- About TOC
- Learn TOC
|Submissions to Eli's 2nd Riddle (with comments from Eli)|
Below we have Eli's 2nd Riddle, Eli's answer to his own riddle AND the top answers given by others. The winning answer was submitted by Jimmy Conway so he is the winner of the 2nd Riddle! Congratulations to Jimmy! The other answers are the next TOP answers with comments given by Eli. The rest of the answers (without comments) are at the end.
Riddle: Ben, the CEO of BBQ-Made-Easy, describes his pressing problem:
Eli's Answer to his own riddle:
This time I first verbalize my own answer, and only then comment on some of the reader’s answers.
To my mind the truly main issue in this case is how to measure the performance of managers. Ben asks it this way: How can we make our managers truly responsible if they are not truly accountable to the results they put on the table?
In other words "accountability”, according to Ben, is a mean to motivate managers to become responsible. I detest the word "accountability” because it means ignoring uncertainty. In CCPM we have revealed how making someone "accountable” for finishing on time causes tasks to finish early only in rare cases. When a manager of a new initiative is required to put a number on the table that person is in the following dilemma:
On one hand he wants the initiative to be approved: so, he should quote a high number.
On the other hand he does not want to be caught "under-performing”, so he should quote a low number.
I assume any TOC reader can easily build the cloud. Note that the short term pressure is to quote a high number and if you cannot break the hidden assumption that a manager has full control on his area (meaning he is controlling all the uncertainty) including his market, then you might look for a compromise preferring the short term. Do you blame Jonathan for doing it?
I think that any requirement to put one number on the table is an illegitimate request causing very damaging answers. The right approach is to use a range (reasonable minimum and reasonable maximum) OR asking specifically "What is the minimum result you can achieve that below that it’d be judged as a failure?” Even then you should not condemn the person for not achieving the minimum, unless your analysis shows the specific failures of his/her management. Reality is too unpredictable to allow us judge people on the basis of prior expectations.
Coming back to the main issue: how should managers be judged?
It seems to me there are two different aspects one should pay attention to:
a. The skills, capability and capacity of the person.
b. The motivation to do whatever it takes to accomplish the mission or to achieve as much as possible from the organizational goal.
We should never say we know how to evaluate the two aspects, but we should also admit we do know something. Eventually we are able to approximately estimate the contribution of people to the organization.
Is it critical to know whether the Turkish initiative is losing money or not? It seems like after three years it is about breakeven. Is it good or bad? I do not think this is the issue here.
Many of the answers are about 70% in line with my assertion above, which makes me feel good that the TOC knowledge does achieve a common-sense state of mind. I urge readers who do not agree with the way I have stated my approach to send me their arguments and I’ll respond to them.
1. Jimmy Conway's Answer (Winner): "Forecasting sales, particularly in a new market with no track record, is as good as guesswork. It would be an unfair to Jonathan to be held accountable for simply guessing wrong. Managers should be held accountable within their area of responsibility for: 1. The quality of their strategies and tactics, and their ability to adapt based on market feedback, and 2. Implementing the necessary and sufficient actions that need to be taken to make good on their strategies and tactics."
Eli's Comments on Winning Answer: "Like most answers it does not fully match my own, but it is quite good in itself. It focuses on the right issue: How to judge the performance of a manager? Jimmy also makes his points clear, yet, short."
2. David Peterson's Answer (runner up): "1. Who is right? Who is wrong? Both Ben and Jonathan have made mistakes. But Ben's mistakes are more serious in that they are leading him towards sacking an outstanding entrepreneurial manager, unaware of the damage it will cause to the company's prospects.
Ben believes the Turkish operation is losing money, yet this appears to be contradicted by what Jonathan tells us: the P&L in the company did not go down in the last two years, while sales, not including Turkey, did not go up. It is theoretically possible that the subsidiary is losing money and the losses were offset by cost-cutting in the parent company, for example by reducing the R&D budget, but neither manager suggested anything along these lines.
Another, perhaps more likely, explanation is that Ben has allocated a proportion of the company's operating costs to the Turkish subsidiary based on Jonathan's original projections. Since his projections were on the high-side, the costs allocated to his operations are also on the high-side and make it look like the subsidiary is running at a loss, and at the same time make the rest of the organization look like it's performing better than it is.
In fact, the Turkish operation is arguably the best part of the organization. Sales growth in Turkey was 50% this year while the rest of the organization is stagnating (or "stabilized" as Ben euphemistically calls it) with no increases in the last five years. Jonathan has done a remarkable job taking the subsidiary from nought to $1.4M in sales in three years.
However, Jonathan did fall short of his projections and inadequately communicated with Ben. Ben should not treat any manager's guesses as inviolable commitments, but Jonathan should not have made his guesses the way he did. The figure of $5M that Jonathan stated as his sales prediction for 3 years, was especially unfortunate and suggests that Jonathan was making his forecast entirely by intuition rather than based on an explicit financial model.
A (spreadsheet) model would likely have shown sales growth to be exponential rather than the straight line that Jonathan seems to have intuitively applied to arrive at his guess. This would have reduced the figure for the 3 year mark and increased the figures for years 4 and 5. An explicit model would also have allowed Ben to understand and question the assumptions behind it, apply sensitivity analysis, and provide an opportunity to involve other subject matter experts. For example, during the growth of BBQ-Made-Easy, Jonathan was the supply-chain manager, but who was the sales manager? Why wasn't the sales manager involved in building the model?
Having a model would also have provided Ben with a way to monitor the operation and improve the reliability of the forecast as real-life results came in and other information came to light and new situations, such as the political problems, unfolded. This would have spared Ben the shock of finding such a big gap between his expectations and reality and would have allowed him to take decisive action earlier, if necessary.
In summary, Jonathan would have been far better off presenting a model rather than presenting numbers, and Ben should have insisted on it. Ben failed to provide proper governance by accepting Jonathan's figures without questioning the assumptions behind them and without involving other more knowledgeable managers.
2. So, what should Ben do with Jonathan?
Ben should marshal the resources of the company in support of Jonathan. Sales aren't growing in the home market which suggests the home market is saturated, whereas the Turkish market is growing at a fast pace. It may well be worth redeploying sales people from the home market to the Turkish market to capitalize on the opportunity.
Neither manager has mentioned any manufacturing or supply problems, but fast growth could easily cause the constraint to move into these functions. Ben and the other managers have to make sure that this does not happen and that the organization and the suppliers are ready to take on the growth in sales. Exactly how to do it is probably out of scope for an answer to the riddle, but, having a model that is frequently updated and communicated, will be an important aspect of this. The organization must work together as a single unit.
What Ben should definitely not do is sack Jonathan! This would have major negative effects all round. It would harm the opportunity for growth in Turkey, the company would lose a lot of experience, not to mention the long-standing personal relationships Jonathan has with the suppliers, and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that Jonathan could take clients with him to a competitor. It would also send a strong message to the other managers in the organization that making mistakes is not tolerated. This will be a huge dampener on innovation as any innovation can fail. Many excellent growth opportunities will be avoided because of fear of failure. Problems are also likely to be concealed from Ben, with managers unable to tell the truth for fear of losing their jobs. Bad situations will be made worse by managers pressing on in the vain hope that a miracle happens that will turn things around.
3. In what way should managers be accountable for their predictions and their area of responsibility?
Managers should not be accountable for their predictions, but should be accountable for their actions, and particularly the way they manage uncertainty and risk in their area of responsibility.
Predictions, by their nature, involve uncertainty. Any manager held accountable for his predictions is likely to be extremely conservative and when forced to make a prediction will pad it heavily to protect his skin.
Buffering is a vital tool for managing uncertainty, but buffering everything is not the best approach. In large organizations, particularly, having managers at each level add padding to the estimates of the layer below, will result in massively distorted data for high-level decision makers.
Buffers should instead be applied explicitly and strategically, for the benefit of the organization as a whole. Not all variables are equally important. Some variables carry much more risk (or opportunity) than others and these are the variables that managers need to manage carefully.
Managers cannot be expected to predict exact values of uncertain variables, but they can be accountable for their approach to dealing with the uncertainty. Managers should be expected and trained to think through and articulate the assumptions behind their estimates and the consequences of errors and to explicitly address the risks."
Eli's Comments: "I highly recommend the readers to read David Petersen detailed answer, especially the part analyzing the Turkish initiative and whether it loses money or not. I disagree with David on the issue of "the exponential model” in describing the trend in the market, but this is a discussion for another time."
3. Christophe Lambert's Answer: "This problem is well worked out in the Requisite Organization literature. A manager is accountable for the results of his subordinates. When assigning a task to a subordinate, a manager comes to agreement with the subordinate on what is to be done, by when, to what quality standards, with what resources. After agreement is reached, the subordinate is accountable for making his best efforts to do the task AND notify the manager well in advance if, a) the task is at risk of not being completed on time, to quality standards, or within allotted resources, or, b) if substantially more can be accomplished and/or sooner. If the employee fails to so notify the manager in order for appropriate actions to be taken by the manager, the subordinate is derelict in his responsibility and should be subject to disciplinary action, potentially including deselection from his position. Similarly a subordinate who does not make his best efforts to accomplish the task is subject to disciplinary action. In the absence of communication otherwise from the subordinate, the manager assumes that everything is on track.
Thinking of it in terms of an S&T tree, a manager is accountable for the set of strategies under him/her and works with the responsible subordinate for a given strategy/tactic pair to decide the best tactics. The subordinate is responsible for making his best effort to accomplish the tactics and must tell the manager if the tactics are not working to accomplish the strategy, or if significantly better results are occurring than expected.
The CEO (Ben) is wrong in having his employee be accountable for the results – the CEO is accountable for the results ($5M in 3 years). The subordinate (Jonathan) also did not appear to notify his CEO well enough in advance that the results were not going to be as expected for action to be taken (though you would think that warning signs would have been evident in the annual financials). The CEO should have either replaced Ben earlier if he was not up to the task, or changed the tactics, or changed the target. Since the 3 years are up, the CEO now needs to decide the next task, and decide whether Jonathan can accomplish it. If not, let him go (including to possibly somewhere else in the organization). If so, let him stay, but be clear that in the future Jonathan must notify early if either the target (the strategy) is in jeopardy, or if even more can be accomplished.
Eli's Comments: "Christophe Lambert uses the term "accountable” in the meaning of "being judged upon”, which I disagree with, but then asks how to do it right - a question I like very much. It is an interesting answer, making an emphasis of an ongoing process rather than judgment at one point of time."
4. Alejandro Cespedes' Answer: "We think both Ben and Jonathan have right and wrong arguments. Generally speaking, no one should be held accountable for a somewhat arbitrary figure. Forecasts should be done but they should be a range, not a deterministic number. Every forecast should have an optimistic and a pessimistic scenario, and should be done with inputs from the most suited people in the company. And Jonathan himself recognizes that he isn't the person to do it; he is good at supply chain management but he doesn't know the market. Ben should've brought people from sales and marketing to participate.
Regarding accountability, we believe that accountability should be based on the plan's design and execution, not the end result. Jonathan can't control political events but within his plan he should have a worst and best case scenario and a contingency plan for them. For example, if sales are much lower than expected what will he do increase sales? And if sales are much higher than expected how will he elevate capacity? If Jonathan fails in executing the plan he should definitely leave the company. But if the plan wasn't properly constructed to begin with, we think management has big responsibility in this as well. When deciding whether or not to open operations in Turkey management should have identified the relevant variables that should be considered, have the most knowledgeable people predict "realistic" pessimistic and optimistic scenarios, and devise plans for both scenarios. If execution is done by the book and results are not there, management should identify the erroneous assumptions to avoid making the same mistake in future plans and correct the strategy based on what reality is telling them. A forecast even with ranges is still a forecast. During execution the company needs to be open minded, flexible and fast enough to respond to reality. Certainly this involves people from almost every department in the company. Leaving it all up to Jonathan is a big mistake.
The operation in Turkey should be analyzed separately to avoid distortions from cost allocations. The fact that NP didn't go up or down with Turkey should be an alarm for cost distortions. Though Turkey is not selling what Jonathan predicted, this doesn't mean it's losing money.
Finally, we think that when deciding who to assign to open the new branch, they should look at what capabilities are really needed. Maybe Jonathan is not the person to do the job, even though he is a great supply chain manager. Many times companies give promotions to people based on their current performance but this doesn't mean he/she will perform well in the new task. BBQ-Made-Easey may be losing a great supply chain manager while promoting a not so competent new operation manager."
Eli's Comments: "Alejandro Cespedes gives a very good answer making the case for using a range rather than one-number forecast. I disagree with him about Jonathan being a good supply chain manager and not a good sales one. I don’t know whether Jonathan is a good sales manager because I cannot tell whether the sales he did achieve were close or not to what they could have been. All the rest of the answer is in line with my own."
The rest of the answers do not include comments from Eli, but at the request of Eli he would like to have all answers available to read. Below are the rest of the answers in the order they were received.
1. Manoj Agarwal: It is clear Jonathan is being measured locally in two ways: - by performance of the Turkish Subsidiary; and by actual numbers against his "commitment".
Instead of firing Jonathan, Ben should recognize that The Turkish subsidiary HAS contributed - significantly. Going by the local measurements logic being considered for Jonathan, he would have to fire almost all managers - including himself, as nobody would have planned to lose money on rest of the operations!
He should more clearly define his responsibility and set up different, more "global" mechanisms of accountability. He should set up a more reasonable "quota" of sales; for shorter horizons (e.g. a quarter or an year) and institute mechanisms of rewards & recognition for exceeding it. The accountability must be on discipline establishing a proper plan through systematic planning; and regular reviews for recovery planning and execution.
2. Peter Milroy: So, who is right? Who is wrong? What Ben should do with Jonathan?
In what way should managers be accountable for their predictions and their area of responsibility?
While I hesitate to take sides, Jonathan's position appears correct to me. He is the Supply Chain Manager, a position in the company that should not be given Profit & Loss responsibility for a foreign operation. While he might be a valuable member of the leadership team, he can't be singled out for a direction that he alone could not have initiated, only the CEO could have given permission to begin operations in a foreign country. Responsibility must rest with the CEO, unless he agrees to give Jonathan broader responsibility in the company.
3. Justin Roff-Marsh: Ben is wrong, and on many counts.
First, Jonathon's predication was exactly that: a prediction and NOT a guarantee. It's true that managers should be accountable but, they should ONLY be accountable for those things over which they exercise control.
At the time he made the prediction, Jonathon would have considered the market environment, in combination with the capability and effort he intended to deploy.
Jonathon has no control over the former, meaning that he should be evaluated purely based on the latter.
It appears that the claim that the Turkish operation is losing money is misleading at best, fallacious at worst. If, as Jonathon claims, there is evidence that the Turkish operation is not making a negative contribution to the performance of the group, it is not a loss-making entity in any meaningful sense.
The company as a whole (senior management) placed a bet on Turkey. Management must accept there was always a significant likelihood of reality playing-out differently. That's the very nature of bets!
Management decisions now should be made looking forward, not backwards. And the critical issues should be considered in isolation.
The important questions are: should the company continue its Turkey operation? And, is Johnathon the right person to continue to head this operation?
It's clear that the answer to both of these questions is 'yes'.
If there is an open question right now, it has to concern Ben's management capability, not Jonathon's.
4. Alfredo Angrisani: The basic figures
The business figures from the recounts (in bold print) should be as in Table A. Assuming that the truly variable costs are about 50% of the turnover, then all else being the same, the cost of the Turkish office is roughly 700 k$. Which is a lot for a sales operation. Even if TVC are substantially higher (60%), then the cost of that office (from the text there is no physical operation in Turkey, but just an office) would be no less than 500 k$ per year, unless... there has been an increase of cost at the headquarters in Israel. Such inconsistency would be much higher and to be fully explained by the Israeli management if the TVC ratio were even smaller than 50%.
Sales Israel 10 10
Sales Turkey 0 1,4
Sales total 10 11,4
OE + TVC (Total) 8,5 9,9
TVC (50%) 5 5,7
OE 3,5 4,2
Profit 1,5 1,5
Anyway, according to Table A, the Turkish operation provides a throughput of 700 k$ that effectively balances its own (supposed) additional operating costs in 2011 if the TVC is around 50%. In reality, it seems to contribute considerably to the headquarters' cost.
The management issue
Jonathan was naïf when he accepted the intermediate 3-year target without making clear the underlying assumptions (i.e. excluding special causes like the Israel-Turkey conflict) and alternate scenarios (including a risk analysis) but that's mainly Ben's fault: a leader should set goals and agree operational targets, yes, but also make sure that his people have a clear and robust path to meet such goals and check frequently with them (maybe every month) how things are rolling. Especially be reactive if some special issues come up. What Ben did (and Jonathan did not acknowledge) was to force predictions way beyond a reasonable horizon of certainty.
Closing the Turkish operation would just waste the goodwill gained in 3 years and most probably have an immediate bad effect on the company's P&L. Ben and Jonathan should rather have a better (deeper and more realistic) look at the future operational plans and establish a control methodology to prevent loss of control, including monthly reviews, and adoption of TA.
5. Emile Wegner: People are inherently good - therefore the systems and processes within the company need to be sufficient, relevant and accurate enough to enable management to make accurate predictions and meet targets. The reporting and feedback systems need to give early warnings to enable corrective actions to take place when targets are not met.
The extent to which managers should be held responsible for their predictions and performance should be directly related to the quality and quantity of information they have at their disposal.
6. Orlando Aguilar: Who is right? First of all, what is it right? Right means moving to the goal. What is the goal of the BBQ-Made-Easy? Is it only to make more money now and in the future? Or is it a necesary condition to fulfill its purpose like to be a lasting company.In either case, I think, Jonathan is doing right. Is he improving? Definitely, yes. If he keeps increasing the sales by 50%, like he is doing, pretty soon, he will surpass that prediction. That was it, a prediction. In a prediction, three years could be one or five. Is he building a stable organization in Turkey? Probably. At least, Ben accepts, that he built lasting relations with suppliers and clients before going to Turkey. So, Jonathan has enough experience and intuition.
If Jonathan is fired, is it an action toward the goal? I don't think so. Shoud a manager be accountable just for numbers, cuotas, tags? I don't think either.
7. Shivaram A: Business forecast is always a touch and go situation especially an entry forecast into a new country . When ever there is a success, ( like the proverb, success has many fathers, failures none), a lot of people want to take credit. But when ever there is a failure, no one wants to own up, including Jonathan in this case.
We should look for a win-win situation.
The fact that the organisation is not loosing money, is a clear indication that Turkey BBQ is not responsible for the losses.
The fact that some "forced "sales forecast went wrong, is no reason to "sack " the guy who brought the proposal to the table in the first place. He took the risk to propose.
Every one would have known that the 5 m target was not going to happen atleasat 1 year ago. Hence, every one who is part of the management team is equally responsible, but Turkey being a natural market, and with some patience can be a good long term benefit to BBQ.
Instead of penalising Jonathan, the team should think win- win all round, and help the front end Jonathan to improve the business.
Who knows, it might really reach 10 m in 5 years. ! Then ofcourse, it is to every ones credit to have turned around the Turkish market.
Sacking Jonathan, would not only push the company out of the Turkey market, with his contacts etc, but will also send a wrong message to the company in other markets as well.
8. Charlie Svoboda: Ben & Jonathan should have agreed on the metrics used to measure Jonathan's success before he began. Once he began Ben & Jonathan should have been looking at the progress of the project with some sort of red, yellow and green framework that would enable them to develop a recovery plan when entering the yellow and implement the plan when entering the red. Business is a bit like surfing. You can only ride the wave that is given you. 9/11 changed things for a lot businesses. The ones that adapted thrived and the ones that didn't suffered.
9. Henry Camp: Turkey represents a growth market for the company and has not drained profits company wide during its start-up. The company is not growing elsewhere, certainly not at 50% year ofver year. Ben should ask Jonathan for his expected increase this coming year and see how much the expected change in T less the expected change in OE will be. My expectation is that the new Turkish outpost will add nicely to the company's bottom line in the coming year. Perhaps, Ben should think about increasing the support to see that the goal of $10m in sales is reached sooner than later. Blaming Jonathan creates disharmony and risks undermining his loyalty. Measuring him locally undoubtedly includes some allocation of corporate costs which would not disappear if the Turkish operation was closed. Measure globally and support hard work that has a potential to pay of handsomely.
10. Judy Yetter: Both Ben and Jonathan are right and wrong. Ben is right in believing people be held accountable and wrong in thinking a forecast is real, true or more than arbitrary. Jonathan is right in seeing forces beyond his control weighing in on the situation and wrong for not admitting his target $ figure was simply telling the boss what he wants to hear. Managers should be held accountable for their predictions by not making them. Simply model the way for continuous improvement. Managers should be measured according to the improvement margin - whatever that may be.
11. Deepak Nagar: The answer would be clear when we look at BBQ Made Easy as one single system. Any new initiative should fulfill the criteria of Delt T > Delta OE.
From Jonathan's assertion "Combined P&L of BBQ-Made-Easy, including Turkey, did not go down in the last two years, while sales, not including Turkey, did not go up", it appears that if Turkey initiative is taken away BBQ would have made lower profits. The caveat would be that rest of the organisation has not curtailed OE to a great extant.
The key to managing long term initiative is to create a detailed S&T and convert it into a project plan with definite milestones. Accountability of each leader could be established by speed of achieving the milestones and then converting them into bottom-line results.
A shooting from the hip approach might deliver some instant results but it would be difficult for the organisation to sustain such activities and might push the leadership in taking rash decision by assuming the results by random causes can be replicated time and again.
12. Felix Sanjuan: Since last 3 years Turkey has experienced growth in sales that have allowed the group to at list have sales stabilized even that the rest of the group has not performed, Ben should have Jonathan share in the group how he has managed to grow sales in spite of adversity.
Predictions that are not fully back up by the top management are likely to deliver short of expectations, manager should be accountable for predictions their area of influence provided the has also full control of the factors influencing their business environment.
13. Anuj Mittal: Ben is right.The sales in turkey are growing at 50%, so if 3rd year sales are 1.4 million, 10th year sales assuming the same growth rate will be $ 24 million. So, he is delivering far more but his 5 year forecast he was forced to give was a straight line instead of exponential.
Assuming that the Turkey OE will not go up in the next 2 years significantly. Given that P&L did not go down in the last 2 years. Assuming this means the absolute value of profits stayed the same. Profits annually are 0.5*1.5= $ 0.75 mio. (This estimates that the net profit Turkey made was 0 in the third year. Therefore, it did not lose any money.)As an illustration, assuming TVC to be 20% and OE to be 72.5%, and applying it to the comined sales of both entities. The excess OE comes to $ 1.12 million.
When we project the 50% Turkey growth rate for the next 2 years, keeping OE the same,the profit in the 5th year comes to $2 million- far more than the promised $ 1.5 million result!! Even the 4th year profit comes to $ 0.98 mio, more than the $ 0.75 mio annual profit of the firm.
He should resign and make Ben the group CEO! :-)
14. Vilius Seskauskas: Profitability of sales in Israel might have gone up, while at the same time sales in Turkey generated losses all these years. Jonathan gets fired.
15. Alta Vos: Ben and Jonathan worked well together for many years and Ben acknowledges that Jonathan is an excellent supply-chain manager, but more importantly, he acknowledges that Ben built critical relationships over time – relationships that the company need to maintain, but which could make him quite valuable to the opposition.
Accountability works both ways:
• As CEO Ben is ultimately accountable and therefore he must challenge any proposed case for investment until he is comfortable with it
• Jonathan is accountable for the business case that he puts forward
In this instance perhaps they should park their emotions and consider what information BBQ-Made-Easy should require in future in order to make the decision to invest in a new venture such as the Turkish one.
Instead of predicting revenue and profit figures after 5 years of operations (and then hastily work up figures for the 3rd year) of the proposed new venture, the following approach could serve them well:
Develop yearly projections for the number of years that they prefer, say 5 in this case. Projections include revenue, cost and operating profit, but these projections must be based on a set of assumptions such as how the projected figures are arrived at, factors that may affect projections, etc . The assumptions are almost more valuable than the figures themselves and must also refer to matters beyond anyone’s control, such as natural disasters, global economic uncertainty, political matters, etc.
Managers such as Jonathan should be accountable for developing robust business cases based on well developed projections and the accompanying assumptions. CEOs dare not accept any business case at face value as they are accountable to the board and cannot lay the blame for their oversight on a manager further down the line.
16. Leo Lauramaa: So, who is right? Who is wrong? What Ben should do with Jonathan?
It does not matter who is right and who is wrong, they both are committed and share the common goal of the company’s overall (consolidated) success.
While the idea of Ben’s potential dismissal is based on erroneous assumption, it should not be done. The assumption seems to be that any business development idea presented by a manager is simultaneously a personal commitment to execute and deliver the results based on this ideation. This assumption may easily lead to negative loop of spread fear to present and develop anything new.
In what way should managers be accountable for their predictions and their area of responsibility?
There should be a process in place to evaluate and prepare important decisions and projects like entering a new market. This should not be a "heroic” one man show.
The project execution should be teamwork and all the necessary roles, skills and experience should be in place. The overall responsibility of this kind of important project should be held by a competent project manager. The progress, milestones and corrective actions should be monitored and decided by the management team.
The forecasts should be treated as honest best guess and the success should be evaluated by the measures delta T and delta OE.