Published Work
Five articles on the structural patterns that destroy capital before decision-makers recognize them. Each pattern is documented, not theoretical.
Simultaneous capital deployment across multiple initiatives is not a bandwidth problem — it is a documented structural pattern with predictable consequences. The cost does not appear on any single line item. It appears in the aggregate underperformance of every initiative in the portfolio.
Read Article (PDF)The departure of a key operational partner is a common event. The capital allocation consequences that follow are rarely anticipated and almost never visible in the diligence that preceded the original commitment. The pattern executes quietly — until the next major decision reveals what was lost.
Read Article (PDF)Financial statements capture what has already happened. The growth ceiling that will constrain the next capital deployment is structural — embedded in organizational design, management bandwidth, and decision-making architecture. It does not appear until after capital is committed.
Read Article (PDF)Change management frameworks are deployed after capital has been committed to a transformation initiative. The trap is earlier: the decision to commit capital was made without recognizing the organizational pattern that will determine whether the change is absorbable. The framework cannot fix what the pattern has already determined.
Read Article (PDF)Royal Little lost $100 million and documented exactly why — deal by deal, decision by decision. The Failure-First Tradition is the discipline of extracting structured insight from documented capital failures before deploying new capital. It is the intellectual foundation of FPI™ and the most underleveraged resource in capital allocation.
Read Article (PDF)These articles were originally published on LinkedIn. Follow for new work on capital allocation failure patterns as it is released.
Follow on LinkedIn →