Choose the business commitment behind the next useful connection

In 2022 I supported a proposal to extend our production-planning business into a ticket engine. Conversations with venues had suggested interest, and I initially treated that interest as support for owning more of the transaction workflow. Discovery across 27 venues gave a different account: 21 wanted integration with their incumbent ticketing system and six wanted a replacement. The broader relationship was attractive, but most of the reviewed organisations were asking us to connect an existing capability rather than become its new provider.

The product sponsor argued that a ticket engine would give us more control and a larger commercial opportunity. Sales colleagues could point to the six venues that wanted replacement. I accepted that those six represented a real question worth understanding, but they did not validate the proposal we had framed around the whole reviewed group. A transaction business would also create obligations beyond planning records. I recommended withdrawing the ₹2.4 crore proposal before commitment, and the CEO accepted that recommendation.

We retained ₹38 lakh of discovery expense. I recommended a separate ₹0.9 crore integration programme shaped around the connection request, which remains unfinished in this account. The change did not recover the discovery cost or establish a saving equal to the difference between two proposed budgets. It changed what we were asking the company to undertake and what would need to be demonstrated next.

I gave up an expansion I had supported and a story about owning a broader workflow. The alternative depended on working with other systems and respecting responsibilities that remained outside our business. That was a narrower position than the initial proposal, but it corresponded more closely to the request made by 21 of the 27 reviewed venues. No claim is made that the remaining six would accept it or that the sample represented every venue in the market.

The lesson for me was to distinguish interest in our participation from demand for our ownership. A customer can want a better connection without wanting a new provider for the adjoining service. Strategy should identify that difference before treating a technically possible feature as permission to enter another business.

A 2023 planning review examined 36 annual renewals with ₹40 crore in receipts under the reviewed arrangements. Twenty-four fell in September and accounted for ₹29 crore; 12 fell in April and accounted for ₹11 crore. The cohort was a defined part of the customer base, not the whole company's revenue. The annual total made the commercial account look smooth, but the timing of receipts and the continuing support obligation were different.

One planning option assumed that the organisation could reduce support capacity sharply between the two seasons. The operating team objected that production planning and customer questions continued even when the main receipt period had passed. Finance also asked us to distinguish the timing of cash from the accounting and service obligations. I supported retaining year-round support and taking the concentration into a separate liquidity decision.

The approved response included a ₹4.2 crore liquidity reserve. Finance owned the cash planning and the appropriate approval process. I did not describe the reserve as an operating expense, a saving or evidence that every seasonal risk was resolved. It was an allocation intended to support the continuing obligation under the assumptions reviewed. The cohort figures also remained separate from company revenue, so the strategy paper did not imply that all clients followed the same calendar.

This choice gave up the appeal of a lean seasonal staffing story. It required the business to carry an operating commitment through periods that looked less active in the receipt schedule. We did not attach an invented retention improvement to justify that decision afterwards. The known change was a clearer plan for support and liquidity, with the assumptions still open to review as customer patterns developed.

I took from the case a practical question for growth proposals: does the calendar of payment describe the calendar of work? The answer may be no even when the customer relationship is annual. A strategy that recognises the difference can make its resource needs explicit before expansion makes the mismatch larger. It also leaves financial classification and cash authority with the people responsible for them.

A 2024 geographic-expansion proposal used the number of venues as the main unit for estimating migration work. Discovery across 60 sites found 48 with two planning rooms and 12 with seven. That meant 96 rooms in the first group and 84 in the second, or 180 rooms in total. Treating each venue as one planning unit had hidden differences in availability, production use and the records that would need to be carried into the software.

The expansion team argued that a venue remained one customer and that a common migration approach should absorb the variation. Implementation colleagues agreed that some work could be shared, but they could not accept the assumption that all room-level records and arrangements would disappear into one undifferentiated unit. I supported revising the commitment before using the model to enter another geography. The customer count was still useful for some commercial purposes; it was insufficient for this estimate of work.

We deferred the ₹3.6 crore geographic-expansion proposal and separately approved ₹1.1 crore for migration redesign. The redesign remains a programme to complete, not a reported implementation success. I did not subtract the two figures and call the result money saved. They were different proposals with different purposes, and the decision changed their sequence rather than proving a financial benefit.

The trade-off was a later market entry and a less attractive near-term growth account. I accepted that consequence because the existing assumption would have carried an understated commitment into the next proposal. Product and implementation teams retained responsibility for the actual design, and customers retained authority over room availability and production arrangements. Our software could organise planning records; it did not certify that a venue or schedule was operationally safe.

The case changed the way I ask for a unit in an expansion model. A customer, a site and a room can all be legitimate counts, but they serve different decisions. The model should explain why its chosen unit corresponds to the work being funded. When that relationship changes, the strategic account needs to change with it rather than defend the original simplicity.

A 2025 partnership proposal combined calendar integration with a production-archive service across 12 producers. Review of the agreed permissions found that eight authorised calendar integration only, while four also authorised the defined archival transfer. The commercial proposal had treated the existence of a partnership as though it settled the permitted uses of every associated record. It did not. The two activities needed to remain distinct.

The partnership team wanted a common launch because it would be easier to explain and would give the programme a larger initial population. They argued that the producers already trusted us with planning connections. I supported qualified review of the actual terms rather than infer archive permission from that relationship. The decision was to reject the all 12-producer archive proposition and limit the pilot to the four with the relevant permission established.

A proposed ₹2.2 crore wider archive programme was replaced by a separately approved ₹0.65 crore four-producer pilot. The pilot remains bounded and does not prove that the other eight will join later. The eight calendar relationships continued at their existing scope. We did not claim a general legal rule about ownership, an automatic exception for archives or permission to use production material for unrelated purposes. The terms and responsible review governed the case.

I gave up a larger launch narrative and the apparent simplicity of one partnership category. The narrower pilot required colleagues to explain why some relationships supported one service and others supported another. That explanation was more accurate than allowing the size of the network to imply a right the company had not established. No revenue gain or saving is attributed to the reduced scope.

For strategy, the important distinction is between a commercial relationship and the specific activities it permits. A partner can support one useful connection without consenting to every adjacent use. A proposal should show that boundary before its scale becomes part of the investment argument. The opportunity remains worth exploring when the pilot is honest about who can participate and what the service is allowed to do.

A 2025 discovery exercise across 40 venues found 26 with reliable connectivity during the reviewed preparation periods and 14 with limited connectivity. The finding mattered for touring coordinators who needed access to planning records away from a dependable connection. The first proposal described a broad offline capability, but that phrase concealed different tasks: reading an issued schedule, editing it and reconciling competing changes later.

Engineering colleagues warned that the proposed promise went beyond the evidence and resources available. Some commercial colleagues wanted a broad statement because it sounded more complete for a touring customer. I recommended a ₹1.3 crore programme for an offline read-only schedule pack, with its boundaries explicit. The product would not control live cues or stage equipment, and the proposal did not promise conflict-free synchronisation of offline edits.

An eight-week pilot involved 18 coordinators. Twelve found the issued pack useful for the reviewed purpose, and six said their work required live updates. Those responses did not establish that the product met every need of the 14 venues with limited connectivity. The populations and questions were different. We retained the bounded reading capability and did not approve a full offline-editing launch on the strength of the pilot.

The trade-off was a narrower market claim and an unresolved need for participants who required current changes. I did not describe them as resistant users or assume that a read-only pack could replace their operating process. The pilot supplied evidence about one proposed use and a reason to keep another requirement open. No financial return or avoided production incident is claimed.

The case helped me distinguish a useful partial answer from a misleading complete one. A strategy can choose to fund the part it can responsibly examine while declining to describe that part as the whole workflow. The company then has a clearer decision about what to investigate next, which customers the current capability may serve and which promises remain outside its accepted scope.