Accrediting interims through QA and QC processes implies a comparing a “standard product” with common standards
The issue here is that as an interim community we are all very different horses for courses, and rightly so – one size does not fit all client requirements…
– Professionalism also implies a drive to improve rather than fit with a standard
– The industry will never be driven
– The icebreaker team are tested on their natural fit with interim management, many will never survive because of the way they are, and that’s OK, and the underlying capability, how they achieved what they did, rather than the outcome
– Case studies imply the past is an indicator of the future – not sure it is
– We use case studies for clients to set out what we are like to work with and what we achieved
– We check 3 lead indicators of success with clients; do they want to do something different? What does that look like? Will they give us the space to do it?
– If there is one aspect that could be standardised in my view – infra structure should be in place client tcs and cs, insurance, terms of reference, review process, solvency checks increasingly important
– An important factor is also not setting out what you are not qualified to do, e.g. in a turnaround shadow director issues, illegal trading, companies act 2006 changes and insolvency act 1986
– When you look at a professional interims experience it is usually is overwhelmingly convincing, what really matters, is what have you and done and more importantly what are you like to work with
– We focus on the latter, and all of our team go through CPD to improve the effectiveness of the way we work with clients – cos thats a differentiator
By the way a very happy NY
P.S.– however good we are – I think it is going to be a tough one
