RE: Tony22 Feb 2024 00:14
Both companies had expertise with good teams around them and slowly developed their asset over 10 years.
Both finally hit the big time after raising significant financing.
Both were taking on a major project that was larger than anything they undertook before.
Both subcontracted work to outside agencies they thought were the best available to serve them.
Both were fully in charge of their methodologies in delivering their tasks that looked entirely sensible.
Both were under a time significant time pressure for delivery.
Both were working with project delivery across many national borders involving complex supply chains.
Both gave positive delivery feedback at different stages.
Both had what appeared excellent people on the board that should have picked up weak areas in the methodology.
Both faced an array of problems and took short cut routes to keep in with timelines.
Both were having satellite projects that distracted from their main functions and distracted investors with more carrots to sweeten the investment story.
Both were overwhelmed by the sheer number of people they had to manage in their projects.
Both faced cost pressures to eventual end customers.
Both offered 300% plus growth prospects and ample opportunities to e acquired by larger companies.
It does not matter if it is a nickel mine or a world beating anti-viral. Failure goes back to mis-managing the methodology, not managing other people's activities or not understanding the delivery of their roles as they were to distant with so many suppliers in between, dealing with set backs and or delays and not allowing for them, a degree of over confidence, not bringing in skilled people when needed at particular stages, making some really obvious technical mistakes in the work plan delivery, leaving some critical positions unfilled to save money. Staff caring more about their own options and pay outs then the tasks they perhaps should have been delivering.
Tony (My last note here).
Sign In
Follow the stocks
