Korsaa Aps
Client cases
In the majority of these cases I have worked alongside my close partner in Whitebox.
We helped a large, complex product-development organization turn a fragmented improvement landscape into a sponsor- and PMO-ready portfolio view, enabling leadership to prioritize by expected value, predicted success and required management support.
Client context
Vestas is a global wind-energy company developing large, complex products in an environment with many departments, suppliers, technical dependencies and long product lifecycles.
The organization had established an improvement programme based on maturity assessment recommendations. However, as the work progressed, it became clear that improvement activity was widespread, locally driven and difficult to govern as one coherent portfolio.
More than 140 active improvement initiatives were identified across the organization. Many were driven by enthusiastic employees and local departments with valid needs, but the combined portfolio lacked a clear executive overview.
The sponsor challenge
The core management question was not whether people were improving things.
They were.
The challenge was whether the improvement portfolio was improving the organization in the right way.
Senior management and the PMO needed a practical way to answer questions such as:
-
Which improvement initiatives are most valuable?
-
Which initiatives have a realistic chance of succeeding?
-
Which initiatives need stronger PMO or management support?
-
Which should be re-scoped, de-prioritized or reconsidered?
-
Are we improving the organization’s ability to improve?
-
Can we visualize progress in a way that supports leadership decisions?
This was a governance problem, not just a project-list problem.
Advisory contribution
As part of the Whitebox advisory work, I was centrally involved in applying and operationalizing an assessment-based portfolio approach.
The approach combined two executive decision dimensions:
-
Expected value — the expected impact of an initiative on organizational maturity, performance or strategic goals.
-
Predicted success — the assessed likelihood that the initiative would actually succeed, using ImprovAbility parameters related to initiation, project execution, deployment and organizational foundation.
This created a simple but powerful portfolio view: initiatives could be discussed not only by ambition or political relevance, but by their expected value and their realistic chance of success.
What we did
The work included:
-
Supporting the identification and structuring of the improvement portfolio
-
Helping evaluate more than 140 improvement initiatives
-
Selecting the most relevant initiatives for deeper assessment
-
Conducting interview-based evaluations of improvement projects
-
Assessing each initiative’s chance of success using ImprovAbility parameters
-
Estimating expected impact on organizational maturity and strategic goals
-
Providing PMO and management with a portfolio view of value versus predicted success
-
Repeating the analysis over several rounds to track improvement in the organization’s ability to improve
In the first round, 40 initiatives were selected for evaluation and 37 were assessed through interviews. Later rounds repeated the analysis and showed how increased focus, stronger management involvement and improved prioritization changed the portfolio picture.
Governance insight created
The work turned a hidden and fragmented improvement landscape into a management-visible portfolio.
It helped the PMO and senior leadership distinguish between:
-
High-value initiatives with a high chance of success
-
High-value initiatives needing strong support
-
Initiatives with good execution potential but limited strategic impact
-
Initiatives that should be reconsidered or re-scoped
The analysis also identified weak portfolio-level patterns, such as deployment strategy and deployment means, which had a direct impact on the likelihood that improvement initiatives would succeed.
Result
The approach gave leadership a more operational overview of the improvement portfolio and helped improve prioritization, focus and management support.
Across repeated evaluation rounds, the selected improvement initiatives showed increased expected impact and improved chance of success. The organization became more comfortable with its competence to improve, and the portfolio view evolved from maturity impact alone toward alignment with multiple strategic goals and stronger business case discipline.
The documented conclusion was that combining value assessment with ImprovAbility-based predicted success gave the PMO and leadership a useful way to prioritize, lead and manage improvement initiatives in order to optimize the effect on business goals.
Why this case matters for sponsor-level governance
This case is an example of the type of work I now bring into owner-side governance advisory.
It demonstrates the ability to:
-
Create executive overview in a complex project landscape
-
Translate many local initiatives into a coherent governance picture
-
Combine expected value with likelihood of success
-
Identify where management support will have the greatest effect
-
Make capability, maturity and improvement progress visible to senior leadership
-
Support PMO and sponsors with decision-ready portfolio insight
-
Use assessment-based pattern recognition to improve governance decisions
The core lesson is directly relevant to complex IT, AI and product-development projects:
A project or improvement portfolio should not be governed only by activity, budget or ambition. It should be governed by expected value, realistic chance of success and the management actions required to improve both.
Global engineering consultancy: Improving governance and profitability in major projects
Client context
A large international engineering consultancy delivered complex projects across countries, business units and technical disciplines.
The organization had strong technical expertise and a long tradition of delivering demanding client assignments. However, leadership was concerned that large projects did not consistently deliver the expected commercial performance.
The issue was not lack of professional capability in general.
The issue was that leadership needed a clearer understanding of which specific capabilities, governance mechanisms and management practices were limiting performance in major projects.
Sponsor challenge
The sponsor challenge was to understand what prevented large projects from becoming reliably profitable — and which improvement themes would create the greatest business value.
The relevant questions were:
-
Why do major projects not consistently deliver the expected margin?
-
Which capability gaps matter most across countries and business units?
-
Are the limiting factors related to governance, estimation, quality goals, collaboration, risk handling, client interfaces, project leadership or commercial control?
-
Which improvement themes should leadership prioritize now?
-
How can management steer complex projects by value and quality goals, not only by hours, cost and milestones?
-
How can the organization create a more predictable link between technical delivery and business performance?
This was not a basic project management problem.
It was a major-project performance and governance problem.
Advisory contribution
Over a period of more than ten years, Whitebox conducted three rounds of assessments across countries and business units.
The work included analysis of more than 50 large projects and repeated advisory cycles with management.
I was centrally involved in the assessment and advisory work, including analysis of recurring project patterns, identification of capability gaps and translation of findings into management-relevant improvement themes.
The advisory contribution included:
-
Cross-country and cross-business-unit project assessments
-
Analysis of major-project performance patterns
-
Identification of recurring capability and governance gaps
-
Advice on improvement themes likely to create the highest business value
-
Executive sparring on steering by quality goals
-
Support for stronger management attention to major-project performance
-
Inspiration sessions for departments and project environments
-
Sparring on selected large projects
-
Mediation and facilitation in complex project collaboration situations
The work helped leadership develop a more precise view of what made large projects commercially and operationally vulnerable — and what could be improved to increase predictability and value creation.
Result and relevance
Over time, the organization strengthened its focus on major-project performance, quality-goal steering and the capabilities required to deliver complex projects profitably.
The work contributed to a clearer management understanding of the improvement themes that mattered most across the organization. It also helped connect project execution, quality, collaboration and commercial performance in a more explicit governance picture.
The client reported a substantial improvement in project profitability over the period.
For my current owner-side governance advisory, this case is highly relevant because it demonstrates the ability to analyze complex project performance at organizational level and translate findings into governance and capability improvements that matter to senior leadership.
It validates competences in:
-
Major-project governance
-
Project-performance analysis
-
Cross-organizational capability assessment
-
Identification of high-value improvement themes
-
Quality-goal steering
-
Executive advisory and sparring
-
Portfolio-level pattern recognition across many projects
-
Collaboration mediation in complex project situations
-
Translating project evidence into management action
-
Connecting governance improvement with business performance
Core lesson
In large project-based organizations, poor project profitability is rarely caused by one isolated weakness.
It is usually the result of interacting factors: unclear quality goals, weak early assumptions, insufficient commercial governance, immature risk handling, difficult client interfaces, collaboration problems, estimation weaknesses and management practices that do not make the real performance drivers visible early enough.
The sponsor’s task is not simply to ask for better project reporting.
The sponsor’s task is to understand which governance and capability improvements will create the greatest lift in predictability, quality and commercial performance.
Softare development house: Creating a common view, common language and motivation for improvement
Client context
The client wanted to understand its maturity, strengths and weaknesses. At the same time, parts of the development organization were skeptical about whether an external analysis was necessary.
The organization had experienced employees and a belief that they already knew how to handle projects effectively.
Sponsor challenge
The challenge was to create a shared, neutral and credible view of the organization’s strengths, weaknesses and improvement priorities.
Management needed the organization to move from individual opinions and local confidence toward a common language and a shared view of what should be improved.
The relevant questions were:
-
Where are we strong?
-
Where are we weak?
-
What should we prioritize?
-
How do we create a common language for improvement?
-
How do we motivate experienced consultants and developers to engage constructively?
-
How do we use external neutrality without creating resistance?
Advisory contribution
Whitebox completed a maturity analysis within a short time frame and provided a comprehensive overview of strengths, weaknesses and priorities.
The external and experienced consultant perspective helped break down barriers between consultants and developers and created a shared basis for improvement.
The analysis helped the organization move from skepticism to motivation and voluntary engagement in improvement groups.
Result and relevance
The client described Whitebox as experienced, efficient and pragmatic, and stated that the work helped motivate everyone to improve.
For my current advisory work, this case validates one of the most important aspects of sponsor-level governance: creating a shared, credible picture of reality.
It demonstrates competences in:
-
Rapid maturity analysis
-
External neutral assessment
-
Creating common language across roles
-
Turning skepticism into engagement
-
Prioritizing improvement areas
-
Supporting leadership with a clear view of strengths and weaknesses
-
Making complex organizational issues practical and actionable
Core lesson
Before a sponsor can improve governance, the organization often needs a shared view of reality. External neutrality and experienced pattern recognition can make that possible quickly.
Major financial-services software organization: Improving predictability across an internal project portfolio
Client context
A major financial-services organization had a large internal software-development environment responsible for delivering business-critical IT projects.
The organization had many capable people and a substantial project portfolio, but leadership faced a recurring problem: delivery dates were difficult to predict with sufficient confidence.
The business impact was significant.
When project delivery dates were uncertain, the organization could not reliably plan business releases, allocate resources, coordinate dependencies, manage stakeholder expectations or make confident portfolio decisions.
Sponsor challenge
The sponsor challenge was to improve predictability across the software project portfolio.
The relevant questions were:
-
Why are project schedules not sufficiently reliable?
-
Which parts of the project portfolio process create uncertainty?
-
Are estimates, plans, dependencies, quality criteria and progress signals strong enough?
-
Do project managers and middle managers share a professional language for managing delivery?
-
How can leadership improve predictability without simply adding more reporting?
-
How can the organization raise the professional level across many projects, not only fix individual troubled projects?
This was not simply a scheduling problem.
It was a portfolio governance and capability problem.
Advisory contribution
Whitebox delivered four rounds of analysis and recommendations to help the organization improve its project and portfolio predictability.
I was centrally involved in the advisory work, including analysis of project patterns, recommendations for improvement and capability-building activities across management and project leadership layers.
The advisory contribution included:
-
Repeated assessments of project and portfolio practices
-
Analysis of recurring causes of delivery uncertainty
-
Recommendations for improving the predictability of the project portfolio process
-
Training of top management, middle management and project managers in CMMI-based improvement thinking
-
Design and delivery of training for a selected corps of highly capable project managers
-
Development of these project managers as internal consultants and improvement agents for the wider organization
-
Support for a more professional and shared approach to planning, execution, quality and progress control
The work was not focused on one project alone. It was aimed at raising the general professional level of the project organization so that predictability improved across the portfolio.
Result and relevance
The organization achieved a higher level of professionalism in its project organization, and delivery schedules became significantly more reliable.
The work helped create a stronger shared language around project capability, planning discipline, quality, progress insight and portfolio predictability.
It also created an internal group of strong project managers who could support others and act as carriers of improved practice across the organization.
For my current owner-side governance advisory, this case is highly relevant because it demonstrates the ability to improve predictability in a complex internal software-development portfolio.
It validates competences in:
-
Portfolio governance
-
Software-development capability improvement
-
Predictability analysis
-
Project and portfolio process improvement
-
CMMI-based maturity and capability development
-
Training of senior management, middle management and project managers
-
Development of internal improvement agents
-
Translation of delivery uncertainty into management action
-
Raising professional standards across a project organization
-
Improving the sponsor’s ability to rely on schedules and portfolio commitments
Core lesson
In large software organizations, poor predictability is rarely caused by weak schedules alone.
It is usually the result of interacting factors: weak estimation practices, unclear quality criteria, immature progress signals, unstable dependencies, inconsistent project leadership practices and portfolio processes that do not reveal uncertainty early enough.
The sponsor’s task is not simply to demand more accurate dates.
The sponsor’s task is to create the governance, capability and professional discipline that make reliable dates possible.
Private-equity-backed security services provider: Finding the real source of a quality problem
Client context
A leading European monitored-alarm and security services provider had recently changed ownership and was backed by private equity investors.
The company operated a technology-enabled service model where hardware, software, monitoring services, installation processes, field operations and supplier relationships all had to work together as one coherent customer experience.
After the acquisition, the owners and management became concerned about quality problems in the delivered solution. The initial hypothesis was that the root cause was related to a key technology supplier.
Sponsor challenge
The sponsor challenge was to understand whether the visible quality problems were actually caused by the supplier — or whether they were symptoms of a broader system problem.
The relevant questions were:
-
Was the supplier really the source of the quality problem?
-
Were the problems caused by product design, requirements, installation, operations, service processes or supplier interfaces?
-
Were expectations, acceptance criteria and quality signals clear enough?
-
Did the governance structure make the real root causes visible?
-
What should management change to solve the problem rather than simply move blame?
-
How could the company protect both customer experience and supplier relationship while addressing the issue?
This was not a simple supplier-performance problem.
It was a complex product-service governance problem.
Advisory contribution
I was the lead consultant in investigating the sources of the quality problems and advising on the corrective direction.
The work required analysis across several domains:
-
Product and service quality
-
Supplier interfaces
-
Requirements and expectations
-
Field performance
-
Installation and operational processes
-
Feedback loops from customer-facing operations
-
Management assumptions about where the problem was located
-
Governance structures around quality and corrective action
The assignment required an independent view of the full system rather than an isolated assessment of the supplier.
A key part of the advisory contribution was to challenge the initial hypothesis and help management see whether the problem was located in one component — or in the interfaces between product, supplier, operations, requirements and governance.
Result and relevance
The work helped management move from a supplier-blame hypothesis toward a more complete understanding of the real sources of the quality problems.
It provided a stronger basis for corrective action, better supplier dialogue and more realistic governance of quality in a complex product-service environment.
For my current owner-side governance advisory, this case is highly relevant because it demonstrates the ability to support sponsors when visible symptoms may point in the wrong direction.
It validates competences in:
-
Independent root-cause investigation
-
Quality and governance analysis in complex product-service systems
-
Supplier-interface assessment
-
Requirements and expectations analysis
-
Translation of technical and operational findings into management action
-
Challenging premature conclusions
-
Protecting the sponsor from false simplicity
-
Creating a better basis for decisions when the organization is under pressure
Core lesson
In complex product-service systems, quality problems rarely belong neatly to one supplier or one component.
They often emerge in the interfaces between expectations, requirements, product architecture, supplier governance, operations and customer reality.
The sponsor’s task is not to find someone to blame.
The sponsor’s task is to establish the governance structures that make the real causes visible early enough to act.
Private Equity Fund: Supporting owners in making R&D investment effective
Client context
The Equity Fund had invested in several technology companies and wanted to ensure that significant R&D resources were used effectively to create new products and solutions for customers.
This was an owner-side challenge: how to make sure that invested development resources translated into real capability, performance and customer value across portfolio companies.
Sponsor challenge
The challenge was not simply to increase development activity.
The owner challenge was to understand whether the development departments were progressing in the right way, whether resources were being used effectively, and whether management had the insight needed to support better outcomes.
The relevant questions were:
-
Are the R&D organizations using resources effectively?
-
Are improvement recommendations accepted by management and employees?
-
Are development departments progressing over time?
-
Are the companies increasing their ability to deliver the desired results?
-
Can owners and management trust the development capability they are investing in?
Advisory contribution
Whitebox was engaged to continuously assess and advise the development departments in the portfolio companies.
The work provided an external, structured view of development capability, improvement potential and organizational progress.
This created a stronger basis for owners and company management to understand where development performance could be improved and how improvement suggestions could be translated into practical progress.
Result and relevance
The collaboration was described as a success for both the owners and the companies’ management and employees. The development departments responded positively to measurements and improvement suggestions, and the R&D departments progressed over the following years. One company significantly increased the number of new product launches.
For my current work, this case validates the owner-side perspective behind my advisory model.
It demonstrates competences in:
-
Advisory work on the owner’s side
-
Assessment of development capability
-
Governance of R&D improvement across multiple companies
-
Translating assessment insight into management action
-
Supporting better use of strategic development resources
-
Building trust between owners, management and development teams
Core lesson
Owners and sponsors do not only need activity reports. They need independent insight into whether the organization has the capability, structure and direction required to turn investment into
