Complementary to management information systems which tend to be more hard fact oriented, consideration of soft factors as an essential component in successful and sustainable company development has come to the forefront in times when markets are in a state of rapid change. Culture is no longer the “icing on the cake” but a theme of the upmost importance. Only a culture endowed with a robust collective core identity is capable of promoting networking, and thus of realizing the full potential of the added value inherent in a company’s pool of expertise. Yet without truthful monitoring of the expectations and value systems of the company’s workforce and management, those collaborative forms of work which produce added value all too quickly stay put on the level of well-intentioned appeals. They fail to materialize because theory weighted discussions about aspirational types of attitudes and behavior are of little value and generally lead only to dissatisfaction and alienation.
The prime argument for using nextexpertizer® is that all its input data is intuitive and reveals the unconscious evaluation structures (preferences) of the managers and staff members interviewed. As this is the only real basis from which plans for action can be derived, this is the only data from which forecasts of the future behavior of respondents can be predicted. In the assessment stage the preferences of individual respondents are concentrated in the highly specific evaluation space of the company or division which gives a good indication of the emotional axes (fields of resonance) on and in which the company operates. The key performance indicators (KPIs) developed by nextpractice for successful outcomes to cultural development are then used to derive appropriate interventions for a process of change or improvement and to monitor their effectiveness (“you can’t manage what you don’t measure”). Use of standardized questionnaires is precluded since only sophisticated indirect methods (like nextexpertizer®) are capable of capturing soft factors. Questionnaires are poor at bringing unconscious criteria to light and they ignore the semantic problem that all speech acts are capable of multiple interpretation. They are always only as intelligent as the person putting the questions.