The Bologna-based manager analyses organisation, skills and generational transition as key issues for the future of Italian manufacturing.

Industrial manager with over thirty years of experience in B2B markets, Gian Maria Agretti He has built his professional career by working across different roles and sectors of Italian manufacturing. General management, commercial development, marketing, internationalization, economic responsibility, supply chain, and corporate reorganization make up a profile in which specialization does not coincide with a single discipline, but with the ability to managing the complexity of the enterprise and connect production, people, markets, data and technology

During his career he has worked in sectors such as Automatic machinery, packaging, access automation, industrial protection, technical carpentry, temporary structures and construction services, taking on increasing responsibilities in organizations focused on professional and international markets. Their experiences vary in terms of products and organizational models, but they share the need to transform technical skills, commercial knowledge, and production capabilities into understandable, coordinated business systems capable of producing results over time.

At the basis of the vision of agretti there is a precise belief: Innovation does not begin with the purchase of a technologyRobots, management software, business intelligence systems, and artificial intelligence can accelerate an organization, but they can't give order and meaning to processes the company hasn't yet understood. Digitizing an inefficient activity often means making it faster, more expensive, and harder to correct errors. Therefore, before the machine comes the process, and before the process come the people who understand it, execute it, and experience its limitations on a daily basis.

It's just the hidden knowledge within organizations one of the central themes of the conversation of the Bolognese executive and manager with Innovando.NewsA crucial part of the information needed to improve a company isn't found in reports for management, but in the tacit expertise of workers, technicians, department managers, and collaborators who face real-world problems every day. Listening to this hidden knowledge means preventing innovation from being imposed vertically and instead building understandable, shared change capable of involving the entire company structure.

The issue becomes particularly delicate in the fabric of the Italian small and medium enterprises, often family-run and characterized by an extraordinary concentration of individual skills. Artisanal intuition, the ability to customize products, rapid decision-making, and a generational perspective are advantages that are difficult for large conglomerates to replicate. However, these qualities can become fragile when knowledge remains confined to the minds of a few people, governance continues to be shaped by family relationships, and generational transition is only addressed when it's too late.

The problem is not to erase craftsmanship, but transform individual knowledge into organizational knowledge Without stifling the intuition that often fuels competitive advantage. Shared procedures, structured training, data analysis, and planning should not replace experience, but rather make it transferable and usable throughout the company. It is in this balance that digital transformation can become truly effective: not an externally imposed disruption, but an evolution capable of preserving corporate memory and, simultaneously, reducing dependence on irreplaceable individual figures.

This perspective has also matured in the industrial context ofEmilia Romagna and Lombardy, an area where packaging, automation, automotive, ceramics, biomedical, and pharmaceutical chemistry have built production ecosystems based on the relationship between technical specialization and adaptability. It's an environment where transformation isn't necessarily perceived as a threat, but as part of the very life of the company. The reputation of Made in Italy, however, cannot be considered a permanent guarantee: if it is not fueled by research, training and organizational renewal, it risks becoming an income on which to lull the drive to innovate

In the interview, Gian Maria This reflection extends from the realm of technology to the broader realm of industrial culture. From managing complexity to engaging people, from business intelligence to entrepreneurial succession, from industrial concentration to the centrality of human relationships, the common thread remains the need to build more self-aware businesses. What emerges is a vision of innovation that is far removed from miracle solutions: Technology produces value only when experience, data, processes, and human capital are transformed into a coherent, measurable, and lasting organizational design.

Before delving into the manufacturing aspect, we'd like to start with a point we consider fundamental: Why do so many innovation projects fail before they even produce results?

Very often, innovation isn't absorbed or fails due to internal resistance, fear, and poor training. However, I don't believe people fear change itself. They fear it when they don't understand it or when they think they don't have the tools necessary to address it. Rejection stems from an information vacuum. And when a vacuum exists, it is inevitably filled with fears and negative interpretations. If you don't explain why something is being changed, people tend to imagine the worst-case scenario. This requires real involvement at all levels. Horizontal involvement, not simply vertical. Imposing change from above very often means dooming it to failure. Sharing goals also means being able to communicate them in a comprehensible way. Only in this way can people move forward with the organization, rather than feeling dragged down by decisions they don't recognize."

You've worked in many areas of the B2B industry: automated machinery, packaging, automation, carpentry, and technical structures. What has really changed in the way manufacturing is done in Italy over the last thirty years?

Looking back, the most obvious change isn't so much the technology itself, but the scale and nature of the problems a company must solve every day. Twenty or thirty years ago, an Italian manufacturer competed primarily on its technical prowess. Knowing how to properly craft a component, a machine, or an industrial plant was often considered sufficient. Today, that capability remains necessary, but it's almost taken for granted. It's no longer enough. We need to manage a complex landscape of long supply chains, ever-evolving regulations, highly demanding customization demands, and electronic, electromechanical, and digital components intertwined with traditional mechanics. The entire scope of the company has changed. Those who manage a manufacturing company today must understand the supply chain, make-or-buy decisions, data, people, and international markets. They no longer perform vertical work, limited to one function. They perform necessarily horizontal work.

Thinking in terms of complexity, however, also requires a cultural change.

"Certainly. We need to develop a more comprehensive vision and be able to distance ourselves from the day-to-day problem to observe its implications within all departments. We need to consider the production machine as a single system and allow it to evolve gradually and in a coordinated manner. The overall speed of a car will always be determined by the most deflated tire. Likewise, the water level in a barrel will be determined by the shortest stave. An organization moves not at the speed of its best part, but at its weakest."

Can we therefore define those who lead a company as managers of complexity?

“I believe that one of the most important qualities of a manager is the ability to embrace complexity without fear, then being able to break it down and make it understandable to the various people involved.”

How did you build this ability over time?

Curiosity was certainly the first element. New things have always fascinated and intrigued me, but they've never scared me. Added to this is a humanistic component, tied to relationships with others. I've always tried to build positive relationships with my colleagues, regardless of their hierarchical level. Many of the things I've learned and many of the innovations I've brought to companies were born by listening to people who worked in production and faced real-world problems on a daily basis. People often talk about the "iceberg of ignorance" within organizations. Only a small fraction of what's actually happening in the company reaches general management. Even by involving department heads, a huge amount of knowledge remains beneath the surface, possessed by those who deal with operational processes every day. Knowing how to listen to this hidden element is crucial. Managers who retreat into their ivory towers end up addressing only a fraction of the opportunities and risks present in the company.

Did the area where you grew up also play a role in this mindset?

"Definitely. Emilia-Romagna is a region where very diverse industrial excellence coexists: packaging, automotive, ceramics, biomedical, chemical, and pharmaceutical industries. Growing in such an economic landscape makes it easier to approach innovation with a positive attitude. Industrial transformation isn't necessarily perceived as a threat, but as part of the very life of the company."

What remains today of the innovative value of Made in Italy? And how much is it still perceived abroad as synonymous with innovation?

The main risk is living off a reputation built over the years. Reputation is a precious asset, but it can become a very comfortable mattress on which to numb the drive to innovate. There are regions and sectors that continue to compete with great merit. I'm thinking of packaging, automotive, biomedical, ceramics, and the chemical-pharmaceutical sector. These are companies that invest in research, technical training, and process digitalization. Other companies, however, tend to rely on the Made in Italy label without truly renewing their offerings. In the long run, the difference will be determined by the ability to combine historical expertise, which remains irreplaceable, with continuous updating of digital, organizational, and commercial skills. The region alone no longer guarantees a competitive advantage. It must be actively cultivated. Otherwise, reputational gains will be eroded much more quickly than one might think.

What role should institutions play in supporting and making this innovative manufacturing more visible?

It's a complex topic. A provocative summary is often used: the United States innovates, China responds, and the European Union regulates. Our companies operate within a highly regulated ecosystem. This regulation creates costs, constraints, and slowdowns that don't exist to the same extent in other parts of the world. There are certainly compensatory tools, such as subsidized financing, which I've also explored in my more recent work. But companies don't just need the occasional boost from a call for proposals. They need to be able to express their potential without being constantly burdened. Today, many companies are forced to make do, but they're carrying a very heavy burden on their shoulders. Every activity is regulated, and every new regulation generates additional costs. This makes them structurally less competitive than companies operating in different contexts.

When we talk about manufacturing innovation, we immediately think of robots, software, artificial intelligence, and automation. What's the first innovation a company should implement before even purchasing technology?

It must bring order to its processes. Thinking that digitalization or technology alone can be a panacea is a very dangerous mistake. It may seem trivial, but it's the most inconvenient truth I see confirmed in company after company: digitizing a chaotic process means achieving faster and, often, more expensive digital chaos. The first real innovation consists in understanding how an order is created, how materials move, where time is wasted, who makes decisions and based on what information. It's a mapping and assessment process. It can be uncomfortable because it uncovers poorly defined responsibilities, entrenched habits, and inefficiencies that have long been tolerated. Only after clarifying the process does it make sense to invest in technology. Otherwise, you end up automating waste instead of eliminating it. This work also offers a first opportunity to involve all levels of the company. Uncovering a bottleneck or a potential opportunity shouldn't be seen as a source of problems, but as a chance to become the protagonists of your own work.

Italian manufacturing often exists within a contradiction: it possesses great technical capabilities, but maintains organizations deeply rooted in people, intuition, and the formula "it's always been done this way." Is that still the case?

Unfortunately, to a large extent, yes. And it's both a strength and a limitation. The backbone of our economy is made up of small and medium-sized businesses and artisanal businesses where skills developed in manual labor have been transferred to larger production environments. There are people with practical knowledge that's hard to find elsewhere. People capable of solving a problem through intuition even before it's implemented through a procedure. This represents a real and valuable asset. The problem arises when that knowledge remains exclusively in their heads and doesn't become part of the organization's assets through standards, shared procedures, and structured training. When a key person retires or changes jobs, the company loses a part of itself. The real leap in quality consists in transforming individual knowledge into organizational knowledge, without, however, killing intuition, which must continue to be valued. Many companies prepare for the replacement of key figures with a huge delay. If you know that someone will retire in a few years, you can't wait until the last minute to transfer their skills. It takes two, three, or even four years to collect and disseminate everything that that person has learned. knows. Intervening only in the last year often means losing unique and probably unrepeatable knowledge.”

We often continue to rigidly distinguish between industrial and artisanal production. Yet an artisanal company can be highly innovative and compete successfully. Artisanship isn't necessarily the poor child of industrial development.

“Certainly not. In fact, I'd like to ask you a question: is a large shipyard an industrial enterprise or an artisanal one? It can reach very significant economic dimensions and possess an industrial structure, yet simultaneously maintain a very high level of craftsmanship. Craftsmanship is the ability to confer uniqueness to what is created. It can exist in a large group or in a small family business. I'm thinking, for example, of companies specializing in leatherwork for high-end automobiles or the artisans who create furnishings and cabins for yachts. In some cases, these are small families, yet capable of carrying out practically irreplaceable cabinetmaking work. Craftsmanship is therefore a quality and a strength. It doesn't necessarily depend on company size and isn't part of a second-class economy. Of course, there are highly standardized, high-volume productions where an artisanal approach would be economically impossible. But this doesn't diminish the value of craftsmanship in sectors where uniqueness and customization constitute a competitive advantage.”

Why then does the fiscal, financial and industrial system often tend to favor mass production and large groups, while Italy lives mainly on small and medium-sized enterprises?

This dynamic isn't unique to Italy. Excessive regulation is particularly evident in Europe, but favoring large conglomerates to the detriment of small and medium-sized enterprises is a global trend. Large capitals wait for an SME to run into difficulty before acquiring it, taking over its patents, expertise, customer base, product line, and quality of service. These resources are then incorporated into larger structures, which can benefit from economies of scale, but often leave behind empty factories, impoverished territories, and excluded people. The Italian family business, on the other hand, possesses some very important characteristics. The first is speed of decision-making, often accompanied by a truly long-term vision. Those who put their name on the company's door tend to consider it a generational project, not a quarterly one. This allows for bold decisions that a publicly traded group, under pressure from periodic results and dividends, would struggle to justify. The limit emerges when the company grows and the family role begins to overlap with the managerial role. Decisions remain personal when They should become process decisions. Organizational structures are designed around people rather than functions. When a family business exceeds a certain size threshold, but continues to behave like a small business, it encounters a bottleneck that isn't market-driven. It's governance-driven.

What is the fundamental strength of the Italian family business and what is its most dangerous limitation?

A family business is a treasure. Its strength is its generational perspective, the ability to envision a long-term project. In some cases, however, this perspective becomes so long-term and indeterminate that it fails to take into account demographic and organizational realities. Its weakness is the excessive customization of structures. Knowledge and responsibilities remain tied to specific individuals without truly enriching the entire organization. Two issues then become crucial. The first is generational transition, which affects thousands of Italian companies. Many arrive unprepared, because they tend to postpone the problem. In reality, often people don't want the handover to actually take place. By the time they intervene, it's already too late. And it's precisely at that moment that a large group can arrive with the capital needed to acquire the company and take its assets elsewhere. The second issue is managing the numbers, therefore business intelligence and data analysis. It's often thought that these tools are only for medium-large companies. My experience has shown me otherwise. In one of the companies I worked for, I built a business system Intelligence that didn't disrupt the reporting model used by the owners. It simply made it automatic, verifiable, and secure. Even the visual appearance of the reporting was very similar to the previous one. This reduced mistrust and prevented some people from continuing to use the old system in parallel. The transition worked because the technology wasn't imposed as a disruption, but introduced as a comprehensible evolution. Family businesses have a very interesting future, provided they seriously address the digital transition, generational transition, and data analytics.

The topic of reorganization often comes up in your career: production, supply chain, branches, teams, and business units. What does it mean to reorganize without destroying a company's human and cultural capital?

"First and foremost, it means recognizing that every organization, even when it appears inefficient, contains relationships of trust, tacit expertise, and a valuable historical memory. Reorganizing isn't about drawing a new organizational chart on a blank sheet of paper. It means understanding what works and why, before addressing what doesn't. The greatest risk is applying a theoretical model from above, without listening to those who experience the process every day. I've always tried to involve people in the diagnosis, not just in implementing solutions. When someone recognizes a problem they helped identify, they accept the solution much more readily than when it's simply imposed. A lasting reorganization is one that people perceive, at least in part, as their own."

How important is the quality of human relationships in this process? And how much are companies losing in this regard?

For me, human relationships are fundamental. We need to create spaces where people can feel safe, understood, and not threatened. They need to be able to express what they've observed, the problems they've encountered, and the opportunities for improvement they see. They need to know that proposing a solution or pointing out an opportunity won't backfire, but will actually help enhance them. Active listening and feedback throughout the process are essential. This way, people can identify with the change they've helped spark.

How much of Adriano Olivetti is there in this vision?

“Very much. Adriano Olivetti is a source of enormous inspiration. The idea of ​​building the factory for people, not people for the factory, remains extraordinarily relevant. There have been great industrial leaders capable of accelerating not only economic processes, but also relationships. And relationships, in turn, have helped companies grow. We must remember that companies are primarily made up of people. A certain modernist culture today leads us to imagine that artificial intelligence will do everything, that anthropomorphic robots will replace every activity, and that companies will become dark places where machines interact with each other. I don't think that will happen. The centrality of the human being, of their decisions and their intangible qualities, will remain fundamental.”

Could this focus on people find a more natural place in a craft business or an SME rather than in a large group?

When a company needs to change and hasn't yet reached enormous size, its structure can be an advantage. Internal connections are fewer, making it easier to intervene. Lean production, change management, reconversion, and even internationalization are easier. In a large organization, however, when the situation is already compromised, there may no longer be time to involve people. Draconian and highly unpopular decisions end up being adopted. We're seeing this, for example, in some sectors of the European automotive industry. When change is addressed too late, it almost takes on the form of a war and inevitably leaves many casualties. A leaner industrial structure therefore also has the ability to react more quickly, provided it recognizes the need for transformation early on.

There's a certain element of confidence in what he says. Italy is certainly experiencing production difficulties, but the size and characteristics of its entrepreneurial fabric can also represent a form of resistance.

It's true. The problem is that we are often trapped in two opposing narratives. In the 1980s and part of the 1990s, a completely optimistic vision prevailed. Growth was imagined as a plane destined to climb continuously. However, we know that a plane, once it reaches a certain altitude, cannot continue to climb indefinitely. Today, the opposite narrative often prevails. It takes real data, relating to an admittedly difficult period, and projects it along a downward trajectory, as if decline were inevitable and definitive. The economy has existed for thousands of years. It has survived empires, wars, geographical discoveries, technological revolutions, crises, and social transformations. It will continue to proceed in cycles. Downturns are painful, but they don't represent the end of history. Humanity will continue, and the economy will continue. And if we can restore a more human dimension to the economy, we will all benefit. I don't believe there should be a dominant narrative, neither positive nor negative. What is needed is the ability to interpret reality without illusions and without allowing ourselves to be paralyzed.

What advice would you give today to a small or medium-sized business owner who wants to innovate, organize themselves better, and navigate generational transition appropriately?

“I would first advise them to analyze the company with a cool head and an open mind, starting with the data. This may seem superfluous, especially when the entrepreneur founded the business himself and thinks he knows every inch of it. Yet, true entrepreneurial due diligence is often never done. Some things are overlooked. Others go unnoticed. Still others aren't addressed because they seem too complex or destabilizing. I'm thinking, for example, of the internationalization of a company where no one speaks English. It's an obvious limitation, but it can be ignored for years. A deep and concrete understanding of the starting situation is needed. At that point, the entrepreneur can seek the guidance of a manager or identify resources within the company capable of analyzing the data and building a realistic project. Vast distances aren't necessary. A three-year plan that starts with the current company and clearly defines what the goal is can suffice. Without flights of fancy, without misplaced optimism, but also without the pessimism that tends to envelop organizations when certain certainties are lost. A small or medium-sized A company that agrees to take this risk can make a first leap, followed by others: expanding markets, developing new production capabilities, strengthening the organization, and building sustainable prosperity. By sustainable prosperity, I mean growth that doesn't arise from a temporary discontinuity, but can be replicated over time. What is sustainable is replicable. And replicable growth is always the result of something that has been carefully observed, planned, and designed.

Here are three insights that might interest you:

Alberto Forchielli: “There is a lack of a single venture capital market…”
Bologna, Capital of the Future and of the Innovative Quantum Alliance
Matteo Stefanini: "AI changes those who know how to change processes."