, executives can ask themselves questions such as:

  • Who is responsible for meeting customer demands and anticipating market trends?
  • Who owns the product line P&L? Who is responsible for prioritizing engineering investments?
  • Who is responsible for attracting, developing and retaining engineering talent?

by: Barak Ravid, Managing Director, EY Co-head of Technology; Contributors: Barak Ravid
Managing Director, Co-head of Technology, EY-Parthenon, Ernst & Young LLP; Spencer Lee, Vice President
EY-Parthenon, Ernst & Young LLP; Nina Lapachet, Senior Manager, Transaction Advisory Services, Ernst & Young LLP

More: EY

About EY. EY is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. The insights and quality services we deliver help build trust and confidence in the capital markets and in economies the world over. We develop outstanding leaders who team to deliver on our promises to all of our stakeholders. In so doing, we play a critical role in building a better working world for our people, for our clients and for our communities. EY refers to the global organization, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organization, please visit


How Vital Companies Think, Act, and Thrive

“Vitality shows in not only the ability to persist but the ability to start over.” — F. Scott Fitzgerald

“How do you keep the vitality of day one, even inside a large organization?” — Jeff Bezos

Leadership has its benefits—scale, knowledge, influence, and financial stability among them. But our research shows that as companies age and grow, incumbents increasingly focus on internal matters, have more difficulty freeing themselves from legacy businesses and approaches, and progressively shift their priorities toward running—rather than reinventing—the business. Nontraditional competitors, disruptive technologies, and new business models are making corporate reinvention a critical priority.


How can legacy leaders remain vital—to preserve and develop their capacity for growth, risk taking, innovation, and long-term success? In creating a quantitative measure of corporate vitality and its underlying drivers, we hope to provide a working framework of what matters when managing the balance between delivering near-term execution and investing in the future. The drive to maintain vitality has organizational, financial, and cultural levers—all of which reinforce each other.


The challenge is straightforward: growth is critical for sustained value creation. In the short term, companies can create value by optimizing costs or assets or by building investors’ expectations. Yet in the long run, most value creation comes from top-line growth, which accounts for 74% of total shareholder return of S&P 500 top-quartile-performing companies over a ten-year period.

The good news is that achieving sustainable growth is still possible for today’s incumbents. Approximately 10% of large US companies are growing at double-digit rates.  Among that 10%, many—such as Visa and Mastercard (credit cards), Hilton (hotels), Constellation Brands (alcoholic beverages), and O’Reilly (auto parts)—are from nontech industries. What is their secret?

In today’s rapidly changing environment—with elevated political, social, and technological uncertainty—what will make a company thrive tomorrow is different from what makes it succeed today. Current performance is less and less predictive, and an overreliance on backward-looking metrics can be deceptive. Many of today’s large incumbents are vulnerable, even if they have a solid track record of past performance.

And abrupt failures happen increasingly frequently—think Kodak or Blockbuster—in no small part because of the risk of digital disruption. Even when their positions seem comfortable, incumbents need to create a sense of urgency and preemptively address the requirements to sustained success. They must develop their capacity for growth and reinvention. This is what we call vitality.

We are able to measure vitality by using BCG’s proprietary methodology behind the Fortune Future 50—the result of a two-year research partnership between BCG and Fortune magazine. This index ranks the most vital US-listed companies. To build it, we collected all theories purporting to explain the ability of a company to grow and we associated them with measurable variables. We then tested those theories against historical data and only kept the variables that had a measurable and robust impact on long-term revenue growth. As expected, the age and size of a company have a negative impact on growth—confirming that the more established the incumbent, the harder it is to remain vital.

Authors: Martin Reeves, Gerry Hansell, and Rodolphe Charme di Carlo

More: BCG Henderson Institute

The BCG Henderson Institute is The Boston Consulting Group’s internal think tank, dedicated to exploring and developing valuable new insights from business, technology, and science by embracing the powerful technology of ideas. The Institute engages leaders in provocative discussion and experimentation to expand the boundaries of business theory and practice and to translate innovative ideas from within and beyond business. For more ideas and inspiration from the Institute, please visit Ideas & Inspiration.


Projmors – Dobre czasy dla inżynierów

Terminal LNG w Świnoujściu, stanowisko T1 w DCT Gdańsk to sztandarowe inwestycje hydrotechniczne, które już wrosły w pejzaż polskiej infrastruktury morskiej.

Rozwój infrastruktury portowej, modernizacja stoczni, inwestycje w rozwój żeglugi krótkiego zasięgu i śródlądowej to trend światowy, w który wpisuje się aktywność firmy Projmors – Biura Projektów Budownictwa Morskiego działającego od prawie 70 lat.

Czas inwestycji. Niedługo rozpocznie się budowa kanału żeglugowego przez Mierzeję Wiślaną. Ambitne plany mają porty w Gdyni i Gdańsku. Oprócz nowej obrotnicy i publicznego terminalu promowego, Gdynia planuje zbudowanie terminalu w głębi Zatoki Gdańskiej – informował Adam Meller, prezes Zarządu Morskiego Portu Gdynia. Modernizacja portu wewnętrznego oraz budowa portu zewnętrznego – to priorytety Zarządu Morskiego Portu Gdańsk – podkreślał prezes Łukasz Greinke w czasie niedawnego  Forum Gospodarki Morskiej w Gdyni. W planach Ministerstwa Gospodarki Morskiej i Żeglugi Śródlądowej znajduje się również modernizacja stoczni i aktywizacja szlaków śródlądowych, bowiem „gospodarka morska jest branżą, z którą rząd wiąże ogromne szanse i która należy do priorytetów rządu” podkreślał w czasie gdyńskiego Forum  Marek Gróbarczyk, Minister Gospodarki Morskiej i Żeglugi Śródlądowej.

Czas na doświadczenie. Tak ambitne programy stanowią wyzwanie dla projektantów z unikalnymi umiejętnościami. W czasach rajzbretów w firmie pracowało nawet 400  projektantów i innych specjalistów. „Wraz z rozwojem komputeryzacji zatrudnienie było ograniczane i obecnie nasze biuro projektowe zatrudnia 60 projektantów we wszystkich specjalnościach” – mówi Mateusz Samulak, prezes zarządu  Projmors. Połowa z nich to młodzi inżynierowie. „Łączymy bowiem doświadczenie z młodzieńczą pasją. Inżynierowie z długim stażem spełniają rolę mentorów” – wyjaśnia Samulak.

Doświadczenie budowano latami. W latach 50.  60.   Projmors wykonywał projekty dla odbiorców krajowych, by z czasem realizować zlecenia dla kontrahentów w Europie, Afryce, Bliskim i Dalekim Wschodzie. Silną pozycję na rynku międzynarodowym zapewnia mu to, że firma jest zarejestrowana w FAO oraz UNIDO, a unikalną wartość ma Świadectwo akredytacji bezpieczeństwa systemu teleinformatycznego ″TAJNE″ i ″NATO SECRET″.

Czas na projekty. Inżynierowie Projmorsu mają na swoim koncie bazy przeładunkowo-składowe towarów suchych i płynnych, terminale promowo – kontenerowe, porty i przystanie jachtowe morskie i rzeczne oraz oczywiście budowle i konstrukcje hydrotechniczne. Tu zaprojektowano obiekty o konstrukcjach stalowych, żelbetonowych i drewnianych, kompletne obiekty i instalacje budowlane, wodno-ściekowe, cieplne, energetyczne, telekomunikacyjne i transportowe. W pracowniach Projmorsu powstały kompleksowe projekty z obszaru ochrony środowiska, a także stocznie remontowe i obiekty zaplecza techniczno-warsztatowego, urządzenia transportowo – podnośne, dźwigi pływające, suche doki,     porty i bazy rybackie, chłodnie i magazyny specjalne. Tu, na deskach projektantów rodziły się tak spektakularne inwestycje jak: Bałtycki Terminal Kontenerowy oraz Port Północny, Terminal Przeładunkowy w Porcie Elbląg oraz Terminal Głębokowodny DCT Gdańsk, Terminal LNG w Świnoujściu.

            Czas na wdrożenia. Z ostatnich realizacji na konto inżynierów Projmorsu zaliczyć należy Port LNG w Świnoujściu, a więc zbudowany od podstaw  całkowicie nowy port zewnętrzny z głównym falochronem dł. 3000 m, stanowiskiem przeładunkowym gazowców o dł. do 300 m, torem podejściowym i obrotnicą o gł. 14,5 m i wym. 630/1000 m. Projektanci z Gdańska tworzyli również terminal kontenerowy dla Deutsche Bahn na Ostrowiu Grabowskim w Porcie Szczecin o zdolności przeładunkowej 120 000 TEU. W komputerach Projmorsu narodził się również Głębokowodny Terminal Kontenerowy DCT Gdańsk o zdolności przeładunkowej 500 000 TEU w I etapie. Tu zaprojektowano falochrony o łącznej długości 2600 m, 2 stanowiska statkowe o gł. 13,5 i 16,5 m na nabrzeżu kontenerowym długości 650 m dla statków Postpanamax i całe zaplecze lądowe aż po terminal kolejowy.

Z ostatnich realizacji zagranicznych warto wymienić koncepcję budowy  wielofunkcyjnego terminala paliwowego w Afryce oraz projekt Stoczni Sacomar W Namibe w Angoli.  Zaprocentowało doświadczenie projektowaniu i realizacjach w libijskich portach Derna, Trypolis czy Garabulli, budowie  Stoczni Remontowej Nigerdock II w Lagos czy terminala kontenerowego w Porcie Algier. W Gdańsku zaprojektowana została również  Stocznia Remontowa Nigerdock I w Lagos w Nigerii oraz Stocznia Remontowo-Produkcyjna ″Ha-Long″ w Wietnamie.

Czas dla inżynierów.  Od roku 1975 Projmors wykonuje funkcje Generalnego Realizatora Inwestycji, pełni nadzory inwestorskie oraz pełni funkcję Inżyniera w rozumieniu umów o roboty budowlane wg FIDIC. Na kocie firmy są więc typowo morskie nadzory inwestorskie, jak Baza Mosawa w Gdyni, czy system kierowania statkami w Zatoce Gdańskiej, jak i budowa giełdy rolno-spożywczej Rënk w Gdańsku, czy  budowa zespołu obsługi startowej lotniska Rębiechowo w Gdańsku.

Niedawno Projmors włączony został do grupy ASE, zespołu firm innowacyjnych, skoncentrowanych na projektowaniu instalacji przemysłowych, a szczególnie bezpiecznych technologii dla przemysłu i infrastruktury. Niedługo firma przeniesie się do nowego budynku, blisko Międzynarodowych Targów Gdańskich. W wyniku tego w ramach Grupy ASE powstanie nowa jakość – kampus technologiczny, w którym innowacyjne rozwiązania będzie tworzyć około 300 inżynierów  i pracowników zaplecza – wyjaśnia prezes Samulak. Niedawno oddano do ich dyspozycji nowy zespół laboratoriów, w którym tworzone będę kolejne innowacyjne technologie.


BCG Research – Corporate Transformations Are Risky

but Evidence Shows How Leaders Can Improve Odds of Success

Many Companies Follow Their Gut Rather Than Seek Evidence of What Works, According to BCG Research Published in MIT Sloan Management Review.  Despite the frequent need for transformation—and the growing risk of failure—too many company transformations are guided by intuition, not by empirical evidence.

Research underpinning the design and execution of turnarounds and transformations is surprisingly thin, leading companies to commit to high-cost, high-risk initiatives without a clear understanding of the actions that will lead to lasting results. But a study by The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and the BCG Henderson Institute has found several factors that increase the chances of success. The findings are published on the MIT Sloan Management Review website.

“Corporate transformations are often guided by beliefs, that, while seemingly plausible, are more anecdotal than empirical in nature,” said report coauthor Martin Reeves, a Senior Partner at BCG and Director of the BCG Henderson Institute. “It’s time for a more evidence-based approach.”

BCG studied US public companies and focused in on more than 300 with over $10 billion in market capitalization and with an urgent need to transform: their total shareholder return (TSR) had fallen 10 percentage points or more relative to their peers’ over a two-year period. The research covers the period 2004-2016.

The article points out that:

  • At any time during the study, a third of large US companies were experiencing a severe decline in their ability to create shareholder value, demonstrating a need for fundamental change.
  • Successful recovery is the exception, not the rule. Only one-quarter of the companies were able to outperform their industry in the short and long run after the point of TSR deterioration, and this trend has worsened: the transformation success rate was 30% in 2001, and only 25% in 2012.
  • The more severe and protracted the downturn, the worse the results. Of companies that suffered a two-year annualized TSR deterioration of more than 20 percentage points, 95% failed to return to their prior level of performance.

Five factors have proven to increase the odds of successful transformations, especially if used in combination

  • Cost cutting alone is not enough to start a transformation process. Most successful companies also focus on raising investor expectations with credible plans. Many companies that successfully recovered from severe TSR deterioration did indeed cut costs during the first year. But resetting investor expectations (as measured by valuation relative to earnings) was a stronger driver of short-run TSR recovery, accounting for 37% of outperformance. “Leaders must also regain investor confidence by showing how they will leverage their newfound flexibility,” Reeves said.
  • Revenue growth is the key driver of long-term success, so transformations must introduce a “second chapter.” After the first year of transformation, revenue growth became an increasingly important driver. By year five, it outweighed both cost cutting and investor expectations. “Transformation efforts cannot focus solely on short-term operational improvements,” said Reeves. “The second chapter requires that leaders challenge the foundations of the company’s business model, create a new vision for growth, and commit to see the program through.”
  • Long-term strategy and research-and-development (R&D) investment are correlated with success, especially in turbulent environments. Companies with an above-average long-term strategic orientation (as measured by an artificial intelligence algorithm developed by the BCG Henderson Institute that uses natural language processing to analyze company reports) outperformed those with a below-average orientation by 4.8 percentage points. In turbulent environments, the difference was even greater: 7 percentage points. In aggregate, companies with above-average R&D spending perform substantially better (5.1 percentage points) than those with below-average spending.
  • New leadership—especially when brought in from outside—can improve the odds of success. Only 24% of the companies launching a transformation program changed CEOs (compared with 19% at all comparable companies, including those not transforming). But, on average, companies that changed CEOs outperformed: they increased TSR by 9.2 percentage points over a five-year span, compared with 4.6 percentage points for those with incumbent CEOs. External hires performed better in the aggregate, but they had a wider range of both positive and negative outcomes than internal hires. “Companies that go to the outside need a tolerance for risk,” said report coauthor Lars Fæste, a Senior Partner at BCG and global leader of the BCG Transformation practice and BCG TURN. A similar dynamic extends to the leadership team. Only 20% of transforming companies had high executive turnover (more than 20% of officers), but those that did improved TSR by 4.4 percentage points more than others.
  • Formalized transformation programs perform better on average, as long as they’re big and ambitious enough. More than half (57%) of the companies announced a formal transformation program within a year of TSR deterioration. “Those that did, did better,” said Fæste. “In the short run, they boosted investor confidence, and in the long run they achieved sustainable improvements in the business—they increased TSR by 5 percentage points in a five-year period.” The most successful programs were generally long-term—at least five years—and ambitious.

While each of these steps led to positive performance, the companies that did best were the ones that took several of them, not just one. For example, companies that changed CEOs and also had formal transformation programs gained 7.7 percentage points in TSR, compared to just 1.4 percentage points when they had formal programs but kept their incumbent leaders. “When these success factors are used jointly, they have an additive impact, greater than the sum of its parts,” Reeves said. “Companies that used at least four of the success factors in their transformations achieved the largest increase in TSR: a gain of 17.4 percentage points over five years.”

“Not every factor will be relevant in every transformation,” Reeves explained. “But given the stakes, leaders need and deserve evidence-based recommendations. Empirical evidence shows the significant factors in transformation success and the advantages of combining them. Companies can’t afford to ignore it.”

To read the article, visit

Eric Gregoire

About the BCG Henderson Institute

The BCG Henderson Institute is the Boston Consulting Group’s internal think tank, dedicated to exploring and developing valuable new insights from business, technology, and science by embracing the powerful technology of ideas. The Institute engages leaders in provocative discussion and experimentation to expand the boundaries of business theory and practice and to translate innovative ideas from within and beyond business. For more ideas and inspiration from the Institute, please visit


The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) is a global management consulting firm and the world’s leading advisor on business strategy. We partner with clients from the private, public, and not-for-profit sectors in all regions to identify their highest-value opportunities, address their most critical challenges, and transform their enterprises. Our customized approach combines deep insight into the dynamics of companies and markets with close collaboration at all levels of the client organization. This ensures that our clients achieve sustainable competitive advantage, build more capable organizations, and secure lasting results. Founded in 1963, BCG is a private company with offices in more than 90 cities in 50 countries.

BCG Continues to be Named a Premier Employer and Ranks Near the Top of Fortune’s “100 Best Companies to Work For” List for a Fifth Straight Year

The Boston Consulting Group Continues Its Highly-Placed Fortune Magazine Ranking, Staying in the Top Five for Eight Consecutive Years and Is One of Only Two Companies to Make the Top Dozen Every Year Since 2006

The Boston Consulting Group (BCG), one of the world’s leading management consulting firms, has continued its extraordinary run near the top of Fortune’s 100 Best Companies to Work For list. Ranking number four, BCG has made the top five for five years in a row and is one of only two companies to be included in the top dozen every year since it began participating in 2006.

BCG’s focus on harnessing its collaborative culture, investing in learning and development, and offering career flexibility and global mobility are instrumental in attracting top talent. The firm’s world-class benefits and its partnership with global and local social impact organizations contribute to its strong performance on the Fortune list and burnish its reputation as a premier employer.

In its profile of BCG, Fortune said: “Equality of opportunity is prized at this global consultancy, which has spent over $100 million on a program to make work schedules more predictable in a 24/7 industry. Work/life balance makes ‘employees happier, more complete humans.’ And even junior staffers feel valued: ‘I have access to leadership worldwide,’ says one.”

The firm’s innovative work-life balance program, called PTO (which stands for predictability, teaming, and open communication), helps establish a detailed road map for each project, with transparent working norms and priorities (so low-value work doesn’t consume high-value personal and professional time) and a collectively agreed-on time-off goal for each team member. PTO provides a sustainable and predictable work path.

At BCG, diversity of expertise, experience, and background are fundamental to success. The firm takes a holistic approach across all people processes to create culturally adaptive teams and an inclusive workforce.

BCG also maintains well-established and engaged employee resource networks and has launched a wide range of diversity and inclusion initiatives to connect people across the organization. Among these are local and network office affiliation activities, an inclusion dialogue series, mentorships, and career development programs. In addition, the firm’s LGBT-friendly benefits and practices have been recognized as world class, as have its programs for working parents.

Great Place to Work, which provides the research underlying the Fortune rankings and conducts an extensive employee survey, noted in its review of BCG that:

  • 98% of employees say, “We have special and unique benefits here.”
  • 98% say, “People here are willing to give extra to get the job done.”
  • 98% say, “Management is honest and ethical in its business practices.”

Joe Davis, BCG’s chairman of North America, commented: “We continue to be honored by this recognition and are proud to have placed in the top five for five consecutive years and in the top ten for a decade. This recognition is a testament to our collective purpose—to unlock the potential of those who advance the world around us by driving inspired impact for our clients, leading with integrity, and growing our people.”

This year’s 100 Best Companies list and related stories will appear in the March 1 issue of Fortune, which goes on sale on February 19. They are available now online at

To arrange an interview with a BCG expert, please contact Alexandra Corriveau at +1 212 446 3261 or

About Fortune’s 100 Best Companies to Work For

To identify the 100 Best Companies to Work For, each year Fortune partners with Great Place to Work to conduct the most extensive employee survey in corporate America. Great Place to Work bases its ranking on a data-driven methodology applied to anonymous Trust Index survey responses from more than 315,000 employees at Great Place to Work–certified organizations with more than 1,000 employees and receive enough survey responses to achieve a 95% confidence level with no more than a 5% margin of error.