Fornax OS

Fornax Execution Consulting
GCC

The portfolio

Five systems. One shape.

Each one owns a different question. What they share is that all five run a loop rather than storing the answer.

01 Logic

Businesses fail at execution in predictable ways.

The pipeline dries up because nobody chased it consistently. Deals are lost by people who were never drilled against a real objection. An operation runs on five employees who each hold a different quarter of the picture. A decision gets approved that the company was never structurally able to carry out. And the ones that were possible drift off course quietly enough that nobody notices until the quarter closes badly.

Each of those is a loop no software was closing. So there's one system per failure and no more than that. We add a sixth when we find a sixth gap that nothing else fills cleanly.

02 Spine

Three run something. Two watch whether it holds.

Portfolio spine Pursue · Perform · Operate · Decide · Control
  1. Pursue RAVEN Who is worth going after, and has anyone followed it up?
  2. Perform REPS Can the person in the conversation actually close it?
  3. Operate CASTALD Is the operation itself under control?
  4. Decide JUDGE Can we survive the decision we're about to make?
  5. Control WATCHTOWER Now that it started, is it still going to plan?

Not a workflow. Nothing has to pass through all five. It's a map of which system owns which question.

04 Apart

Two pairs that sound similar and aren't.

JUDGEagainstWATCHTOWER

Before the commitment

JUDGE asks whether the organisation, as it stands right now, can carry out something it hasn't started yet. It tests readiness, once per decision.

During the execution

WATCHTOWER assumes you already started. It asks whether things are still behaving as intended, and it never stops asking.

Same expansion, two jobs. JUDGE finds that regional management has no spare capacity, so you fix that before committing money. Then you go, and WATCHTOWER is the one that notices hiring has fallen three weeks behind.

RAVENagainstREPS

Creates the conversation

RAVEN's job finishes when a qualified prospect is sitting on a calendar. It controls everything up to that point and none of what happens after.

Improves the person in it

REPS starts where RAVEN stops. It doesn't care how the meeting was booked, only whether the person in the room can convert it.

One raises how many chances you get. The other raises what you do with each one. They're useful separately and they don't need to be one product.

Which one fits what you run?

Say what you're trying to get under control and we will tell you which of these is relevant, or that none of them are.

Sent

We answer within one business day.