← Back to what we found
What doesn't quite add upWorth a closer look

Two teams disagree about the same region.

What we noticed

Mobility calls the Nordic region a priority to grow into. Energy Systems calls the same region unattractive and is pulling back.

Sources: DOC-388 · DOC-262 · 1 quoted interviews · 2 numbers with their arithmetic

Where this came from

We looked at this from both sides: what the documents record, and what people inside the company say.

Two sources, laid over each other

The two don't match

The documents say

Two teams have written plans for the same region. One plans to grow there. One plans to withdraw.

3 documents · 2 teams

The people say

People in both teams are aware. They assume someone above them has resolved it. Nobody has.

48 people · 2 businesses

“We assumed that had been decided somewhere.”

What the two together tell us

Two documents contradict each other. The interviews explain why it survived: everyone assumed the contradiction was somebody else's to fix.

What's written down and what people live are different. That gap is usually where the real problem sits.

What it would be worth

Two kinds of value. What the company gains, and what changes for the people doing the work.

What it's worth to the company

2 teams

Same region, opposite plans

Both funded, both proceeding.

What it's worth to the people

Two teams stop pulling against each other.

  • Clear direction instead of quiet contradiction.
  • Nobody spends a year on a plan that will be reversed.
  • Local staff get one answer about their future.

People waiting on an unmade decision

48

In two teams, in one region.

Why we noticed it

Two teams read partly the same market data and reached opposite conclusions in the same period.

  • Opposite conclusions, same period
  • Partly the same underlying data
  • No company view on the region

Same pattern in 3 documents · 2 teams

Why it could matter

Entering and leaving the same region at once is fine if they mean different customers — and expensive if they don't.

One team may know something the other doesn't. The disagreement itself is the find.

What we don't know yet

  • Whether they're describing the same market or two parts of it.
  • Which view has been tested against outside data.

The question

Are they even talking about the same market?