Breaking Business News Archives - Page 2 of 55 - Global Advisors

Quote: Benjamin Graham – The “father of value investing”

“The worth of a business is measured not by what has been put into it, but by what can be taken out of it.” – Benjamin Graham – The “father of value investing”

The quote, “The worth of a business is measured not by what has been put into it, but by what can be taken out of it,” is attributed to Benjamin Graham, a figure widely acknowledged as the “father of value investing”. This perspective reflects Graham’s lifelong focus on intrinsic value and his pivotal role in shaping modern investment philosophy.

Context and Significance of the Quote

This statement underscores Graham’s central insight: the value of a business does not rest in the sum of capital, effort, or resources invested, but in its potential to generate future cash flows and economic returns for shareholders. It rebuffs the superficial appeal to sunk costs or historical inputs and instead centres evaluation on what the business can practically yield for its owners—capturing a core tenet of value investing, where intrinsic value outweighs market sentiment or accounting measures. This approach has not only revolutionised equity analysis but has become the benchmark for rational, objective investment decision-making amidst market speculation and emotion.

About Benjamin Graham

Born in 1894 in London and emigrating to New York as a child, Benjamin Graham began his career in a tumultuous era for financial markets. Facing personal financial hardship after his father’s death, Graham still excelled academically and graduated from Columbia University in 1914, forgoing opportunities to teach in favour of a position on Wall Street.

His career was marked by the establishment of the Graham–Newman Corporation in 1926, an investment partnership that thrived through the Great Depression—demonstrating the resilience of his theories in adverse conditions. Graham’s most influential works, Security Analysis (1934, with David Dodd) and The Intelligent Investor (1949), articulated the discipline of value investing and codified concepts such as “intrinsic value,” “margin of safety”, and the distinction between investment and speculation.

Unusually, Graham placed great emphasis on independent thinking, emotional detachment, and systematic security analysis, encouraging investors to focus on underlying business fundamentals rather than market fluctuations. His professional legacy was cemented through his mentorship of legendary investors such as Warren Buffett, John Templeton, and Irving Kahn, and through the enduring influence of his teachings at Columbia Business School and elsewhere.

Leading Theorists in Value Investing and Company Valuation

Value investing as a discipline owes much to Graham but was refined and advanced by several influential theorists:

David Dodd: Graham’s collaborator at Columbia, Dodd co-authored Security Analysis and helped develop the foundational precepts of value investing. Together, they formalised the empirical, research-based approach to identifying undervalued securities, prioritising intrinsic value over market price.
Warren Buffett: Perhaps Graham’s most renowned protégé, Buffett adapted value investing by emphasising the durability of a business’s economic “moat,” management quality, and long-term compounding, steering the discipline toward higher-quality businesses and more qualitative evaluation.
John Templeton: Known for global value investing, Templeton demonstrated the universality and adaptability of Graham’s ideas across different markets and economic conditions, focusing on contrarian analysis and deep value.
Seth Klarman: In his book Margin of Safety, Klarman applied Graham’s strict risk-aversion and intrinsic value methodologies to distressed investing, advocating for patience, margin of safety, and scepticism.
Irving Kahn and Mario Gabelli: Both disciples of Graham who applied his principles through various market cycles and inspired generations of analysts and fund managers, incorporating rigorous corporate valuation and fundamental research.

Other schools of thought in corporate valuation and investor returns—such as those developed by John Burr Williams and Aswath Damodaran—further developed discounted cash flow analysis and the quantitative assessment of future earnings power, building on the original insight that a business’s worth resides in its capacity to generate distributable cash over time.

Enduring Relevance

Graham’s philosophy remains at the core of every rigorous approach to corporate valuation. The quote is especially pertinent in contemporary valuation debates, where the temptation exists to focus on investment scale, novelty, or historical spend, rather than sustainable, extractable value. In every market era, Graham’s legacy is a call to refocus on long-term economic substance over short-term narratives—“not what has been put into it, but what can be taken out of it”.

Term: Return on Net Assets (RONA), also commonly referred to as Return on Invested Capital (ROIC)

Return on Net Assets (RONA), also commonly referred to as Return on Invested Capital (ROIC), is a profitability ratio that measures how efficiently a company generates net operating profit after tax (NOPAT) from its invested capital. The typical formula is:

RONA (or ROIC) = NOPAT ÷ Invested Capital
where invested capital is defined as fixed assets plus net working capital.

This metric assesses the return a business earns on the capital allocated to its core operations, excluding the effect of financial leverage and non-operating items. NOPAT is used as it reflects the after-tax profits generated purely from operations, providing a cleaner view of value creation for all providers of capital. Invested capital focuses on assets directly tied to operational performance: fixed assets such as property, plant and equipment, and net working capital (current operating assets less current operating liabilities). This construction ensures the measure remains aligned with how capital is deployed within the firm.

RONA/ROIC enables investors, managers, and analysts to judge whether a company is generating returns above its cost of capital—a key determinant of value creation and strategic advantage. The ratio also acts as a benchmark for performance improvement and capital allocation decisions.

Arguments for Using RONA/ROIC

Comprehensive Operational Measurement: As it focuses on NOPAT and invested capital, it reflects returns from the actual deployment of resources, independent of capital structure or accounting artefacts.
Alignment with Value Creation: ROIC is a foundational building block in value-based management, reliably indicating whether growth creates or destroys shareholder value. Returns above the cost of capital are indicative of a firm’s competitive advantage and its ability to reinvest profitably.
Benchmarking Capability: This measure enables robust comparison of performance across industries, companies, and geographies, particularly where capital intensity varies significantly.
Management Discipline: Emphasising RONA/ROIC encourages effective capital allocation and ongoing scrutiny of operational efficiency, discouraging unproductive investment.

Criticisms and Limitations

Potential for Manipulation: Definitions of invested capital and NOPAT can vary between organisations. Differences in accounting policies (e.g., capitalisation vs expensing, asset write-downs) may distort comparisons.
Ignores Future Investment Needs: As a static measure, RONA/ROIC reflects past or current performance, not the changing investment requirements or growth opportunities facing a business.
May Penalise Growth: High growth companies with significant recent capital expenditure may report lower RONA/ROIC, even if those investments will yield future returns.
Industry Differences: Utility is often highest in mature businesses—RONA/ROIC may be less relevant or comparable for asset-light or intangible-driven business models.

Leading Theorists and Strategic Foundations

Aswath Damodaran and the authors of Valuation: Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies—Tim Koller, Marc Goedhart, and David Wessels—are directly associated with the development, articulation, and scholarly propagation of concepts like RONA and ROIC.

Tim Koller, Marc Goedhart, and David Wessels

As co-authors of the definitive text Valuation: Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies (first published in 1990, now in its 7th edition), Koller, Goedhart, and Wessels have provided the most detailed and widely adopted frameworks for calculating, interpreting, and applying ROIC in both academic and practitioner circles.

Their work systematised the relationship between ROIC, cost of capital, and value creation, embedding this metric at the heart of modern strategic finance and value-based management. They emphasise that only companies able to sustain ROIC above their cost of capital create lasting economic value, and their approach is rigorous in ensuring clarity of calculation (advocating NOPAT and properly defined invested capital for consistency and comparability). Their text is canonical in both MBA programmes and leading advisory practices, widely referenced in strategic due diligence, private equity, and long-term corporate planning.

Aswath Damodaran

Aswath Damodaran, Professor of Finance at the NYU Stern School of Business, is another seminal figure. His textbooks, including Investment Valuation and Damodaran on Valuation, champion the use of ROIC as a core measure of company performance. Damodaran’s extensive public lectures, datasets, and analytical frameworks stress the importance of analysing returns on invested capital and understanding how this interacts with growth and risk in both investment analysis and strategic decision-making.

Damodaran’s work is highly practical, meticulously clarifying issues in the calculation and interpretation of ROIC, especially around treatment of operating leases, goodwill, and intangibles, and highlighting the complexities that confront both value investors and boards. His influence is broad, with his online resources and publications serving as go-to technical references for professionals and academics alike.

Both Damodaran and the Valuation authors are credited with shaping the field’s understanding of RONA/ROIC’s strategic implications and embedding this measure at the core of value-driven management and investment strategy.

Quote: Aswath Damodaran – Professor, Valuation authority

“There is a role for valuation at every stage of a firm’s life cycle.” – Aswath Damodaran – Professor, Valuation authority

The firm life cycle—from inception and private ownership, through growth, maturity, and ultimately potential decline or renewal—demands distinct approaches to appraising value. Damodaran’s teaching and extensive writings consistently stress that whether a company is a start-up seeking venture funding, a mature enterprise evaluating capital allocation, or a business facing restructuring, rigorous valuation remains central to informed strategic choices.

His observation is rooted in decades of scholarly analysis and practical engagement with valuation in corporate finance—arguing that effective valuation is not limited to transactional moments (such as M&A or IPOs), but underpins everything from resource allocation and performance assessment to risk management and governance. By embedding valuation across the firm life cycle, leaders can navigate uncertainty, optimise capital deployment, and align stakeholder interests, regardless of market conditions or organisational maturity.

About Aswath Damodaran

Aswath Damodaran is universally acknowledged as one of the world’s pre-eminent authorities on valuation. Professor of finance at New York University’s Stern School of Business since 1986, Damodaran holds the Kerschner Family Chair in Finance Education. His academic lineage includes a PhD in Finance and an MBA from the University of California, Los Angeles, as well as an early degree from the Indian Institute of Management.

Damodaran’s reputation extends far beyond academia. He is widely known as “the dean of valuation”, not only for his influential research and widely-adopted textbooks but also for his dedication to education accessibility—he makes his complete MBA courses and learning materials freely available online, thereby fostering global understanding of corporate finance and valuation concepts.

His published work spans peer-reviewed articles in leading academic journals, practical texts on valuation and corporate finance, and detailed explorations of topics such as risk premiums, capital structure, and market liquidity. Damodaran’s approach combines rigorous theoretical frameworks with empirical clarity and real-world application, making him a key reference for practitioners, students, and policy-makers. Prominent media regularly seek his views on valuation, capital markets, and broader themes in finance.

Leading Valuation Theorists – Backstory and Impact

While Damodaran has shaped the modern field, the subject of valuation draws on the work of multiple generations of thought leaders.

Irving Fisher (1867–1947): Fisher’s foundational models on the time value of money underlie discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis, still core to valuation[3 inferred].
John Burr Williams (1900–1989): Williams formalised the concept of intrinsic value through discounted cash flow models, notably in his 1938 work “The Theory of Investment Value”, establishing principles that support much of today’s practice[3 inferred].
Franco Modigliani & Merton Miller: Their Modigliani–Miller theorem (1958) rigorously defined capital structure irrelevance under frictionless markets, and later work addressed the link between risk, return, and firm value. While not strictly about valuation methods, their insights underpin how financial practitioners evaluate cost of capital and risk premiums[3 inferred].
Myron Scholes & Fischer Black: The Black–Scholes option pricing model introduced a quantitative approach to valuing contingent claims, fundamentally expanding the valuation toolkit for both corporate finance and derivatives[3 inferred].
Richard Brealey & Stewart Myers: Their textbooks, such as “Principles of Corporate Finance”, have helped standardise and disseminate best practice in valuation and financial decision-making globally[3 inferred].
Shannon Pratt: Known for his influential books on business valuation, Pratt synthesised theory with actionable methodologies tailored for private company and litigation contexts[3 inferred].

Damodaran’s Place in the Lineage

Damodaran’s distinctive contribution is the synthesis of classical theory with contemporary market realities. His focus on making valuation relevant “at every stage of a firm’s life cycle” bridges the depth of theoretical models with the dynamic complexity of today’s global markets. Through his teaching, prolific writing, and commitment to open-access learning, he has shaped not only valuation scholarship but also the way investors, executives, and advisors worldwide think about value creation and measurement.

Term: EBITDA multiple

The EBITDA multiple, also known as the enterprise multiple, is a widely used financial metric for valuing businesses, particularly in mergers and acquisitions and investment analysis. It is calculated by dividing a company’s Enterprise Value (EV) by its Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation, and Amortisation (EBITDA). The formula can be expressed as:

EBITDA Multiple = Enterprise Value (EV) ÷ EBITDA.

Enterprise Value (EV) represents the theoretical takeover value of a business and is commonly computed as the market capitalisation plus total debt, minus cash and cash equivalents. By using EV (which is capital structure-neutral), the EBITDA multiple enables comparison across companies with differing debt and equity mixes, making it particularly valuable for benchmarking and deal-making in private equity, strategic acquisitions, and capital markets.

Arguments for Using the EBITDA Multiple

Neutral to Capital Structure: Since it uses enterprise value, the EBITDA multiple is not affected by the company’s financing decisions, allowing for more accurate comparison between firms with different levels of debt and equity.
Cross-Industry Applicability: It provides a standardised approach to valuation across industries and geographical markets, making it suitable for benchmarking peer companies and sectors.
Proxy for Operating Performance: EBITDA is seen as a reasonable proxy for operating cash flow, as it excludes interest, tax effects, and non-cash expenses like depreciation and amortisation, thus focusing on core earning capacity.
Simplicity and Practicality: As a single, widely recognised metric, the EBITDA multiple is relatively easy for investors, analysts, and boards to understand and apply—particularly during preliminary assessments or shortlisting of targets.

Criticisms of the EBITDA Multiple

Ignores Capex and Working Capital Needs: EBITDA does not account for capital expenditures or changes in working capital, both of which can be significant in assessing the true cash-generating ability and financial health of a business.
Can Obscure True Profitability: By excluding significant costs (depreciation, amortisation), EBITDA may overstate operational performance, particularly for asset-intensive businesses or those with aging fixed assets.
Susceptible to Manipulation: Since EBITDA excludes interest, tax, and non-cash charges, it can be vulnerable to window dressing and manipulation by management aiming to present better than actual results.
Limited Relevance for Highly Leveraged Firms: For businesses with high levels of debt, focusing solely on EBITDA multiples may underplay the risks associated with financial leverage.

Related Strategy Theorist: Michael C. Jensen

The evolution and widespread adoption of EBITDA multiples in valuation is closely linked to the rise of leveraged buyouts (LBOs) and private equity in the 1980s—a movement shaped and analysed by Michael C. Jensen, a foundational figure in corporate finance and strategic management.

Michael C. Jensen (born 1939):
Jensen is an American economist and Professor Emeritus at Harvard Business School, widely recognised for his work on agency theory, corporate governance, and the market for corporate control. He is perhaps best known for his groundbreaking 1976 paper with William Meckling, “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure,” which fundamentally shaped understanding of firm value, ownership, and managerial incentives.

During the 1980s, Jensen extensively researched the dynamics of leveraged buyouts and the use of debt in corporate restructuring, documenting how private equity sponsors used enterprise value and metrics like EBITDA multiples to value acquisition targets. He advocated for the use of cash flow–oriented metrics (such as EBITDA and free cash flow) as better indicators of firm value than traditional accounting profit measures, particularly in contexts where operating assets and financial structure could be separated.

His scholarship not only legitimised and popularised such metrics among practitioners but also critically explored their limitations—addressing issues around agency costs, capital allocation, and the importance of considering cash flows over accounting earnings.
Jensen’s influence persists in both academic valuation methodologies and real-world transaction practice, where EBITDA multiples remain central.

In summary, the EBITDA multiple is a powerful and popular tool for business valuation—valued for its simplicity and broad applicability, but its limitations require careful interpretation and complementary analysis. Michael C. Jensen’s scholarship frames both the advantages and necessary caution in relying on single-value multiples in strategy and valuation.

Quote: Bill Miller – Investor, fund manager

“One of the most powerful sources of mispricing is the tendency to over-weight or over-emphasize current conditions.” – Bill Miller – Investor, fund manager

Bill Miller is a renowned American investor and fund manager, most prominent for his extraordinary tenure at Legg Mason Capital Management where he managed the Value Trust mutual fund. Born in 1950 in North Carolina, Miller graduated with honours in economics from Washington and Lee University in 1972 and went on to serve as a military intelligence officer. He later pursued graduate studies in philosophy at Johns Hopkins University before advancing into finance, embarking on a career that would reshape perceptions of value investing.

Miller joined Legg Mason in 1981 as a security analyst, eventually becoming chairman and chief investment officer for the firm and its flagship fund. Between 1991 and 2005, the Legg Mason Value Trust—under Miller’s stewardship—outperformed the S&P 500 for a then-unprecedented 15 consecutive years. This performance earned Miller near-mythical status within investment circles. However, the 2008 financial crisis, where he was heavily exposed to collapsing financial stocks, led to significant losses and a period of high-profile criticism. Yet Miller’s intellectual rigour and willingness to adapt led him to recover, founding Miller Value Partners and continuing to contribute important insights to the field.

The context of Miller’s quote lies in his continued attention to investor psychology and behavioural finance. His experience—through market booms, crises, and recoveries—led him to question conventional wisdom around value investing and to recognise how often investors, swayed by the immediacy of current economic and market conditions, inaccurately price assets by projecting the present into the future. This insight is rooted both in academic research and in practical experience during periods such as the technology bubble, where the market mispriced risk and opportunity by over-emphasising prevailing narratives.

Miller’s work and this quote sit within the broader tradition of theorists who have examined mispricing, market psychology, and the fallibility of investor judgement:

Benjamin Graham, widely considered the father of value investing, argued in “The Intelligent Investor” (1949) and “Security Analysis” (1934) that investors should focus on intrinsic value, patiently waiting for the market to correct its mispricings rather than being swayed by current market euphoria or fear. Graham’s concept of “Mr Market” personifies the emotional extremes that create opportunity and danger through irrational pricing.
John Maynard Keynes provided foundational commentary on the way markets can become speculative as investors focus on what they believe others believe—summed up in his famous comparison to a “beauty contest”—leading to extended periods of mispricing based on the prevailing sentiment of the day.
Robert Shiller advanced these insights with his work on behavioural finance, notably in “Irrational Exuberance” (2000), where he dissected how overemphasis on current positive trends can inflate asset bubbles far beyond their underlying value.
Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, pioneers of behavioural economics, introduced the psychological mechanisms—such as recency bias and availability heuristic—that explain why investors habitually overvalue current conditions and presume their persistence.
Howard Marks, in his memos and book “The Most Important Thing”, amplifies the importance of second-level thinking—moving beyond the obvious and questioning whether prevailing conditions are likely to persist, or whether the crowd is mispricing risk due to their focus on the present.

Bill Miller’s career is both a case study and a cautionary tale of these lessons in action. His perspective emphasises that value emerges over time, and only those who look beyond the prevailing winds of sentiment are positioned to capitalise on genuine mispricing. The tendency to overvalue present conditions is perennial, but so too are the opportunities for those who resist it.

Term: Growth

In financial and strategic disciplines, “growth” denotes the rate at which a company’s profits, revenues, dividends, or overall enterprise value are expected to increase over time. Growth is a central theme in corporate valuation, capital allocation, and competitive positioning, with foundational financial models and strategic frameworks prioritising a granular understanding of its drivers, sustainability, and impact.

Financial Theories Relating to Growth

Value = Profit × (1 – Reinvestment Rate) / (Cost of Capital – Growth)

This advanced valuation expression, as presented by David Wessels, Marc Goedhart, and Timothy Koller in Valuation: Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies (McKinsey & Co.), formalises the interplay between profitability, reinvestment, and growth. Here:

Reinvestment Rate = Growth / ROIC, quantifies how much of generated profit must be reinvested to achieve a given growth rate, where ROIC is Return on Invested Capital. The formula demonstrates that value is maximised not simply by growth, but by growth achieved with high capital efficiency and without excessive reinvestment.

Gordon Growth Model (GGM) / Dividend Discount Model (DDM)
The Gordon Growth Model, developed by Myron J. Gordon and Eli Shapiro, is a foundational method for valuing equity based on the present value of an infinite stream of future dividends growing at a constant rate. Its formula is:

Intrinsic Value = Next Period DPS ÷ (Required Rate of Return – Dividend Growth Rate).

This model is widely used for established, dividend-paying businesses and illustrates how even modest changes in growth (g) can have an outsized effect on equity valuation, due to its presence in the denominator of the formula.

Aswath Damodaran’s Contributions

Aswath Damodaran, a leading academic on valuation, argues that sustainable growth must be underpinned by a firm’s investment returns exceeding its cost of capital. He emphasises that aggressive revenue growth without returns above the cost of capital destroys value, a critical principle for both analysts and executives.

Strategic Frameworks Involving Growth

Growth-Share Matrix (BCG Matrix)
A seminal business tool, the Growth-Share Matrix—developed by the Boston Consulting Group—categorises business units or products by market growth rate and relative market share. The framework, popularised by strategy theorist Bruce Henderson, divides assets into four quadrants:

Stars (high growth, high share)
Question Marks (high growth, low share)
Cash Cows (low growth, high share)
Dogs (low growth, low share)

This framework links growth directly to expected cash flow needs and capital allocation, guiding portfolio management, investment decisions, and exit strategies.

Richard Koch’s Insights
Richard Koch, strategy theorist and author, is best known for popularising the Pareto Principle (80/20 Rule) in business. Koch has demonstrated that a focus on fast-growing 20% of activities, customers, or products can disproportionately drive overall company growth and profitability, reinforcing the importance of targeted rather than uniform growth efforts.

Leading Strategy Theorist: Bruce Henderson

Bruce D. Henderson (1915–1992) was the founder of the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and a seminal figure in the evolution of corporate strategy. Henderson introduced the Growth-Share Matrix in the early 1970s, giving managers a visual, analytic tool to allocate resources based on market growth’s effect on competitive dynamics and future cash requirements. His insight was that growth, when paired with relative market strength, dictates an organisation’s future capital needs and investment rationales—making disciplined analysis of growth rates central to effective strategy.

Henderson’s wider intellectual legacy includes the principles of the experience curve, which postulates that costs decline as output increases—a direct link between growth, scale, and operational efficiency. He founded BCG in 1963 and led it to become one of the world’s most influential strategy consultancies, shaping both practical and academic approaches to long-term value creation, competitive advantage, and business portfolio strategy. His contributions permanently altered how leaders assess and operationalise growth within their organisations.

Conclusion

“Growth” embodies far more than expansion; it is a core parameter in both the financial valuation of firms and their strategic management. Modern frameworks—from the value formulae of leading financial economists to the matrix-based guidance of strategic pioneers—underscore that not all growth is positive and that sustainable, value-accretive growth is predicated on return discipline, resource allocation, and market context. The work of thinkers such as Wessels, Goedhart, Koller, Damodaran, Koch, and Henderson ensures that growth remains the subject of rigorous, multidimensional analysis across finance and strategy.

Quote: Naved Abdali – Investor, noted commentator

“If investors do not know or never attempt to know the fair value, they can pay any price. More often, the price they pay is far greater than the actual value.” – Naved Abdali – Investor, noted commentator

Naved Abdali is an investor and noted commentator on investment theory, recognised for his clarity on the psychological underpinnings of market behaviour and the critical role of value discipline in investment. Abdali’s work often addresses the emotional and behavioural biases that cloud investor judgment and drive irrational market actions. He is regularly quoted within wealth management and financial advisory circles, known for incisive observations such as, “Fear of missing out single-handedly caused every single investment bubble in human history,” encapsulating the dangers of herd mentality. His commentaries serve as cautions against speculation and emotional investing, instead advocating for rigorous analysis of fair value as the bedrock of sound investment decisions.

The context for Abdali’s quote emerges directly from the experience of market exuberance and subsequent corrections, where investors—neglectful of intrinsic value—end up relying on price momentum or social proof, often to their detriment. Investment bubbles such as the South Sea Bubble, the dot-com craze, or more recently the cryptocurrency surges, illustrate the dangers Abdali highlights: when valuation discipline is abandoned, mispricing becomes endemic and losses are inevitable once euphoria subsides. Abdali’s body of work persistently returns to the principle that sustainable investing relies on understanding what an asset is truly worth, rather than merely what the market is willing to pay at any given moment.

The sentiment articulated by Abdali draws from, and stands alongside, a tradition of value-focused investment theorists whose work underlines the necessity of fair value assessment:

Benjamin Graham is widely regarded as the father of value investing. His seminal works “Security Analysis” (1934) and “The Intelligent Investor” (1949) introduced the concept of intrinsic value and the importance of a margin of safety, laying the groundwork for generations of disciplined investors. Graham taught that markets are often irrational in the short term, but over the long term, fundamentals dictate outcomes—a direct precursor to Abdali’s caution against ignoring value.
David Dodd, Graham’s collaborator, helped refine the analytic framework underpinning value investing, particularly in distinguishing between price (what you pay) and value (what you get).
Warren Buffett, Graham’s most famed student, popularised these principles and demonstrated their efficacy throughout his career at Berkshire Hathaway. Buffett consistently emphasises that “price is what you pay; value is what you get,” underscoring the risk Abdali outlines: without a clear understanding of value, investors surrender themselves to market whims.
John Maynard Keynes offered early insights into the speculative aspect of markets, observing that investors frequently anticipate what other investors might do, rather than focus on fundamental value, an idea implicit in Abdali’s observations on the role of psychology and market sentiment.
Jack Bogle, founder of Vanguard, extended the argument to personal finance, advocating for simplicity, discipline, and a focus on underlying fundamentals rather than chasing trends or returns—a stance closely aligned with Abdali’s emphasis on resisting emotional investing.

These theorists, like Abdali, illuminate the pernicious effects of cognitive bias, speculation, and herd behaviour. They collectively advance a framework where investment success depends on the dispassionate appraisal of fair value, rather than market noise. Abdali’s contributions, particularly the quote above, encapsulate and renew this foundational insight: disciplined valuation is the only safeguard in a marketplace where emotion is ever-present, and value is too easily overlooked.

Term: Enterprise value (EV)

Enterprise value (EV) is a comprehensive measure of a company’s total value, representing the aggregate worth of its core operating business to all stakeholders — not just shareholders, but also debt holders and other capital providers. EV is particularly relevant in corporate finance, mergers and acquisitions, and comparative company analysis, as it enables consistent like-for-like comparisons by being independent of a company’s capital structure.

Definition and Calculation

Enterprise value is defined as the theoretical takeover price of a business — what it would cost to acquire all of its operating assets while settling outstanding obligations and benefiting from any available cash reserves.

The standard formula is:
$Enterprise Value = Equity Value (Market Capitalisation) + Total Debt + Preferred Equity + Minority Interest - Cash and Cash Equivalents$

Equity value (market cap): The market value of all outstanding ordinary shares.
Debt: Both short-term and long-term interest-bearing obligations.
Preferred equity, minority interest, and certain provisions: All sources of capital with a claim on the company (often included for completeness in detailed appraisals).
Cash and cash equivalents: Subtracted, as these liquid assets reduce the net acquisition cost.

This structure ensures EV reflects the true operating value of a business, irrespective of how it is financed, making it a capital structure-neutral metric.

Practical Use and Significance

Comparison across companies: EV is invaluable when comparing companies with different debt levels, facilitating fairer benchmarking than equity value or market capitalisation alone.
Mergers & Acquisitions: EV is used in deal structuring to identify the full price that would need to be paid to acquire a business, inclusive of its debts but net of cash.
Financial Ratios: Commonly paired with metrics like EBITDA to create ratios (e.g., EV/EBITDA) for performance benchmarking and valuation.

Leading Theorist: Aswath Damodaran

Aswath Damodaran is widely regarded as the most authoritative figure in corporate valuation and has profoundly shaped how practitioners and students understand and apply the concept of enterprise value.

Biography and Relationship to Enterprise Value:

Background: Aswath Damodaran is Professor of Finance at NYU Stern School of Business, known globally as the ‘Dean of Valuation’.
Work on Enterprise Value: Damodaran’s work has made the complex practicalities and theoretical underpinnings of EV more accessible and rigorous. He has authored key textbooks (such as Investment Valuation and The Dark Side of Valuation) and numerous analytical tools that are widely used by analysts, investment bankers, and academics [inferred — see Damodaran’s published works].
Legacy: His teachings clarify distinctions between equity value and enterprise value, highlight the importance of capital structure neutrality, and shape best practices for DCF (Discounted Cash Flow) and multiples-based valuation.
Reputation: Damodaran is celebrated for his ability to bridge theory and pragmatic application, becoming a central resource for both foundational learning and advanced research in contemporary valuation.

In summary, enterprise value is a central valuation metric capturing what it would cost to acquire a company’s core operations, regardless of its financing mix. Aswath Damodaran’s analytical frameworks and prolific teaching have established him as the principal theorist in the field, with deep influence on both academic methodology and industry standards[inferred].

Quote: Mihir Desai, Harvard Professor

“Finance is completely and ruthlessly forward-looking. The only source of value today is the future.” – Mihir Desai, The Wisdom Of Finance

The quote “Finance is completely and ruthlessly forward-looking. The only source of value today is the future.” by Mihir Desai from The Wisdom of Finance captures a foundational principle in modern finance: the present value of any financial asset is determined solely by expectations of future cash flows, risks, and opportunities. This perspective is central to investment decisions, company valuations, and policy making, where value is always anchored not in the past or present, but in the potential that lies ahead.

Context of the Quote

Desai’s statement reflects the essence of contemporary finance, which judges value entirely on anticipated future outcomes. Whether assessing an equity investment, corporate acquisition, or a strategic initiative, financial theory and practice rely on projecting and discounting the future. The quote is drawn from The Wisdom of Finance, a work that reimagines financial concepts through the lens of literature and philosophy, advocating an appreciation of the underlying human motivations and uncertainties that shape financial systems.

The Wisdom of Finance seeks to humanise finance, countering the discipline’s reputation for abstraction and cold rationality by linking its logic to real-world narratives and the universal challenge of making decisions under uncertainty. The quote encapsulates Desai’s argument that finance is not merely technical, but is fundamentally about coping with the unknown future, and thus all value judgements in finance rest on expectations.

Profile of Mihir Desai

Mihir Desai is among the most influential contemporary finance scholars. He holds the Mizuho Financial Group Professorship of Finance at Harvard Business School, is a Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, and has served as Senior Associate Dean for Planning and University Affairs at Harvard. His interdisciplinary expertise spans tax policy, international finance, and corporate finance.

Education: Desai received his Ph.D. in political economy from Harvard University, his MBA as a Baker Scholar from Harvard Business School, and his undergraduate degree in history and economics from Brown University.
Career: He was a Fulbright Scholar to India, has advised CEOs and government bodies, and has been a frequent witness before the US Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means Committee, particularly on matters of tax policy and globalisation impacts.
Publications and Recognition: Beyond traditional academic output in leading journals, Desai’s books—especially The Wisdom of Finance and How Finance Works—have reached broader audiences and received international accolades, with The Wisdom of Finance longlisted for the FT/McKinsey Best Business Book of the Year. Desai has also contributed to executive education and digital learning, notably creating the widely followed online course “Leading with Finance” and co-hosting the podcast “After Hours” on the TED audio network.
Current Influence: His research is widely cited in global business media and his expertise is regularly sought by public companies, policymakers, and academic institutions. He brings together a philosopher’s perspective with technical financial rigour, illuminating how finance navigates risk and value across time.

Leading Theorists in Forward-Looking Valuation

Desai’s observation is rooted in the intellectual foundations laid by several key theorists whose work has shaped the discipline’s approach to valuation, risk, and decision-making under uncertainty:

Theorist	Contribution	Biography/Context
Irving Fisher	Developed the concept of present value and intertemporal choice, laying the groundwork for all modern discounting and future-oriented valuation.	American economist (1867-1947); Professor at Yale; seminal works include The Theory of Interest.
John Burr Williams	Pioneered the Dividend Discount Model (DDM), positing that the value of an equity is the discounted sum of future dividends.	American economist (1900-1989); author of The Theory of Investment Value (1938).
Franco Modigliani and Merton Miller	Formulated the Modigliani-Miller theorem, establishing the irrelevance of capital structure under certain conditions and reinforcing that firm value depends on expected future earnings.	Nobel laureates; Modigliani (1918-2003), Miller (1923-2000); rigorous academic partnership, major impact on finance theory.
Myron Scholes and Robert Merton	Developed the Black-Scholes-Merton model, providing a framework for valuing options based on future price expectations and volatility.	Scholes (b.1941), Merton (b.1944); both Nobel laureates; revolutionised derivatives markets.
Aswath Damodaran	Contemporary authority on corporate valuation, famous for integrating diverse future-oriented valuation models while emphasising the practical limitations and subjectivity inherent in forecasting.	Professor at NYU Stern School of Business, prolific author and educator.

The common thread among these theorists is the primacy of the future in determining value, whether via discounted cash flows, option pricing, or capital structure arbitrage. Their work, like Desai’s, reinforces that finance is not just about quantifying the present, but about rigorously evaluating what lies ahead, making the discipline—by necessity—completely and ruthlessly forward-looking.

Term: Valuation

Valuation is the systematic process of estimating the worth of a business, investment, or asset, typically with the objective of informing decisions such as investment, merger and acquisition, financial reporting, or dispute resolution. In essence, it translates financial performance and market expectations into a well-founded assessment of value.

Bases and Contributors to Value

A comprehensive valuation integrates multiple perspectives and contributors, notably:

Intrinsic Value: The present value of future expected cash flows, discounted at an appropriate rate, often using models such as discounted cash flow (DCF). This approach isolates company fundamentals.
Relative Value: Benchmarks the asset or business against comparable peer group entities using market multiples (such as Price/Earnings, EV/EBITDA, Price/Book). This captures market sentiment and comparable performance.
Synergy Value: Arises primarily during mergers and acquisitions, capturing the incremental value generated when two entities combine, often through cost savings, enhanced growth prospects, or improved market power.
Return on Equity (ROE) and Growth: ROE serves as a proxy for profitability relative to shareholders’ capital, and, coupled with growth projections, materially influences equity valuation via frameworks such as the Gordon Growth Model or residual income models. Sustained high ROE and growth enhance intrinsic value.
Asset-Based Value: Focuses on the net market value of tangible and intangible assets less liabilities — frequently used where earnings are volatile or asset composition dominates (e.g., real estate, liquidation).
Market Value: Reflects real transaction prices in public or private markets, which may diverge from fundamentally assessed value due to liquidity, sentiment, or market imperfections.

Contributors to value thus include both quantitative measures (free cash flow, earnings growth, capital structure) and qualitative factors (management effectiveness, competitive position, macroeconomic trends).

Principal Theorist: Aswath Damodaran

The most influential contemporary theorist on valuation is Professor Aswath Damodaran. Damodaran, often termed the “Dean of Valuation,” is Professor of Finance at the Stern School of Business, New York University.

Backstory and Relationship with Valuation:

Damodaran has devoted much of his academic and practical career to the development, refinement, and dissemination of valuation methodologies.
His work integrates DCF analysis, relative valuation, and real option methodologies, consistently emphasising the importance of underlying assumptions and the dangers of mechanical application.
He is renowned for demystifying the valuation process through accessible writings, open lectures, and robust empirical evidence, making advanced valuation concepts practical both for students and practitioners.

Biography:

Education: Professor Damodaran earned his MBA and PhD from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).
Academic Contributions: Having started teaching at NYU in 1986, he has published seminal texts including “Damodaran on Valuation,” “Investment Valuation,” and “The Little Book of Valuation.”
Influence: Beyond academia, he is respected globally by investment professionals, policymakers, and corporate decision-makers for his analytical rigour and unbiased approach.
Philosophy: Damodaran is an advocate of transparency, rigorous challenge of assumptions, and adapting valuation techniques to the specific context—highlighting that valuation is as much an art as a science.

Key Principles

Good valuation practice, as highlighted by leading institutions, insists on:

Specificity to Time and Context: Valuations reflect conditions, company performance, and market factors at a specific date and should be regularly updated.
Objective and Transparent Methodology: A clearly articulated process enhances credibility and utility.
Market Dynamics: Factors such as liquidity and buyer competition can result in market values that deviate from fundamental values.

Limitations

Valuation is inherently subjective — different inputs, models, or market perspectives can yield a range of plausible values (sometimes widely divergent). Accordingly, expertise and judgement remain crucial, and transparency about assumptions and methods is essential.

Quote: Warren Buffet – Investor

“Lose money for the firm, and I will be understanding. Lose a shred of reputation for the firm, and I will be ruthless.” – Warren Buffet – Investor

The roots of this guidance reach deep into Buffett’s extensive experience as both a legendary investor and a transformative leader, most notably during his tenure as chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway and during his crisis stewardship at Salomon Brothers in the early 1990s.

Historical Context of the Quote

The quote first gained prominence in 1991 amidst the Salomon Brothers bond trading scandal, when Buffett was brought in to stabilise the embattled investment bank. Upon assuming the chairmanship, he delivered this message unequivocally to all staff, signalling that reputation would outweigh even substantial financial loss as the paramount concern. This principle was not a one-off; Buffett has repeatedly conveyed it through biennial memos to his senior management at Berkshire Hathaway, insisting that “the top priority — trumping everything else, including profits — is that all of us continue to zealously guard Berkshire’s reputation”.

Buffett’s approach responds to a fundamental risk in financial and professional services: while monetary losses can often be recouped over time, damage to reputation is typically irreparable and can have far-reaching effects on trust, relationships and long-term business sustainability. He underscores the notion that ethical behaviour and public perception must be held to higher scrutiny than any legal requirement — urging his teams to act only in ways they would be comfortable seeing scrutinised by an “unfriendly but intelligent reporter on the front page of a newspaper”.

Profile: Warren Buffett

Warren Buffett is widely regarded as one of the most successful investors in history, known both for his acumen in capital allocation and his unwavering focus on business integrity. Born in 1930, Buffett began investing as a child and by age 10 had developed a personal ethos centred on security and freedom through financial independence. Over subsequent decades, he built Berkshire Hathaway into a global holding company with interests ranging from insurance to manufacturing, consistently prioritising reputation alongside returns.

Buffett’s leadership style is defined by operational autonomy for his CEOs — but only within the bounds of absolute ethical conduct. Rather than large compliance departments, he champions a culture of integrity, believing “organisational culture,” not policy, is the primary safeguard against reputational risk.

Reputation Management: Theoretical Foundations and Thought Leaders

The foundational importance of reputation in business has been explored by leading theorists across management, economics, and corporate governance.

Warren Buffett (Practitioner-Theorist): Buffett’s actions embody the close relationship between reputation, trust and business value, arguing that reputation is a compound asset that underpins all long-term success.
Charles Fombrun: A pre-eminent academic in reputation studies, Fombrun formalised the idea of corporate reputation as a key intangible asset in his book Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image. Fombrun’s work posits that strong reputations differentiate organisations, influence stakeholder decisions, and result in enduring competitive advantage.
Robert Eccles: Eccles’ scholarship, especially in the realm of integrated reporting, underlines that transparency and ethical conduct must permeate a firm’s disclosures and operations, not only to satisfy regulators, but also to cultivate trust with investors, customers and the wider community.
John Kay: In works such as The Honest Corporation, Kay explores how robust reputational capital shields organisations not only from customer flight, but also from regulatory censure and predatory competitors.

These theorists converge on the conclusion that reputation is both a strategic and ethical asset: difficult to build, easily destroyed, and impossible to replace through mere financial resources. The most effective leaders do not simply avoid misconduct; they actively cultivate an organisational culture in which every decision passes the test of stakeholder scrutiny and enduring trust.

Supporting Case Studies and Illustrations

The Salomon Brothers scandal is a classic case in how reputational mismanagement can threaten not just profitability, but organizational survival. Buffett’s actions there, and at Berkshire Hathaway, have been repeatedly cited in academic and professional literature as exemplars for crisis management and corporate culture.
Conversely, numerous scandals in financial services illustrate that even robust compliance departments are not a substitute for culture, aligning with Buffett’s observation that “the organisations with the biggest compliance departments… have the most scandals”.

Enduring Relevance

Buffett’s doctrine — ruthless defence of reputation over financial performance — remains highly relevant. It encapsulates hard-won wisdom: trust is the currency with the highest compounding returns in business history, and its loss cannot be reversed by any sum of money.

This philosophy has shaped the approaches of some of the most influential contemporary theorists and corporate leaders, cementing reputation management as an essential pillar of modern strategy and governance.

Term: Hedge Fund

A hedge fund is a private investment vehicle that pools capital from accredited or institutional investors and uses a diverse array of sophisticated investment strategies to generate high returns, often targeting “absolute returns”—profit whether markets rise or fall. Hedge funds are structured with fewer regulatory restrictions than traditional funds, usually operate as private partnerships, and commonly require high minimum investments, attracting mainly high-net-worth individuals and institutions.

Key features of hedge funds include:

Flexible investment strategies: Utilising tools such as short selling, leverage, derivatives, arbitrage, and investments in multiple asset classes.
Active risk management: Implementation of “hedged” positions to offset potential losses and protect capital during volatile market periods.
Manager involvement: Typically operated by experienced portfolio managers with substantial personal investment (“skin in the game”) in the fund.
Reduced regulation: Freedom to invest with fewer constraints compared to mutual funds, enabling pursuit of more diverse and sometimes riskier strategies.

The term “hedge fund” originates from the funds’ foundational concept of hedging, or protecting against risk by balancing long and short positions within their portfolios. Over time, however, modern hedge funds have expanded strategies far beyond basic hedging, embracing a spectrum ranging from conservative arbitrage to highly speculative global macro trading.

Best Related Strategy Theorist: Alfred Winslow Jones

Relationship to the Term:
Alfred Winslow Jones is widely recognised as the originator of the modern hedge fund. In 1949, he raised $100,000 and launched a partnership that combined long and short equity positions, utilising leverage and a performance-based incentive fee structure—a template that would define the industry for decades. Jones’ original idea was to neutralise general market risk while capitalising on stock-specific research, thus coining both the methodology and ethos behind the “hedge” in hedge fund.

Biography:
Alfred Winslow Jones (1900–1989) was an Australian-born sociologist and financial journalist-turned-investment manager. Educated at Harvard and later Columbia University, Jones worked as a diplomat and writer before becoming intrigued by market mechanics while researching a Fortune magazine article. His academic background in statistics and sociology contributed to his innovative quantitative approach to investing. Jones’ 1949 partnership, A.W. Jones & Co., is credited as the world’s first true hedge fund, pioneering the principal techniques—including the “2 and 20” fee structure (2% asset management fee plus 20% of profits)—still used today.

Jones was not only a practitioner but also a theorist: he argued for the systematic analysis of market exposure and sought to insulate investments from uncontrollable market swings, establishing a core philosophy for the industry. His model inspired a generation of managers and embedded the strategy-led approach in the DNA of hedge funds.

Alfred Winslow Jones’ innovative legacy remains the bedrock of hedge fund history, and he is considered the foundational theorist of hedge fund strategy.

Quote: Michael E. Porter – Professor, consultant

“Operational improvements have often been dramatic [but] many companies have been frustrated by their inability to translate those gains into sustainable profitability. And bit by bit, almost imperceptibly, management tools have taken the place of strategy. ” – Michael Porter – Professor, consultant

Michael E. Porter’s observation—“Operational improvements have often been dramatic [but] many companies have been frustrated by their inability to translate those gains into sustainable profitability. And bit by bit, almost imperceptibly, management tools have taken the place of strategy.”—captures a critical inflection in modern management thought. Over several decades, Porter has articulated not only the fundamental distinction between operational effectiveness and strategy, but has also consistently warned of the limitations of relying on incremental management improvements without clear strategic direction.

Context of the Quote and its Significance

In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, global industries underwent rapid transformations driven by technological advances, best-practice benchmarking, and lean management. Companies achieved significant operational gains—such as cost reductions, process improvements, and quality uplifts—through methodologies like Six Sigma, total quality management, and enterprise resource planning. Yet, as Porter identified, while these tools boosted efficiency, they often failed to deliver a sustainable competitive advantage. The reason: competitors could quickly imitate such improvements, eroding any temporary gains in profitability.

Porter’s quote emerged from his critique that relentless focus on operational excellence led many firms to neglect genuine strategy—the unique positioning and set of activities that differentiates one company from another. He argued that “management tools have taken the place of strategy” when organisations confound being the best with being unique. In emphasising this point, Porter sought to redirect managerial attention to the fundamental questions of where to compete and how to achieve lasting distinctiveness.

About Michael E. Porter

Michael E. Porter is widely acknowledged as the intellectual architect of the modern strategy field. As Bishop William Lawrence University Professor at Harvard Business School, he has published over 19 books and 125 articles, many of which are considered foundation texts in management and economics. His most influential frameworks include:

Five Forces Analysis: Explains industry structure and competitive intensity, helping firms understand the underlying levers of profitability.
Value Chain: Articulates how activities within a company contribute to competitive advantage.
Generic Strategies: Identifies fundamental choices in positioning (cost leadership, differentiation, focus).

Porter’s theories have shaped not only business practice but also national and regional economic policy, influencing competitiveness agendas worldwide. His rigorous, multidisciplinary approach spans fields as diverse as economic development, healthcare, and environmental policy—a legacy matched by few in business academia.

Backstory on Leading Theorists in Strategy

The evolution of strategy as a discipline has been deeply influenced by a handful of pioneering thinkers whose works frame contemporary debates on operational versus strategic effectiveness:

Peter Drucker: Often regarded as the “father of modern management,” Drucker emphasised the distinction between doing things right (efficiency) and doing the right things (effectiveness). He laid early foundations for viewing strategy as central to organisational success.
Igor Ansoff: Developed the Ansoff Matrix, an early strategic planning tool, and defined corporate strategy as a comprehensive plan to achieve long-term aims.
Henry Mintzberg: Critiqued the rational planning model, highlighting the emergent and often messy nature of real-world strategy formation. Mintzberg’s distinction between deliberate and emergent strategy echoes Porter’s warnings about confusing management tools with strategic direction.
C. K. Prahalad & Gary Hamel: Advanced the concept of “core competencies” as a source of sustainable competitive advantage, reinforcing the idea that distinctive capabilities, not just operational improvements, underpin long-term success.
Jay Barney: Developed the resource-based view, arguing that unique firm resources and capabilities are central to achieving strategic advantage—closely aligned with Porter’s focus on uniqueness.
W. Chan Kim & Renée Mauborgne: Introduced “Blue Ocean Strategy,” urging firms to create uncontested market space rather than compete head-on, echoing Porter’s view that strategy is about unique positioning.

Collective Impact and Ongoing Relevance

Porter’s insistence on the primacy of strategy, and his warning against the “imperceptible” creep of tools replacing vision, remains acutely relevant in a landscape awash in digital transformation, agile methodologies, and continuous improvement philosophies. His frameworks continue to serve as critical reference points for decision-makers seeking not just operational excellence, but genuine, sustainable profitability.

In summary, Porter’s thought leadership and the work of his contemporaries underscore that operational improvement is necessary, but never sufficient. Lasting value is created through the hard choices and unique positioning that define true strategy.

Term: Timeboxing

Timeboxing is a structured time management technique designed to enhance productivity, effectiveness, and efficiency by allocating a fixed period—known as a “time box”—to a specific task or activity. The core principle is to pre-set both the start and end times for an activity, committing to cease work when the allotted time elapses, regardless of whether the task is fully completed.

Application in Productivity, Effectiveness, and Efficiency

Productivity: By ensuring that every task has a clear, finite window for completion, time-boxing dramatically reduces procrastination. Constraints provide a motivational deadline, which sharpens focus and promotes a strong sense of urgency.
Effectiveness: The method combats common to-do list pitfalls—such as overwhelming choice, tendency to gravitate towards trivial tasks, and lack of contextual awareness regarding available time—by embedding tasks directly into one’s calendar. This forces prioritisation, ensuring that important but non-urgent work receives appropriate attention.
Efficiency: Time-boxing systematically counters Parkinson’s Law, the adage that “work expands to fill the time available.” Instead of allowing tasks to sprawl, each activity is contained, often resulting in substantial time savings and improved throughput.
Collaboration and Record-keeping: Integrating time-boxed work into shared calendars enhances coordination across teams and provides a historical log of activity, supporting review processes and capacity planning.
Psychological Benefits: The clear start and stop points, along with visible progress, enhance the sense of control and achievement, which are core drivers of satisfaction at work and can mitigate stress and burnout.

Origins and Strategic Thought Leadership

The practice of timeboxing originated in the early 1990s with James Martin, who introduced the concept in his influential work Rapid Application Development as part of agile project management practices.

James Martin: Key Strategist and Proponent

Biography: James Martin (1933–2013) was a British information technology consultant, author, and educator. Renowned for pioneering concepts in software development and business process improvement, Martin had a profound impact on both technological and managerial practices globally. He authored Rapid Application Development in 1991, which advanced agile and iterative approaches to project management, introducing time-boxing as a means to ensure pace, output discipline, and responsiveness to change.
Relationship to Timeboxing: Martin’s insight was that traditional, open-ended project timelines led to cost overruns, missed deadlines, and suboptimal focus. By institutionalising strict temporal boundaries for development ‘sprints’ and project stages, teams would channel energy into producing deliverables quickly, assessing progress regularly, and adapting as required—principles that underpin much of today’s agile management thinking.
Broader Influence: His strategic thinking laid groundwork not only for agile software methodologies but also for broader contemporary productivity methods now adopted by professionals across industries.

Key Distinction

Timeboxing is often compared with time blocking, but with a crucial distinction:

Time blocking reserves periods in a calendar for given tasks, but does not strictly enforce an end point—unfinished tasks may simply spill over.
Timeboxing sets a hard stopping time, which reinforces focus and curtails the tendency for tasks to balloon beyond their true requirements.

In summary, timeboxing stands as a proven strategy to drive productivity, effectiveness and efficiency by imposing useful constraints that shape both behaviour and outcomes. First articulated by James Martin to professionalise project management, its principles now underpin how individuals and organisations operate at the highest levels.

Quote: James Clear – Author – Atomic Habits

“Habit stacking increases the likelihood that you’ll stick with a habit by stacking your new behaviour on top of an old one. This process can be repeated to chain numerous habits together, each one acting as the cue for the next.” – James Clear – Author – Atomic Habits

The quote, “Habit stacking increases the likelihood that you’ll stick with a habit by stacking your new behaviour on top of an old one. This process can be repeated to chain numerous habits together, each one acting as the cue for the next,” is attributed to James Clear, a leading voice in behavioural science and the author of the globally influential book, Atomic Habits. Clear’s work has reframed the way both individuals and organisations understand the mechanisms of behaviour change, offering a practical, systematic approach for embedding lasting habits into daily life.

Context of the Quote and Its Application
This statement encapsulates the method of habit stacking, a concept introduced and popularised by Clear in Atomic Habits (2018). The central insight is deceptively simple: by pairing a new, desired behaviour with an existing, ingrained routine, you leverage the powerful momentum of what is already automatic. This pairing creates a domino effect—where each action naturally triggers the next—significantly improving the probability of successfully adopting new habits.

For example, rather than attempting to establish a new meditation practice in isolation, one might link it to the act of pouring morning coffee—a deeply embedded daily ritual. This method recognises that existing habits are already encoded in our neural pathways; by attaching a new behaviour to these patterns, habit stacking makes behavioural change more reliable and sustainable.

About James Clear
James Clear is a writer and speaker focused on habits, decision-making, and continuous improvement. After recovering from a serious injury early in his academic career, he developed a keen interest in how small behaviour changes, when applied consistently, could yield significant long-term results. His book, Atomic Habits, has sold millions of copies worldwide and has become a core text for those seeking practical strategies to drive personal and professional transformation. Clear’s approachable, evidence-based philosophy has been embraced by leadership teams, professional athletes, and individuals alike, making the principles of behavioural science accessible and actionable.

Backstory on Leading Theorists of Habits
James Clear stands alongside a lineage of influential thinkers who have shaped contemporary habit theory:

Charles Duhigg, author of The Power of Habit (2012), brought the concept of the habit loop—cue, routine, reward—into the mainstream. Duhigg’s work, rooted in neuroscience and psychology, examines how routines form and how they can be hacked or redirected. While Duhigg laid the groundwork, especially around understanding the mechanics of habit formation, Clear advanced the practical application, notably with habit stacking.
BJ Fogg of Stanford University developed the Fogg Behavior Model, positing that behaviour is a function of motivation, ability, and prompt. Fogg’s work emphasises the importance of tiny habits and prompts—closely related to the triggers in Clear’s habit stacking model.
Wendy Wood, professor of psychology and business, is another key figure, whose research underscores how much of daily behaviour is habitual and context-driven. Her book, Good Habits, Bad Habits (2019), further unpacks the unconscious dynamics of habit loops and environmental triggers.

Why Habit Stacking Matters
The move towards habit stacking in professional and personal settings reflects a sophisticated understanding of how real, sustained change occurs: not through heroic acts of self-discipline, but by architecting environments and routines that make doing the right thing the path of least resistance. As we seek to close the gap between intent and action—whether in leadership, health, or strategic execution—the wisdom embodied in this quote serves as both blueprint and inspiration.

Quote Context and Background

The idea presented by James Clear in the quote—“Habit stacking increases the likelihood that you’ll stick with a habit by stacking your new behaviour on top of an old one. This process can be repeated to chain numerous habits together, each one acting as the cue for the next.”—is rooted in practical behaviour change science. This insight, from his seminal work Atomic Habits, emerges from the recognition that new habits rarely emerge in a vacuum; instead, they are more effectively anchored when they leverage established routines already cemented in our daily lives.

Clear’s concept of habit stacking asks: how can we make new actions automatic? His answer is to attach the desired behaviour to something habitual—using the momentum and neural pathways of an existing action to cue a new one. Over time, these habit chains can “stack” to create robust sequences, such as a seamless morning routine that transitions effortlessly from coffee, to meditation, to journaling, and so on.

Term: Scrum

Scrum is a widely used agile framework designed for managing and completing complex projects through iterative, incremental progress. While its roots lie in software development, Scrum is now employed across industries to drive effective, cross-functional teamwork, accelerate delivery, and foster constant learning and adaptation.

Scrum organises work into short cycles called sprints (typically two to four weeks), with clear deliverables reviewed at the end of each cycle. Teams operate with well-defined roles—Product Owner, Scrum Master, and Development Team—each focused on maximising value delivered to the customer. Daily stand-ups, sprint planning, sprint reviews, and retrospectives are core Scrum events, structuring transparency, feedback, and continual improvement.

Key benefits of Scrum include faster delivery, flexibility, enhanced motivation, and frequent opportunities to adapt direction based on stakeholder feedback and market changes. Unlike traditional project management, Scrum embraces evolving requirements and values working solutions over rigid documentation.

Scrum’s methodology is defined by:

Dedicated roles: Product Owner (prioritises value), Scrum Master (facilitates process), and a Development Team (delivers increments).
Iterative progress: Organised into sprints, each delivering a potentially shippable product increment.
Key events: Sprint Planning, Daily Stand-ups, Sprint Review, and Sprint Retrospective, all designed to ensure continuous alignment, transparency, and improvement.
Minimal but essential artefacts: Product Backlog, Sprint Backlog, and Increment—ensuring focus on value rather than exhaustive documentation.

Scrum’s adaptability enables teams to react to change rather than rigidly following a plan, thus reducing time to market, maximising stakeholder engagement, and enhancing team motivation and accountability. Its success relies not on strict adherence to procedures, but on a deep commitment to empirical process control, collaboration, and delivering real value frequently and reliably.

Evolution of Scrum and the Hype Cycle

Scrum’s conceptual origins date to the 1986 Harvard Business Review article “The New New Product Development Game” by Hirotaka Takeuchi and Ikujiro Nonaka, which likened effective product teams to rugby scrums—dynamic, self-organised, and collaborative. Jeff Sutherland, John Scumniotales, and Jeff McKenna developed the first practical implementation at Easel Corporation in the early 1990s, while Ken Schwaber independently pursued similar ideas at Advanced Development Methods. Sutherland and Schwaber subsequently collaborated to codify Scrum, publishing the first research paper in 1995 and helping launch the Agile Manifesto in 2001.

Scrum has traversed the hype cycle familiar to many management innovations:

Innovation and Early Adoption: Initially delivered exceptional results in software teams seeking to escape slow, bureaucratic models.
High Expectations and Hype: Widespread adoption led to attempts to scale Scrum across entire organisations and sectors—sometimes diluting its impact as rituals overtook outcomes and cargo-cult practices emerged.
Disillusionment: Pushback grew in some circles, where mechanistic application led to “Scrum-but” (Scrum in name, not practice), highlighting the need for cultural buy-in and adaptation.
Mature Practice: Today, Scrum is a mature, mainstream methodology. Leading organisations deploy Scrum not as a prescriptive process, but as a framework to be tailored by empowered teams, restoring focus on the values that foster agility, creativity, and sustained value delivery.

Related Strategy Theorist: Jeff Sutherland

Jeff Sutherland is recognised as the co-creator and chief evangelist of Scrum.

Backstory and Relationship to Scrum:
A former US Air Force fighter pilot, Sutherland turned to computer science, leading development teams in healthcare and software innovation. In the early 1990s at Easel Corporation, frustrated by the slow pace and low morale typical of waterfall project management, he sought a radically new approach. Drawing on systems theory and inspired by Takeuchi and Nonaka’s rugby metaphor, Sutherland and his team conceptualised Scrum—a framework where empowered teams worked intensely in short cycles, inspecting progress and adapting continuously.

Sutherland partnered with Ken Schwaber to formalise Scrum and refine its practices, co-authoring the Scrum Guide and helping write the Agile Manifesto in 2001. He has continued to promote Scrum through teaching, consulting, and writing, most notably in his book Scrum: The Art of Doing Twice the Work in Half the Time.

Biography:

Education: West Point graduate, PhD in biometrics and statistics.
Career: US Air Force, medical researcher, technology executive, and entrepreneur.
Impact: Through Scrum, Sutherland has influenced not only software delivery, but global business management, education, government, and beyond.

Sutherland’s legacy is his relentless pursuit of value and speed in team-based work, matched by his openness to continuous learning—a principle that remains at the heart of Scrum’s enduring relevance.Scrum is a structured agile framework designed for collaborative, iterative project management—delivering work in short, time-boxed cycles called sprints, typically lasting two to four weeks. While originally created for software development, Scrum has been successfully adapted for broad use in product management, service delivery, and cross-functional teamwork across virtually every sector. The core of Scrum is to empower a small, self-organising, cross-functional team to incrementally build value, adapt quickly to new information, and continuously inspect and improve both the work and the working process.

Quote: Stephen Hawking – Physicist and cosmologist

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.” – Stephen Hawking – Physicist and cosmologist

This statement encapsulates a distilled truth at the heart of human ingenuity: adaptability, rather than the rote accumulation of facts or the mastery of a single discipline, lies at the core of true intelligence. Stephen Hawking’s own life and work stand as a testament to this principle.

Stephen Hawking: Context and Backstory of the Quote

Stephen Hawking (1942–2018) was one of the world’s most celebrated theoretical physicists and cosmologists. He is renowned for his pioneering work on black holes and the origins of the universe, formulating the concept of Hawking radiation, which revealed that black holes emit energy and can eventually evaporate—a proposition that altered the trajectory of modern physics. Hawking’s pursuit of unifying Einstein’s theory of general relativity and the principles of quantum mechanics led to profound insights into cosmic singularity and the nature of time itself.

Hawking’s achievements are made even more remarkable by the profound personal adversity he endured. Diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a progressive and ultimately paralysing motor neurone disease, in his early twenties, he was told he would live only a few years. Instead, he persisted for more than five decades, revolutionising scientific understanding while losing nearly all voluntary muscle control. Communicating by cheek muscle and wheelchair-bound, Hawking continued to lecture, collaborate, and write, making science accessible to millions through books like A Brief History of Time, which remained on bestseller lists for years and became a cultural touchstone.

His quote captures the ethos by which he lived and worked: in the face of both scientific puzzles and personal obstacles, adaptability is critical, not only for survival but for progress and innovation. The ability to adapt, thrive, and reshape oneself and one’s approach in the face of uncertainty marks both individual and organisational brilliance.

Intellectual Lineage: Theorists and Thinkers on Adaptability

The idea at the heart of Hawking’s quote—that intelligence is intertwined with adaptability—draws on a rich intellectual tradition that spans biology, psychology, management, and physics:

Charles Darwin: Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection hinges on the notion that survival depends on the ability to adapt to changing environments, not on innate strength or intelligence. His frequently paraphrased insight, “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent; it is the one most adaptable to change,” underscores adaptability as the driving force of progress in life itself.
Jean Piaget: In cognitive psychology, Piaget positioned adaptation as central to intellectual development. He defined intelligence as the ability to adapt one’s thinking to new experiences and to reorganise mental structures in light of novel information, introducing concepts such as assimilation and accommodation.
Herbert Simon: A Nobel laureate and pioneer of organisational and management theory, Simon argued that rationality and intelligence are bounded, and what marks effective decision-makers—whether individuals or firms—is their capacity to adapt strategies as environments shift.
Peter Drucker: The father of modern management foresaw the increasing need for “knowledge workers” to be able to respond and adapt rapidly in a world of constant discontinuity—a view that prefigures modern agile management. Drucker placed “systematic innovation” and learning at the heart of organisational resilience.
Agile Management: Building upon these intellectual roots, agile management emerged in the late 20th and early 21st centuries as a direct response to the complexity and speed of change in business environments. Agile principles emphasise iterative adaptation, learning, and flexibility over rigid planning—a practical embodiment of Hawking’s insight in the corporate arena.

Beyond Hype: The Enduring Value of Adaptability

Hawking’s quote speaks not to fashionable buzzwords or transient management fads, but to an enduring foundation for resilience and progress. In both scientific discovery and practical leadership, the ability to reorient, learn, and respond creatively to change separates those who endure and excel from those who are left behind. Intelligence, in this vital sense, is measured not by static measures of capacity, but by the dynamic ability to evolve.

By internalising this principle, leaders, organisations, and individuals alike come to embody the wisdom of Hawking and his intellectual forebears—always questioning, always learning, and always ready to adapt.

Term: Agile

Agile refers to a set of principles, values, and methods for managing work—originally developed for software development but now broadly applied across management, product development, and organisational change. Agile emphasises flexibility, iterative delivery, collaborative teamwork, and rapid response to change over rigid planning or hierarchical control.

Agile is grounded in the four central values of the Agile Manifesto:

Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
Working solutions over comprehensive documentation
Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
Responding to change over following a set plan

Projects are broken down into small, manageable phases—commonly called iterations or sprints. Each iteration involves planning, execution, feedback, and adaptation, enabling continuous improvement and ensuring work remains aligned with customer needs and shifting priorities. Agile teams are typically cross-functional and self-organising, empowered to adjust their approach in real time based on ongoing feedback and new information.

Agile Today: Hype, Critique, and Adoption

As Agile principles have spread far beyond software development—into operations, HR, marketing, and enterprise strategy—the term itself has entered the popular business lexicon. It has become associated with pursuing “dynamic” or “adaptive” organisations in the face of volatility and complexity.

This broad adoption has brought Agile through the so-called hype cycle:

Innovation: Early adoption within software development produced dramatic improvements in speed and customer alignment.
Hype and Overextension: Organisations rushed to “become agile,” sometimes reducing it to rigid rituals or over-standardised frameworks, losing sight of its core values.
Disillusionment: Some encountered diminishing returns or “agile theatre”—where process and jargon replaced genuine adaptability. Critics question whether Agile can be universally applied or whether it loses impact when applied formulaically or at scale.
Mature Use: Today, Agile is moving into a more mature stage. Leading organisations focus less on prescriptive frameworks and more on fostering genuine agile mindsets—prioritising rapid learning, empowerment, and value delivery over box-ticking adherence to process. Agile remains a fundamental strategy for organisations facing uncertainty and complexity, but is most powerful when adapted thoughtfully rather than applied as a one-size-fits-all solution.

Agile Methodologies and Beyond
While frameworks such as Scrum, Kanban, and Lean Agile provide structure, the essence of Agile is flexibility and the relentless pursuit of rapid value delivery and continuous improvement. Its principles inform not just project management, but also how leadership, governance, and organisational culture are shaped.

Leading Strategy Theorist: Jeff Sutherland

Jeff Sutherland is a central figure in the history and modern practice of Agile, particularly through his role in creating the Scrum framework—now one of the most widespread and influential Agile methodologies.

Relationship to Agile

A former US Air Force pilot, software engineer, and management scientist, Sutherland co-created Scrum in the early 1990s as a practical response to the limitations of traditional, linear development processes. Alongside Ken Schwaber, he presented Scrum as a flexible, adaptive framework that allowed teams to focus on rapid delivery and continuous improvement through short sprints, daily stand-ups, and iterative review.

Sutherland was one of the original 17 signatories of the Agile Manifesto in 2001, meaningfully shaping Agile as a global movement. His practical, systems-thinking approach kept the focus on small, empowered teams, feedback loops, and an unrelenting drive towards business value—features that continue to anchor Agile practice in diverse fields.

Biography

Education: Sutherland holds a Bachelor’s degree from West Point, a Doctorate from the University of Colorado Medical School, and further advanced education in statistics and computer science.
Career: He served as a fighter pilot in Vietnam, then transitioned to healthcare and software engineering, where his frustration with unresponsive, slow project approaches led to his innovation of Scrum.
Contributions: Author of Scrum: The Art of Doing Twice the Work in Half the Time (2014), Sutherland has taught, consulted, and led transformations in technology, finance, government, and healthcare worldwide.

Jeff Sutherland’s legacy is his relentless pursuit of speed, adaptability, and learning in dynamic environments. Through his thought leadership and practice, he has anchored Agile not as a dogma, but as a living philosophy—best used as a means to real effectiveness, transparency, and value creation in today’s complex world.

Quote: Eliyahu M. Goldratt – The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement

“So this is the goal: To make money by increasing net profit, while simultaneously increasing return on investment, and simultaneously increasing cash flow.” – Eliyahu M. Goldratt The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement

The quote highlights the essence of operational excellence as defined by Eliyahu M. Goldratt in his influential work, The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement. Goldratt’s central argument is that true business success comes from the ability not only to increase net profit, but to do so while simultaneously improving return on investment and cash flow—a triad of interdependent financial metrics at the heart of the Theory of Constraints.

Context of the Quote
The quote originates from a pivotal moment in The Goal, where the protagonist, Alex Rogo, faces the imminent closure of his manufacturing plant due to prolonged operational inefficiency and poor financial returns. Lacking clear answers, he reconnects with Jonah, a mentor figure based on Goldratt himself, who challenges Alex to identify the true goal of his business. Through guided inquiry, Alex discovers that the single unifying objective is to “make money”—not in isolation, but in conjunction with those deeper financial levers: net profit, return on investment, and cash flow.

This insight marks a transformation in Alex’s approach. Rather than fixating on isolated metrics or functional silos—such as output rates or inventory turnover—he begins to see the business as a connected system. Through the story, Goldratt demonstrates how only by targeting constraints—the factors that most severely limit an organisation’s progress—can leaders truly improve all three measures simultaneously.

About Eliyahu M. Goldratt
Eliyahu M. Goldratt was an Israeli physicist and business management guru, recognised for his development of the Theory of Constraints (TOC). Trained as a physicist, Goldratt applied scientific reasoning to business problems, helping organisations across industries find practical, systemic solutions to complex operational challenges. Goldratt’s influence extends far beyond TOC; he shaped modern thinking on systems, change management, and continuous improvement. Notably, The Goal, published in 1984, was groundbreaking in its use of narrative fiction to make rigorous industrial management principles accessible and compelling.

Goldratt’s work is characterised by a relentless focus on process improvement, questioning of accepted practices, and rigorous logic. His questions—‘What is the goal? What to change? What to change to? How to cause the change?’—remain central tenets of operational strategy today.

Leading Theorists and Related Thinkers
Goldratt’s contributions sit within a tradition of operational thought shaped by several pioneering theorists:

W. Edwards Deming: Father of the quality movement, emphasised continuous process improvement and systems thinking.
Taiichi Ohno: Architect of the Toyota Production System, developer of the just-in-time methodology, and proponent of eliminating waste.
Peter Drucker: Influential in management by objectives and the concept of the ‘knowledge worker’, establishing purpose-driven strategic management.
Eli Goldratt’s Contemporaries and Successors: Many modern practitioners and researchers have built upon Goldratt’s work, adapting TOC to extend into project management (Critical Chain Project Management), supply chain logistics, and service operations.

Context of the Theory
The Goal and the Theory of Constraints marked a significant shift from static efficiency models towards dynamic systems thinking. Rather than optimising parts in isolation, Goldratt argued success relies on identifying and resolving the most critical issues—the constraints—that inescapably govern overall performance. This approach has been widely adopted and adapted within Lean, Six Sigma, and Agile frameworks, reinforcing the need for constant reassessment and ongoing improvement.

Lasting Impact
The novel remains a touchstone for business strategists and operational leaders. Its principles are frequently cited in boardrooms, on factory floors, and in management classrooms worldwide. Most importantly, the core lesson of the quote continues to resonate: sustainable value creation demands a simultaneous, systemic focus on profit, efficiency, and liquidity.

Goldratt’s legacy is a practical philosophy of improvement—always anchored in clear objectives, broad systems awareness, and a deep respect for both human and operational potential.

Term: Theory of Constraints (TOC)

The Theory of Constraints (TOC) is a management methodology developed by Dr Eliyahu M. Goldratt, first articulated in his influential 1984 book The Goal. The central premise is that every organisation, process, or system is limited in achieving its highest performance by at least one constraint—often referred to as a bottleneck. Improving or managing this constraint is crucial for increasing the overall productivity and effectiveness of the whole system.

TOC operates on several key principles:

Every system has at least one constraint. This limiting factor dictates the maximum output of the system; unless it is addressed, no significant improvement is possible.
Constraints can take many forms, such as machine capacity, raw material availability, market demand, regulatory limits, or processes with the lowest throughput.
Performance improvement requires focusing on the constraint. TOC advocates systematic identification and targeted improvement of the constraint, as opposed to dispersed optimisation efforts throughout the entire process.
Once the current constraint is relieved or eliminated, another will emerge. The process is continuous—after resolving one bottleneck, attention must shift to the next.

Goldratt formalised the TOC improvement process through the Five Focusing Steps:

Identify the constraint.
Exploit (optimise the use of) the constraint.
Subordinate all other processes to the needs of the constraint.
Elevate the constraint (increase its capacity or find innovative solutions).
Repeat the process for the next constraint as the limiting factor shifts.

Broader relevance and application

TOC was initially applied to manufacturing and production, but its principles are now used across industries—including project management, healthcare, supply chains, and services. It has also influenced methodologies such as Lean and Six Sigma by reinforcing the importance of system-wide optimisation and bottleneck management.

Theorist background

Dr Eliyahu M. Goldratt was an Israeli business management guru with a doctorate in physics. His scientific background informed his systems-based, analytical approach to organisational improvement. Besides The Goal, Goldratt authored Critical Chain (1997), adapting TOC to project management. While Goldratt is credited with popularising the term and the methodology, similar ideas were developed by earlier thinkers such as Wolfgang Mewes in Germany, but it is Goldratt’s TOC that is now widely acknowledged and adopted in modern management practice.

TOC’s strength lies in its focus: rather than trying to optimise every part of a process, it teaches leaders to concentrate their energy on breaking the system’s biggest barrier, yielding disproportionate returns in efficiency, throughput, and profitability.

News and Tools

“The worth of a business is measured not by what has been put into it, but by what can be taken out of it.” – Benjamin Graham – The “father of value investing”

Share this:

Arguments for Using RONA/ROIC

Criticisms and Limitations

Leading Theorists and Strategic Foundations

Tim Koller, Marc Goedhart, and David Wessels

Aswath Damodaran

Share this:

“There is a role for valuation at every stage of a firm’s life cycle.” – Aswath Damodaran – Professor, Valuation authority

Share this:

Arguments for Using the EBITDA Multiple

Criticisms of the EBITDA Multiple

Related Strategy Theorist: Michael C. Jensen

Share this:

“One of the most powerful sources of mispricing is the tendency to over-weight or over-emphasize current conditions.” – Bill Miller – Investor, fund manager

Share this:

Financial Theories Relating to Growth

Strategic Frameworks Involving Growth

Leading Strategy Theorist: Bruce Henderson

Conclusion

Share this:

“If investors do not know or never attempt to know the fair value, they can pay any price. More often, the price they pay is far greater than the actual value.” – Naved Abdali – Investor, noted commentator

Share this:

Definition and Calculation

Practical Use and Significance

Leading Theorist: Aswath Damodaran

Share this:

“Finance is completely and ruthlessly forward-looking. The only source of value today is the future.” – Mihir Desai, The Wisdom Of Finance

Context of the Quote

Profile of Mihir Desai

Leading Theorists in Forward-Looking Valuation

Share this:

Bases and Contributors to Value

Principal Theorist: Aswath Damodaran

Key Principles

Limitations

Share this:

“Lose money for the firm, and I will be understanding. Lose a shred of reputation for the firm, and I will be ruthless.” – Warren Buffet – Investor

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Application in Productivity, Effectiveness, and Efficiency

Origins and Strategic Thought Leadership

James Martin: Key Strategist and Proponent

Key Distinction

Share this:

“Habit stacking increases the likelihood that you’ll stick with a habit by stacking your new behaviour on top of an old one. This process can be repeated to chain numerous habits together, each one acting as the cue for the next.” – James Clear – Author – Atomic Habits

Share this:

Evolution of Scrum and the Hype Cycle

Related Strategy Theorist: Jeff Sutherland

Share this:

“Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.” – Stephen Hawking – Physicist and cosmologist

Share this:

Leading Strategy Theorist: Jeff Sutherland

Relationship to Agile

Biography

Share this:

“So this is the goal: To make money by increasing net profit, while simultaneously increasing return on investment, and simultaneously increasing cash flow.” – Eliyahu M. Goldratt The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement

Share this:

Broader relevance and application

Theorist background

Share this:

Download brochure

Sign up for our newsletters - free