The normal process of approving accounts payable is for someone who actually received the goods or services to indicate that the invoice is both correct and that the goods or services were appropriately received. Often, this is often indicated by the phrase “OK to Pay” or simply “OK” written on the invoice. But what do these words really mean? I’ve come to learn that it really depends upon whose initials appear beneath the phrase.
In some cases it means “I have reviewed this invoice, it is accurate in terms of what we agreed to pay, the goods or services have been received, are of good quality, and as a responsible member of the company, I approve payment.” Of course, none of those “other words” are actually written on the invoice, they are just implied. When one of these crosses my desk, they are almost always paid within terms.
In other cases, “it means, “I am scribbling my name at the bottom of this invoice to get it off my desk.” Just like in the first case, those words aren’t on the page either, but trust me, they are very much part of the message. These invoices almost always get challenged which delays the payment process.
The trick for the finance professional is to know who provides them with the first answer and who is providing the second. If you are part of the payment chain, from the CFO to the accounts payable staff, it’s your job to figure this out.
Let me give you two examples that actually came across my desk within the last month. The first was lease termination paperwork that offered a buyout price of $5,900. I challenged this number and after one voice mail, I got a message indicating that they could do it at $4,728. This saved my client $1,172. In another case, we were closing out a maintenance contract and being billed for a 30 day notification period. There were some extenuating circumstances, so I asked the person who had indicated that the invoice was “OK to Pay” if he had challenged it. It was pretty clear that he had not. Again, a quick phone call went to the vendor. They agreed to waive the 30 day notification period saving $1,443.
The point of these two examples isn’t to toot my own horn (frankly, reviewing invoices before payment is one of the simplest things that I do). But it is a good illustration how just being “on the ball” can translate into significant savings for the company.
If you’re part of the finance group, learn which people are diligent about approving invoices and which are just going through the motions. And if you’re one of those people responsible for approving invoices, spend a few minutes thinking about the invoice before you initial it for payment. You might be the one able to save your company money.
If your business could benefit from fractional CFO services, I would welcome the chance to speak with you. Please give me a call at (314) 863-6637 or send an email to
your cash is flowing. know where.®
Ken Homza
Copyright @ 2009 Homza Consulting, Inc.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Watch The Stong Links Too . . . (June 2009)
Last month, I wrote about “The Weakest Link” and referred to the old adage “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link”. I made the argument that the same holds true in any organization and that those weak links can become bottlenecks and hold the entire organization back. Within a few hours of publishing that piece, I got an email from one of my readers. It said: “This nails it for me. I get frustrated because I get overloaded and I know others are waiting on me. I used to be able to keep up, but it's just too much any more.” At first, I laughed. But it immediately donned on me that not only can your weakest links be a bottleneck but so can some of your strongest links!
The person who wrote this is clearly a strong link. But the problem with strong links is that over time, too much pressure can be put on “their section of the chain”. Unlike a real chain where every link must support the same load, we all know that certain parts of an organization carry a bigger burden than others. So, while the answer for weak links is generally to get them out of the organization, the answer for strong links is quite different. Usually, it’s finding a way of restructuring their job so that they can add as much value as possible. In other words, they should be performing tasks that they are uniquely qualified to do, not something that could be delegated to others. This of course, assumes that the strong links are willing to delegate; sometimes they are not which can be the reason they are overloaded in the first place. Still, a solution needs to be found that keeps them from being bottlenecks.
More importantly, these people also need sufficient free time to be able to think about ways to improve both their own function as well as the rest of the organization. Generally they can offer helpful feedback to areas outside of their own. When a strong link is so busy that all he or she can do is to “keep up” with the day-to-day demands placed upon them, then they don’t have the free time to be able to contribute in a more meaningful way. The lack of “thought time” (which has become increasingly pervasive in the business world) both limits their contribution to the organization as well as their ability to grow their own career – this serves neither them nor the company well.
So while weak links can clearly limit an organization’s performance, so can over reliance on strong links. If you see someone in your organization that is generally a strong performer but is starting to become a bottleneck, then it is well worth your time to investigate further and understand both the root cause and what can be done to resolve the situation.
If your business could benefit from fractional CFO services, I would welcome the chance to speak with you. Please give me a call at (314) 863-6637 or send an email to
your cash is flowing. know where.®
Ken Homza
Copyright @ 2009 Homza Consulting, Inc.
The person who wrote this is clearly a strong link. But the problem with strong links is that over time, too much pressure can be put on “their section of the chain”. Unlike a real chain where every link must support the same load, we all know that certain parts of an organization carry a bigger burden than others. So, while the answer for weak links is generally to get them out of the organization, the answer for strong links is quite different. Usually, it’s finding a way of restructuring their job so that they can add as much value as possible. In other words, they should be performing tasks that they are uniquely qualified to do, not something that could be delegated to others. This of course, assumes that the strong links are willing to delegate; sometimes they are not which can be the reason they are overloaded in the first place. Still, a solution needs to be found that keeps them from being bottlenecks.
More importantly, these people also need sufficient free time to be able to think about ways to improve both their own function as well as the rest of the organization. Generally they can offer helpful feedback to areas outside of their own. When a strong link is so busy that all he or she can do is to “keep up” with the day-to-day demands placed upon them, then they don’t have the free time to be able to contribute in a more meaningful way. The lack of “thought time” (which has become increasingly pervasive in the business world) both limits their contribution to the organization as well as their ability to grow their own career – this serves neither them nor the company well.
So while weak links can clearly limit an organization’s performance, so can over reliance on strong links. If you see someone in your organization that is generally a strong performer but is starting to become a bottleneck, then it is well worth your time to investigate further and understand both the root cause and what can be done to resolve the situation.
If your business could benefit from fractional CFO services, I would welcome the chance to speak with you. Please give me a call at (314) 863-6637 or send an email to
your cash is flowing. know where.®
Ken Homza
Copyright @ 2009 Homza Consulting, Inc.
The Weakest Link (May 2009)
Last month, I talked about the amount of risk that businesses take on through various initiatives. Today, I’d like to address a topic that people usually put into the risk category but which I think goes to the subject of business performance. Often, employers refer to the risks to the business if a certain individual were to leave the company. They’ll openly wonder about what would happen if a certain employee “got hit by a bus”. Well, in all of my years in the work force, I’ve been fortunate enough to never actually know of an employee who got hit by the proverbial bus. Of course, we all know that the real risk people are concerned about is what would happen if this person just “up and quit” one day with little notice. Again, this is something that rarely happens. Most employees are professional enough to give at least two weeks notice. There may be times when they do not want to do so, but they recognize that it is in their long term best interest.
The underlying concern, of course, is that one individual is the only one who knows how to perform certain critical business functions and therefore the organization is held hostage to him or her. These functions are usually not well documented nor understood by others. Unlike employees getting run over by buses, this is a phenomenon that I’ve seen time and again in the business world. And time and again, companies adapt. Usually, there is not so much that is a mystery that others don’t understand and the customary two week notice is sufficient for companies to find a way to fill any gaps. Moreover, it’s often the case that some of those critical, mysterious functions can be performed differently to reach the same end result. Sometimes, they don’t need to be performed at all!
I believe that the real issue with critical functions being understood by only one person is less about that person leaving the organization and more about day to day business performance. Often the person described above is a bottleneck to the rest of the organization. Their lack of action on a particular item can cause the entire company to grind to a halt. Other employees can become unproductive as they enter a “wait state”. More importantly, customers are kept waiting resulting in lost revenue in the short term and lost customers in the long term as they find another company who will provide more timely service. To add insult to injury, it is sometimes the case that the employee who is so critical in one area is an underperformer in others. Overall, the business would benefit if it were no longer held hostage by him or her.
While I have never seen an employee get hit by the proverbial bus, I have seen an employee who is a gating factor in almost every company with which I have ever come in contact. If you look around your organization, chances are that you’ll find an employee who is a bottleneck in a critical area and thereby limiting the performance of the entire organization.
One key to improving company performance is to search out and eliminate underperforming resources. It is an old saying, but “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link”. The same holds true in any organization.
If your business could benefit from fractional CFO services, I would welcome the chance to speak with you. Please give me a call at (314) 863-6637 or send an email to
your cash is flowing. know where.®
Ken Homza
Copyright @ 2009 Homza Consulting, Inc.
The underlying concern, of course, is that one individual is the only one who knows how to perform certain critical business functions and therefore the organization is held hostage to him or her. These functions are usually not well documented nor understood by others. Unlike employees getting run over by buses, this is a phenomenon that I’ve seen time and again in the business world. And time and again, companies adapt. Usually, there is not so much that is a mystery that others don’t understand and the customary two week notice is sufficient for companies to find a way to fill any gaps. Moreover, it’s often the case that some of those critical, mysterious functions can be performed differently to reach the same end result. Sometimes, they don’t need to be performed at all!
I believe that the real issue with critical functions being understood by only one person is less about that person leaving the organization and more about day to day business performance. Often the person described above is a bottleneck to the rest of the organization. Their lack of action on a particular item can cause the entire company to grind to a halt. Other employees can become unproductive as they enter a “wait state”. More importantly, customers are kept waiting resulting in lost revenue in the short term and lost customers in the long term as they find another company who will provide more timely service. To add insult to injury, it is sometimes the case that the employee who is so critical in one area is an underperformer in others. Overall, the business would benefit if it were no longer held hostage by him or her.
While I have never seen an employee get hit by the proverbial bus, I have seen an employee who is a gating factor in almost every company with which I have ever come in contact. If you look around your organization, chances are that you’ll find an employee who is a bottleneck in a critical area and thereby limiting the performance of the entire organization.
One key to improving company performance is to search out and eliminate underperforming resources. It is an old saying, but “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link”. The same holds true in any organization.
If your business could benefit from fractional CFO services, I would welcome the chance to speak with you. Please give me a call at (314) 863-6637 or send an email to
your cash is flowing. know where.®
Ken Homza
Copyright @ 2009 Homza Consulting, Inc.
Risk (April 2009)
All businesses take some amount of risk. Just opening the doors for the first time involves the risk of capital and labor. From then on, every business decision could be thought of as a risk reward trade-off. For most decisions, we probably don’t take the time to think of them in that light. We go about our day to day activities and accept the risks in our business. But there are certain decisions where one should definitely be thinking about risk and how it affects the overall business.
I believe many businesses become more risky over time. While most small businesses don’t specifically measure investment activities versus their risk adjusted cost of capital, larger businesses (certainly the Fortune 500) do so regularly. But even these businesses are not necessarily good at it. Too often, they tend to assume that all of the projects they undertake have the same risk profile.
For the moment, let’s assume that there are only three risk categories (high, medium and low) and that the business operates in the middle (medium). Let’s also assume that a fair return on those projects is 20% for high risk projects, 15% for medium, and 10% for low. The specific numbers in this case are not meant to suggest that they are the correct return ratios for any particular business, but merely for illustration.
Over time, a business will look at many investment opportunities. If they measure all of them against a medium (15%) investment threshold without considering individual project risk the result will be a shifting of risk over time. Low risk projects won’t meet the medium risk threshold and will get denied (even though one shouldn’t expect them to achieve as high a return because they are safer). The high risk projects will disproportionally exceed the return threshold because they aren’t being held to a high enough standard. More of these projects will get approved (and a higher than anticipated amount will fail). The ultimate result will likely be a business whose risk profile shifts over time.
Think about what has happened in the financial services markets lately. There is a strong argument to be made that there was a lack of understanding of the risk of the underlying investments. Simply put, historical mortgage default rates (and therefore risk) of people who used “traditional” mortgages with 20% down payments is lower than that of highly leveraged “nothing down” borrowers. Using assumptions based upon the former group to underpin investments in the latter group resulted in a mismatch of the risk-return paradigm.
So, how does a small business deal with assessing risk? To start, I would suggest thinking about the risk profile of individual project decisions and ask some questions. Are the assumptions conservative or aggressive? Have we completed a similar project before? What is our confidence that we can achieve the result? Can we accurately measure the results? How have others fared in similar circumstances?
If you conclude that a project is high risk, make sure that you are getting adequately compensated for that risk. On the other hand, if the investment opportunity is low risk, it should not be ignored just because it doesn’t meet a preset threshold that doesn’t consider that fact.
If your business could benefit from fractional CFO services, I would welcome the chance to speak with you. Please give me a call at (314) 863-6637 or send an email to
your cash is flowing. know where.®
Ken Homza
Copyright @ 2009 Homza Consulting, Inc.
I believe many businesses become more risky over time. While most small businesses don’t specifically measure investment activities versus their risk adjusted cost of capital, larger businesses (certainly the Fortune 500) do so regularly. But even these businesses are not necessarily good at it. Too often, they tend to assume that all of the projects they undertake have the same risk profile.
For the moment, let’s assume that there are only three risk categories (high, medium and low) and that the business operates in the middle (medium). Let’s also assume that a fair return on those projects is 20% for high risk projects, 15% for medium, and 10% for low. The specific numbers in this case are not meant to suggest that they are the correct return ratios for any particular business, but merely for illustration.
Over time, a business will look at many investment opportunities. If they measure all of them against a medium (15%) investment threshold without considering individual project risk the result will be a shifting of risk over time. Low risk projects won’t meet the medium risk threshold and will get denied (even though one shouldn’t expect them to achieve as high a return because they are safer). The high risk projects will disproportionally exceed the return threshold because they aren’t being held to a high enough standard. More of these projects will get approved (and a higher than anticipated amount will fail). The ultimate result will likely be a business whose risk profile shifts over time.
Think about what has happened in the financial services markets lately. There is a strong argument to be made that there was a lack of understanding of the risk of the underlying investments. Simply put, historical mortgage default rates (and therefore risk) of people who used “traditional” mortgages with 20% down payments is lower than that of highly leveraged “nothing down” borrowers. Using assumptions based upon the former group to underpin investments in the latter group resulted in a mismatch of the risk-return paradigm.
So, how does a small business deal with assessing risk? To start, I would suggest thinking about the risk profile of individual project decisions and ask some questions. Are the assumptions conservative or aggressive? Have we completed a similar project before? What is our confidence that we can achieve the result? Can we accurately measure the results? How have others fared in similar circumstances?
If you conclude that a project is high risk, make sure that you are getting adequately compensated for that risk. On the other hand, if the investment opportunity is low risk, it should not be ignored just because it doesn’t meet a preset threshold that doesn’t consider that fact.
If your business could benefit from fractional CFO services, I would welcome the chance to speak with you. Please give me a call at (314) 863-6637 or send an email to
your cash is flowing. know where.®
Ken Homza
Copyright @ 2009 Homza Consulting, Inc.
Truthful Financial Statements Are A Mirror (March 2009)
Truthful financial statements are a mirror. They are a reflection of what is happening in the business on a day to day basis. They reflect the decisions that management is making and the efficiency (or lack thereof) with which they run their business. Unfortunately, I know of too many operating executives who believe that the financial statements are something that the “accountants do”.
The fact that they feel disconnected between their actions and the financial statements means that something is wrong somewhere. Maybe it’s a lack of communication between operating and financial management. At times, financial results simply aren’t shared and at other times they are not shared with the proper context. Perhaps operating management is insulated by a parent organization from the economic realities of their actions. Or it might be that while short term results appear to be good, the long term consequences of their actions have not yet caught up with them. And then there are times when financial management takes enough actions that they make the sick patient appear relatively healthy (they stretch payables, refinance, provide intercompany loans, or find one-time gains that offset operating losses). Whatever the reason, nothing good can come from this disconnect.
If you’re part of operating management, it’s your responsibility to seek to fully understand the financial results of your organization. If you’re part of financial management, it is your responsibility to do your very best to make sure that operating management understands the financial ramifications of their decisions.
Unfortunately, a lack of understanding of the financial results by operating management is not as rare an occurrence as one might think. I’ve come across a number of companies where this is the case. Often, a finance person gets a call to help when the company is in trouble. When they “dig in”, they find that while the company is financially troubled, the root cause of the problems are sales, operational, quality, service, delivery or some other issue. Although it’s sometimes the case that the finance or accounting staff is incompetent (which means that the debits and credits do not accurately reflect the business operations), this can almost be considered good news as it is the easiest problem to fix.
Notice that I started this newsletter with the word “truthful”. We have all heard of cases where results are not truthful and there is an intentional misstatement of fact. Those misstatements often involve debates around estimates (which are a common part of complex accounting issues). For smaller companies, however, the facts are pretty clear and can be easily interpreted.
Financial statements reflect the operations of the company . . . use them to your advantage.
If your business could benefit from fractional CFO services, I would welcome the chance to speak with you. Please give me a call at (314) 863-6637 or send an email to
your cash is flowing. know where.®
Ken Homza
Copyright @ 2009 Homza Consulting, Inc.
The fact that they feel disconnected between their actions and the financial statements means that something is wrong somewhere. Maybe it’s a lack of communication between operating and financial management. At times, financial results simply aren’t shared and at other times they are not shared with the proper context. Perhaps operating management is insulated by a parent organization from the economic realities of their actions. Or it might be that while short term results appear to be good, the long term consequences of their actions have not yet caught up with them. And then there are times when financial management takes enough actions that they make the sick patient appear relatively healthy (they stretch payables, refinance, provide intercompany loans, or find one-time gains that offset operating losses). Whatever the reason, nothing good can come from this disconnect.
If you’re part of operating management, it’s your responsibility to seek to fully understand the financial results of your organization. If you’re part of financial management, it is your responsibility to do your very best to make sure that operating management understands the financial ramifications of their decisions.
Unfortunately, a lack of understanding of the financial results by operating management is not as rare an occurrence as one might think. I’ve come across a number of companies where this is the case. Often, a finance person gets a call to help when the company is in trouble. When they “dig in”, they find that while the company is financially troubled, the root cause of the problems are sales, operational, quality, service, delivery or some other issue. Although it’s sometimes the case that the finance or accounting staff is incompetent (which means that the debits and credits do not accurately reflect the business operations), this can almost be considered good news as it is the easiest problem to fix.
Notice that I started this newsletter with the word “truthful”. We have all heard of cases where results are not truthful and there is an intentional misstatement of fact. Those misstatements often involve debates around estimates (which are a common part of complex accounting issues). For smaller companies, however, the facts are pretty clear and can be easily interpreted.
Financial statements reflect the operations of the company . . . use them to your advantage.
If your business could benefit from fractional CFO services, I would welcome the chance to speak with you. Please give me a call at (314) 863-6637 or send an email to
your cash is flowing. know where.®
Ken Homza
Copyright @ 2009 Homza Consulting, Inc.
End The Debate . . . Decide! (February 2009)
I think business debate is good. But I am a product of my early career environment. I spent the first ten years of my career at Unisys Corporation. Unisys was (and probably still is) predominantly an engineering company. Open debate was common, vigorous and expected. You could disagree with the CEO as long as it was done respectfully and with the goal of finding the best answer.
After ten years in that environment I moved to LensCrafters. For me, it was culture shock. The style which had earned me promotions and achievement awards at Unisys was neither welcomed nor appreciated. Open debate was frowned upon. The culture respected and expected behind the scenes consensus building. Executive meetings were much more about ratification than vigorous debate.
Which approach is better? They both have their strengths and weaknesses. While the decision making process at LensCrafters tended to be time consuming, once a decision was reached the force of the entire organization was brought to bear against execution. Everyone was committed to the goal and it showed. The company set big goals and generally achieved them. At times, however, the need to satisfy so many constituents meant that the decision was less than optimal. At Unisys decisions were reached more quickly without extended negotiations. That made it easier to set direction. But at times, after the fact negotiations could hamper execution and limit organization effectiveness.
As with many things in life, balance is key. There is room for open debate . . . but only to a point. There are times when it clearly becomes obstructionist and does not further the organization’s goals. At times like this, it is up to leadership to step in and end the debate.
Whether you are in a leadership role or a participant in the debate, ask yourself if it is serving the organization’s goals or whether it is serving some other interest?
Clearly we are in a down economic environment and it is now more important than ever for companies to act clearly and decisively. As you participate in or lead the decision making process at your organization, it’s important to consider how long and hard to debate an issue. Once all opinions are heard, there is a point where the organization is better served by moving forward in a definite direction rather than languishing without a decision.
End The Debate . . . Decide!
If your business could benefit from fractional CFO services, I would welcome the chance to speak with you. Please give me a call at (314) 863-6637 or send an email to
your cash is flowing. know where.®
Ken Homza
Copyright @ 2009 Homza Consulting, Inc.
After ten years in that environment I moved to LensCrafters. For me, it was culture shock. The style which had earned me promotions and achievement awards at Unisys was neither welcomed nor appreciated. Open debate was frowned upon. The culture respected and expected behind the scenes consensus building. Executive meetings were much more about ratification than vigorous debate.
Which approach is better? They both have their strengths and weaknesses. While the decision making process at LensCrafters tended to be time consuming, once a decision was reached the force of the entire organization was brought to bear against execution. Everyone was committed to the goal and it showed. The company set big goals and generally achieved them. At times, however, the need to satisfy so many constituents meant that the decision was less than optimal. At Unisys decisions were reached more quickly without extended negotiations. That made it easier to set direction. But at times, after the fact negotiations could hamper execution and limit organization effectiveness.
As with many things in life, balance is key. There is room for open debate . . . but only to a point. There are times when it clearly becomes obstructionist and does not further the organization’s goals. At times like this, it is up to leadership to step in and end the debate.
Whether you are in a leadership role or a participant in the debate, ask yourself if it is serving the organization’s goals or whether it is serving some other interest?
Clearly we are in a down economic environment and it is now more important than ever for companies to act clearly and decisively. As you participate in or lead the decision making process at your organization, it’s important to consider how long and hard to debate an issue. Once all opinions are heard, there is a point where the organization is better served by moving forward in a definite direction rather than languishing without a decision.
End The Debate . . . Decide!
If your business could benefit from fractional CFO services, I would welcome the chance to speak with you. Please give me a call at (314) 863-6637 or send an email to
your cash is flowing. know where.®
Ken Homza
Copyright @ 2009 Homza Consulting, Inc.
Don’t Just Survive . . . Thrive! (January 2009)
Most companies have either just completed or are diligently trying to finish their budgets and plans for 2009. Given the tumultuous 2008 and the similar start to 2009, it’s easy to imagine that many companies are thinking about what it will take to survive this year. While it’s obviously critical that you survive, it’s also a good time to think about setting your sights a little higher. Ask yourself, “What will it take to thrive in 2009 and beyond?”
While that might seem like a difficult (if not impossible) notion to contemplate, especially in some industries, difficult times often make for opportunities. During slow economic times, there is normally a shake out of the weakest players in every industry. While that can be unfortunate, it’s also part of the economic reality in which we live. But when the business cycle turns, as it invariably will, there will be more opportunity for those that remain. The question at hand is: What can you do today to position yourself for a stronger tomorrow?
o Is this the time to think about picking up new talent that may now be available?
o Can you use any slowdown in your core business to develop new lines of products or services by deploying people and resources to other areas?
o If your staff is a bit slower than usual, can that time be used for training or to upgrade their skills?
o Are there opportunities to do more for your current customers?
o Might there be some areas where you should increase spending as opposed to only thinking of cutting back?
o Is there an opportunity to purchase a struggling competitor?
I realize that this is somewhat “out-of-the-box” thinking but that is what is required for a company to be successful. 2009 will likely present a number of challenges for both big and small companies. How companies respond to those challenges will be the difference between those that survive 2009 and those that are poised to thrive when the economy improves.
Search for the negatives in your business and eliminate them. Whether it is relationships with underperforming vendors, employees, or even problem customers, now is not the time to be carrying extra baggage. Take corrective action. There are others who would welcome a relationship with your business during difficult times.
Set your sights high. Look for the opportunities that difficult times present and take advantage of them to the greatest extent possible. Search for ways to become a stronger player in your marketplace. Make yourself memorable to your customers and give them a reason to maintain an on-going relationship with you.
If your business could benefit from fractional CFO services, I would welcome the chance to speak with you. Please give me a call at (314) 863-6637 or send an email to
your cash is flowing. know where.®
Ken Homza
Copyright @ 2009 Homza Consulting, Inc.
While that might seem like a difficult (if not impossible) notion to contemplate, especially in some industries, difficult times often make for opportunities. During slow economic times, there is normally a shake out of the weakest players in every industry. While that can be unfortunate, it’s also part of the economic reality in which we live. But when the business cycle turns, as it invariably will, there will be more opportunity for those that remain. The question at hand is: What can you do today to position yourself for a stronger tomorrow?
o Is this the time to think about picking up new talent that may now be available?
o Can you use any slowdown in your core business to develop new lines of products or services by deploying people and resources to other areas?
o If your staff is a bit slower than usual, can that time be used for training or to upgrade their skills?
o Are there opportunities to do more for your current customers?
o Might there be some areas where you should increase spending as opposed to only thinking of cutting back?
o Is there an opportunity to purchase a struggling competitor?
I realize that this is somewhat “out-of-the-box” thinking but that is what is required for a company to be successful. 2009 will likely present a number of challenges for both big and small companies. How companies respond to those challenges will be the difference between those that survive 2009 and those that are poised to thrive when the economy improves.
Search for the negatives in your business and eliminate them. Whether it is relationships with underperforming vendors, employees, or even problem customers, now is not the time to be carrying extra baggage. Take corrective action. There are others who would welcome a relationship with your business during difficult times.
Set your sights high. Look for the opportunities that difficult times present and take advantage of them to the greatest extent possible. Search for ways to become a stronger player in your marketplace. Make yourself memorable to your customers and give them a reason to maintain an on-going relationship with you.
If your business could benefit from fractional CFO services, I would welcome the chance to speak with you. Please give me a call at (314) 863-6637 or send an email to
your cash is flowing. know where.®
Ken Homza
Copyright @ 2009 Homza Consulting, Inc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
