Thanks, this is really interesting. I'm considering raising in the next six months, and so I'm keeping a close eye on your content. The question I always ask suppliers when they are pitching me is telling me about when it went wrong for a client. I try to position this as "How does this go wrong?" so that I can avoid the same mistakes, but I'm just looking for a bit of honesty. I'm looking for someone who admits that it does go wrong. Because of course it does.
Things will inevitably go wrong with suppliers at one point or another. While they might have their own processes to rectify it, you can’t always rely on it. So you’d have to have your own backup.
I had another recent insightful guest post from John Brewton on the antifragile operating system, which has some useful tips around this. One of them is to have a list of backup suppliers for every critical component.
Thank you Susan and Daniel - the over emphasis on the pitch always grated a bit with me. What matters is the reality behind it. And it is that reality that must be built on. Narratives are crucial - but more for developing the business. And they have to be grounded!
Sometimes when you’re battling entrenched incumbents, that extra bit of runway could get you on the winning side.
Saying that, another guest post from Mike Goitein explained that there’s another way to take on giants, and it’s not by fighting them feature for feature.
A very clear and practical insight here. In our work on selecting people for business, we often use the “key parameter” principle – identifying one critical trait or factor that makes a candidate worth tolerating despite other flaws. If that parameter is missing, the decision is obvious: this is a weak candidate.
I can see the same principle reflected in the approach described by Susan in this article. It’s simple, yet highly effective, and it aligns with the heuristics approach described by Gigerenzer: focusing on the signals that truly predict behavior rather than overloading on information. Well explained and immediately actionable.
This is the most interesting question )) It is a question for the designer – for the person who initially sets up a selection process (I would like to say the HR manager, but unfortunately they do not think in these terms in 90% of cases).
Here are two examples from recent cases:
1. For a business development manager at a mid-sized financial company in Poland, the key parameter was the ability to get the right person in the room with the company director. Nothing else was required from them.
2. For a team lead of programmers, the key parameter was: ensure the planned milestones were achieved at all costs. Any excuses were categorically forbidden.
Thanks, this is really interesting. I'm considering raising in the next six months, and so I'm keeping a close eye on your content. The question I always ask suppliers when they are pitching me is telling me about when it went wrong for a client. I try to position this as "How does this go wrong?" so that I can avoid the same mistakes, but I'm just looking for a bit of honesty. I'm looking for someone who admits that it does go wrong. Because of course it does.
Things will inevitably go wrong with suppliers at one point or another. While they might have their own processes to rectify it, you can’t always rely on it. So you’d have to have your own backup.
I had another recent insightful guest post from John Brewton on the antifragile operating system, which has some useful tips around this. One of them is to have a list of backup suppliers for every critical component.
Check it out here 🔗 https://millennialmasters.net/p/antifragile-operating-system
That’s the problem. Words sound better than a written plan.
Human always liked stories. The problem is when they become fairy tales.
The fairy tales are occurring on a daily basis
Thank you Susan and Daniel - the over emphasis on the pitch always grated a bit with me. What matters is the reality behind it. And it is that reality that must be built on. Narratives are crucial - but more for developing the business. And they have to be grounded!
Sometimes when you’re battling entrenched incumbents, that extra bit of runway could get you on the winning side.
Saying that, another guest post from Mike Goitein explained that there’s another way to take on giants, and it’s not by fighting them feature for feature.
See it here 🔗 https://millennialmasters.net/p/lean-moat-doing-less-wins
Thanks, Susan & Daniel!
A very clear and practical insight here. In our work on selecting people for business, we often use the “key parameter” principle – identifying one critical trait or factor that makes a candidate worth tolerating despite other flaws. If that parameter is missing, the decision is obvious: this is a weak candidate.
I can see the same principle reflected in the approach described by Susan in this article. It’s simple, yet highly effective, and it aligns with the heuristics approach described by Gigerenzer: focusing on the signals that truly predict behavior rather than overloading on information. Well explained and immediately actionable.
That’s an interesting thought, Daryna. What’s the most common trait/factor that makes a candidate worth tolerating?
This is the most interesting question )) It is a question for the designer – for the person who initially sets up a selection process (I would like to say the HR manager, but unfortunately they do not think in these terms in 90% of cases).
Here are two examples from recent cases:
1. For a business development manager at a mid-sized financial company in Poland, the key parameter was the ability to get the right person in the room with the company director. Nothing else was required from them.
2. For a team lead of programmers, the key parameter was: ensure the planned milestones were achieved at all costs. Any excuses were categorically forbidden.