Blog

<h2>London Tech Week - What Should Series A Investors Ask?</h2>Having gone through the speaker list and the nine themes, the thing that jumps out, maybe unsurprisingly, is AI, AI, AI, and more AI! ElevenLabs, Perplexity, Lovable, OpenAI, Anthropic, Notion, Wayve, Isomorphic Labs on stage, plus themes explicitly built around Applied AI, Responsible AGI, agentic AI, AI infrastructure and sovereign compute. The deep tech and quantum tracks are there, but the centre of gravity is obvious. That shapes what a Series A investor should actually be probing — because most of what you'll meet on that floor will be AI-wrapped, and the easy questions won't separate the real businesses from the demos.Here's what I'd be asking, and why it matters given that specific line-up.Defensibility against the model layer. With the foundation labs literally on the same stage as the application companies, the sharpest question for any Series A app is: what stops OpenAI or Anthropic from shipping your feature as a default next quarter? Lovable is the live case study — huge reported ARR off vibe coding, but how much of that moat is product versus distribution timing? I'd want to hear a credible answer on data advantage, workflow lock-in, or proprietary distribution, not "we move fast."Margins, not just revenue. A lot of these companies will quote ARR that looks like SaaS but actually carries the cost of goods that scales at the same pace as revenue, because of inference. I'd push hard on gross margin and its trajectory: where does it sit today, what's the path to 70%+, and - a crucial one for me - how exposed is the unit economics to a model-pricing change you don't control? Revenue that grows while margin quietly inverts is the trap of this era.Agentic AI: in production or in the keynote? The Enterprise Growth theme leans on agentic AI and the word will be everywhere. The uncomfortable question is how many of those agents are running unsupervised in a paying customer's environment versus sitting in a sandboxed pilot. I'd ask for named production deployments, the failure rate, who is liable when the agent gets it wrong and what is done to prevent it.Retention under the novelty curve. Early AI-product usage is flattered by curiosity. I'd want net revenue retention and cohort behaviour at 6 and 12 months — does usage compound after the wow wears off, or does it decay? This is where a lot of impressive 2026 top-line numbers will quietly fail.Sovereignty as tailwind and trap. George Osborne is there heading "OpenAI for Countries," the UK AI Minister and Liz Kendall are on the bill, and sovereign compute is a theme. Government and public-sector demand is real money, but it's also pilot purgatory with brutal sales cycles. For anyone leaning into that wedge, I'd separate signed, recurring revenue from MOUs and "strategic engagements," and ask how long the cash runway assumes that cycle takes.Capital intensity and milestone-to-milestone honesty. For the deep tech, infra and quantum companies (Planet, Isomorphic, the quantum track), Series A means something different — the question isn't product-market fit yet, it's how much capital and time to the next de-risking milestone, and whether the syndicate behind them can actually fund that path. I'd be wary of deep tech raising a Series A on a SaaS-shaped narrative.The survivorship bias baked into "Unicorns' Lessons in Scaling." That whole track is winners explaining why they won, mostly with hindsight. The more useful private question is about the 2021–2022 vintage now down-rounding or quietly dead: what changed, and is the company in front of me repeating those mistakes with an AI coat of paint?Burn and the talent market. AI talent is being bid up viciously right now. I'd want to see the burn multiple and a clear view on whether the team can be retained without a comp structure that eats the next round.If I had to compress it to one filter for the week: most companies will pass the "is this exciting?" test. Very few will pass "what do you own that the people one stage over can't take from you, and does the money work when the hype tax comes off?" That second question is the whole job at Series A in this market.To help you further, here is a quick question sheet. Feel free to use it (download the image and print).Image below looks cropped, but if you right click -&gt; save as, you'll get it all<figure id="figure-wkepeyl7bempzla2qo" class=""><img id="wkepeyl7bempzla2qo" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/19LAeFbAFiWOzg41pAQnClPry3MO8VUHHxw58HbQpPokMOmxB7XeNEGOT6W6Xj56.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-lg md:rounded-xl lg:rounded-2xl" style="aspect-ratio: 1/1; object-position: 50% 0%;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="1:1" data-caption="" data-positionx="50%" data-positiony="0%" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/19LAeFbAFiWOzg41pAQnClPry3MO8VUHHxw58HbQpPokMOmxB7XeNEGOT6W6Xj56.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 1/1; object-position: 50% 0%;"></figure>If you want to discuss this in more detail and understand what it means for your business right now, click <a data-mce-href="https://aldemis.com/contact" href="https://aldemis.com/contact">here</a>&nbsp;to contact us.

London Tech Week - What Should Series A Investors Ask?

<h2>The Eighteen-Month Architecture Decision: What Post-Seed Founders Get Wrong Before Series A</h2> The seed round closed. The product is in the market. Customers are paying for it; not enough of them (it’s never enough), but enough that the reporting is no longer embarrassing. The founder feels, for the first time in a while, that he/she can now relax slightly and that the technical questions are for later. They are not. The decisions made now will impact the Series A valuation when tech due diligence hits.We see the same pattern often enough that it deserves to be written about. Between seed and Series A, founders make a handful of technical decisions that look small at the time but become the dominant cost of the next round twelve months on. None of them are dramatic. None of them would make a good war story at a meetup. They are quiet, reasonable-sounding choices made under pressure, and they are mostly wrong.Five of them, in roughly the order they kill rounds.<h3>1. The premature rewrite</h3>Somewhere around month four post-seed, the founder becomes convinced the MVP stack is technical debt. Usually a new engineer joins, surveys the codebase, and offers the diagnosis the founder has been quietly hoping to hear: this needs a rebuild. Sometimes it is framed as a migration — off the no-code tool, off Firebase, off the language nobody on the new team knows. Sometimes it is framed as scaling — we will not get to a million users on this. The rewrite begins. Six months later the rewrite is two-thirds done, the original product has not shipped a meaningful feature in that window, and the Series A pitch deck is being assembled by a team that has stopped talking to customers.The uncomfortable truth: at this stage, your stack is almost never the constraint. Investors do not refuse rounds because a backend is in PHP. They refuse rounds because growth has flatlined, and growth flatlines because the team stopped shipping while it rebuilt. The boring stack you have is a Series A asset. Ship features on it until the round closes, then rewrite from a position of capital and headcount. If a single component is genuinely broken, replace that component, not the system around it.Outcome: runway spent on growth, not on a refactor nobody asked for.<h3>2. The hire-a-CTO reflex</h3>Often the loudest voice in the founder's ear belongs to an advisor or a seed investor who says, with absolute confidence, that the company needs a CTO. The founder, who has been carrying the technical function on duct tape and three engineers, agrees. Recruiters are engaged. The search runs for four months. The candidates who are credible want £180k plus material equity to lead a team of four people, half of whom are contractors. The candidates who will accept the package are not credible. The founder either over-pays for someone who turns out to be a head of engineering with grander title ambitions, or hires nobody and feels worse about it than before.The diagnostic question is rarely asked: what is the actual gap? Sometimes it is delivery — and the answer is a strong head of engineering on a normal salary. Sometimes it is a missing technical voice in commercial conversations — and the answer is a fractional or interim CTO for two days a week. Sometimes it is fundraising credibility — and the answer is a named advisor on the cap table. The job title matters less than the gap. Hiring the title to fill a different gap is how you end up with a senior person who is bored within six months.Outcome: the right shape of technical leadership for the stage, not the title the deck demands.<h3>3. The compliance fog</h3>GDPR comes up on every sales call. Then SOC 2. Then somebody asks about ISO 27001 and the founder spends a weekend reading. The result is one of two failure modes. The first is denial: it gets shelved until an enterprise prospect blocks a deal and a six-month scramble begins. The second is over-correction: a full certification programme is commissioned, costing £40k–80k and a quarter of the engineering team's attention, with no revenue tied to it.Neither is right at this stage. What a Series A diligence and most enterprise customers actually want to see is evidenced controls — that you have thought about data, you know what you process, you have access policies in place, you have a defensible roadmap to certification when it becomes commercially relevant. That posture costs a small fraction of full certification and clears most diligence questions. The founders who do this well treat compliance as a sales asset that scales with the deal sizes it unlocks, not a vanity badge or a hidden tax.Outcome: compliance investment proportional to the revenue it unlocks, with a clear path to scale it when the revenue does.<h3>4. The "we will fix data later" decision</h3>At seed, every founder makes the same trade. Event tracking is rudimentary, customer identity is held together across three systems that disagree about who is who, billing reconciliation is a spreadsheet, and the product analytics tool was chosen in twenty minutes. This is correct at seed. It becomes a Series A problem because the data needed to underwrite the round — cohort retention, expansion revenue, channel attribution, gross margin by segment — cannot be reconstructed retrospectively from a system that was never instrumented to produce it.The fix is not a data warehouse. The fix is a small, deliberate decision in month six or seven about what the Series A conversation will need twelve months later, and an afternoon of instrumentation to make sure the events get captured from that point forward. The companies that do this well arrive at fundraising with eighteen months of clean cohort data. The companies that do not arrive with three months of clean data and nine months of apologies.Outcome: the metrics your round depends on exist, are clean, and tell a story.<h3>5. The single point of failure is a person, not a server</h3>Diligence calls examine systems, but they kill rounds on people. One contractor in eastern Europe holds the keys to the production database. One co-founder is the only person who understands the pricing engine. One outsourced agency owns the mobile app codebase and has not committed to a repository that the company controls. The founder knows this and has been meaning to fix it for nine months. It comes out in the diligence call. The valuation conversation gets harder from that moment on.This is the easiest failure mode on the list to address and the most commonly ignored. Code in repositories the company owns. Credentials in a vault, not in a Slack DM. Documentation sufficient that the bus factor on any one person is at least two. None of this is glamorous. All of it shows up in diligence as either a green tick or a red flag, and the red flag is expensive.Outcome: no single person whose departure would meaningfully damage the company.<h3>What you actually need at this stage</h3>Reading these back, the common thread is not technical. It is a translation. Each of these decisions is taken because the founder is hearing one signal from the team in the room — usually the engineering voice, sometimes the loudest investor — and not hearing the signal from the room they will be sitting in eighteen months later. At this stage the company does not yet need a CTO. It needs someone who has been in both rooms, who can look at the current state and tell the founder which of these to fix this quarter and which to defer to Series A+1, and who is not auditioning for a full-time job in the process.That is the role we play, and increasingly the role that early-stage investors are asking us to play inside their portfolios. The founders who come out of this window well are rarely the ones who made the boldest technical bets. They are the ones who avoided the five expensive ones above and kept shipping while the round came together.If you are an investor reading this and recognising a portfolio company, the conversation worth having is not "do you have a CTO" — it is "which of these five are you closest to". If you are a founder reading this and recognising your own situation, the answer is rarely a rewrite, a hire, or a certification. It is usually a translator, for a season, until you no longer need one any more. If you want to discuss this in more detail and understand what it means for your business right now, click <a data-mce-href="https://aldemis.com/contact" href="https://aldemis.com/contact">here </a>to contact us.

The Eighteen-Month Architecture Decision: What Post-Seed Founders Get Wrong Before Series A

<h3>Aldemis Partners with Solas Compliance to Strengthen Technical Execution and Support Growth</h3>Aldemis, a consultancy focused on aligning technology with commercial outcomes, has signed an agreement with Solas Compliance to provide ongoing Technical Execution Support as the business continues to scale.Solas Compliance is building a platform to help organisations navigate the increasing complexity of marketing, legal, and regulatory requirements. As demand for AI-driven compliance solutions grows, the business is investing in ensuring its technology delivery remains aligned, efficient, and capable of supporting long-term growth.Under the agreement, Aldemis will work closely with the Solas team to bring additional technical resources, clarity, and execution discipline to its technology function. The focus will be on ensuring that product development remains tightly aligned to commercial priorities, while enabling the business to scale without introducing unnecessary complexity or delivery risk.Richard Ney, Founding Partner at Aldemis, commented: "What stood out with Solas is the clarity of vision and the relevance of what they are building in today’s market. Our role is to support that by ensuring the technology execution keeps pace with the ambition — bringing resource and execution discipline where needed and helping the team stay focused on what drives real outcomes."Neil Dillon, Founder of Solas Compliance, added: "As we scale, maintaining alignment between what we’re building and the value it delivers is critical. Aldemis brings a pragmatic approach that helps us stay focused, move with confidence, and avoid the common pitfalls that come with growth."This partnership reflects a shared belief that technology should drive business performance, not just serve as an engineering function — particularly in high-growth environments where clarity and execution are key.

Aldemis Partners with Solas Compliance to Strengthen Technical Execution and Support Growth

<h2>Aldemis and Witstock Announce Strategic Partnership to Deliver End-to-End Performance Transformation for Growth-Stage Fintech and Payments Businesses</h2>London, 29 April 2026 — Aldemis, the boutique advisory partnership specialising in aligning business and technology for growth stage businesses, and Witstock, the fractional executive management firm focused on fintech, payments and financial services, today announced a strategic partnership to deliver joint market propositions to their shared client base of investors, portfolio companies and founders. The partnership brings together Aldemis's hands on technology, product and delivery leadership with Witstock's multi disciplinary fractional executive model, giving private equity investors, venture backed founders and boards a single, coordinated route to the commercial, operational and technology capabilities needed to accelerate growth and derisk value creation. "Technology heavy businesses rarely fail from a lack of ambition — they fail when commercial goals, product delivery and operational reality drift apart," said Richard Ney, Technology Partner at Aldemis. "Witstock has built an exceptional fractional executive capability across commercial, regulatory and governance domains. Combining that with our technology and delivery depth gives our shared clients something genuinely rare: senior operators covering the full stack of performance issues, working as one team." "Investors increasingly expect their advisors to move beyond diagnosis and stay engaged to drive change," said Adrian Cannon, CEO of Witstock. "Aldemis brings deep technology, product and Go-To-Market leadership that complements our fractional CxO model perfectly. Together we can stand behind a broader performance mandate — from strategy through to execution — without forcing clients to stitch together multiple advisors." Under the partnership, the two firms will jointly deliver:<ul><li>Growth Restart: Diagnose why momentum has stalled and rebuild it. We run a rapid joint review across commercial performance, product and technology to pinpoint what's holding growth back, then work alongside the leadership team to unblock the pipeline, sharpen the proposition and restart compounding revenue.</li><li>Investment Readiness: Get the business ready to raise, and ready to scale once the money is in. We pressure-test strategy, commercial traction, product roadmap and technology foundations against what investors actually scrutinise, close the gaps that matter, and prepare the team and the story for a confident, well-supported funding round.</li><li>C-Level Alignment: Surface and resolve misalignment in the C-suite so the leadership team pulls in one direction. We work with founders, CEOs and their executive peers to align on strategy, priorities and operating cadence; turning competing agendas into a single plan that the rest of the business can execute against.</li><li>Product &amp; Technology Delivery: Get product and engineering shipping the right things at the right pace. We either embed alongside the existing team to lift delivery performance and roadmap discipline, or take on delivery on the customer's behalf, bringing senior product, engineering and architecture leadership wherever it's most needed.</li></ul> The joint proposition is initially targeted at fintech, payments, embedded finance, SaaS and regulated financial services businesses across the UK and Europe.<h3>About Aldemis</h3>Aldemis is a boutique advisory partnership, led by Peter Baxendale (Commercial) and Richard Ney (Technology), helping founders, CEOs, boards and investors scale growth-stage businesses. Aldemis works at the intersection of commercial strategy and technology delivery, with deep sector experience across fintech, payments, embedded finance, SaaS, capital markets and regulated sectors. More at <a data-mce-href="https://www.aldemis.com" href="https://www.aldemis.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">www.aldemis.com</a>.<h3>About Witstock&nbsp;</h3>Witstock is a fractional executive management firm serving investors and portfolio companies in the fintech, payments and financial services sectors. Its multi-disciplinary team covers corporate strategy, product leadership, talent management, technology, digital transformation, risk, governance and regulatory — working as a virtual Chief Performance Officer alongside existing executive teams. More at <a data-mce-href="https://www.witstock.com" href="https://www.witstock.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">www.witstock.com</a>.<h3>Media contacts</h3>Aldemis — <a data-mce-href="mailto:contact@aldemis.com" href="mailto:contact@aldemis.com">contact@aldemis.com</a>Witstock — <a data-mce-href="mailto:contact@witstock.com" href="mailto:contact@witstock.com">contact@witstock.com</a>

Aldemis and Witstock Announce Strategic Partnership to Deliver End-to-End Performance Transformation for Growth-Stage Fintech and Payments Businesses

<h2>The Technology-Business Gap: A Guide for SaaS CEOs &amp; CTOs</h2>If you're the CEO or CTO of a tech heavy business, it is difficult to accept that the technology delivery is lacking. Technology is so critical in SaaS businesses, and the amount of money sunk into it is so large, that it is difficult to accept that, often, a very large impact and sum of money are wasted in inefficiencies. It is often easier to accept the status quo and think that you either don't have a problem or that the problem isn't worth fixing. After all, things aren't that bad. The product is evolving... slowly. We've been helping many customers bridge the gap between technology and business and we noticed they all go through the same cycle: Ignorance, Denial, Realisation, Actions and finally Serenity. We've seen it so many times that we wanted to share some insights which hopefully can help you get a better grasp on things. Most of our customers go through the following phases, and we engage at various stages, but in every case, we would have been more efficient more quickly if we had been engaged sooner, and the quicker we started to evaluate and tackle the problem.Interestingly, we spoke to 50 CEOs of Saas businesses and all said the same thing: the gap between business and technology exists and is a real challenge. However, 80% of that audience believed that their own business did not have such an issue, only everyone else did. This is the Ignorance stage.<h3>The Five Stages</h3>1. Ignorance — "I don't know I have a problem" Without deep technical visibility, it's easy to mistake slow progress for normal. The product is evolving... just slowly.2. Denial — "I know, but it's not worth fixing" The most difficult stage. Admitting something has gone wrong feels costly and uncomfortable. In reality, the ROI on fixing it is usually very fast — the added value almost always outweighs the cost of remediation.3. Realisation — "Yes, this needs fixing"4. Action — "Here's what I'm going to do about it"5. Serenity — "Technology is under control, and the business is thriving" Delivery is faster, product/market fit improves, and the roadmap is fully owned by the business.The sooner you can identify which stage you're in, the sooner you can act — and the greater the impact.<h3>Diagnostic Questions</h3>Answer honestly. The more "no" or "unsure" answers, the wider your gap.<figure id="figure-q0mbgz63mmmnetixro"><img id="q0mbgz63mmmnetixro" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/15lBfbSPIt7iW3SH8Falu2Uy7Lghf7nIXTTV91JHjhHZUuYybus8ufT35TpHAtna.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-lg md:rounded-xl lg:rounded-2xl" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: undefined undefined;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/15lBfbSPIt7iW3SH8Falu2Uy7Lghf7nIXTTV91JHjhHZUuYybus8ufT35TpHAtna.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: undefined undefined;"></figure>Stage 1 — Ignorance: Do I even have a problem? Software Delivery<ul><li>Do you know what each person in your tech team is working on right now?</li><li>Does each task clearly align with a business KPI?</li><li>Has every active task been approved by the business, directly or as part of a project?</li><li>What are the current bottlenecks for feature delivery?</li><li>What are the current bottlenecks for scale and performance?</li><li>How is security approached within the software?</li></ul>Product Delivery<ul><li>Do new versions ship on a regular, predictable cadence?</li><li>Do you clearly understand what the next two releases will deliver?</li><li>Are the features being worked on truly the most valuable to the business right now?</li></ul>Sales Alignment<ul><li>Is the sales team aligned with the product features in development?</li><li>Are customer sign-ups being hindered by missing features?</li><li>Does the sales team have what they need — demo environments, product collateral, etc.?</li></ul>Overall Business<ul><li>How often is technology discussed in board meetings?</li><li>How much friction does your product generate with customers?</li><li>How efficient are you compared to your competitors? &nbsp;</li></ul><figure id="figure-kck59dhe0jmnetjb73"><img id="kck59dhe0jmnetjb73" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/36uNHuWedfJsOOym8cF6yCVRKIWvJjhCHgMFJ2EE4ebjxupZ4CA6RkAyWyXPpVyZ.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-lg md:rounded-xl lg:rounded-2xl" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="null" data-positiony="null" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/36uNHuWedfJsOOym8cF6yCVRKIWvJjhCHgMFJ2EE4ebjxupZ4CA6RkAyWyXPpVyZ.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>Stage 2 — Denial: Is it worth fixing?Software Delivery<ul><li>Do more than 95% of tech tasks clearly align with business priorities?</li><li>Do you understand the ROI in monetary terms for each task being worked on?</li><li>Is your waste ratio below 10%?</li><li>When did you last run performance testing — and did results improve or deteriorate?</li><li>Based on current growth, when will your software break under load?</li><li>How regularly do you pen test? How quickly do you act on findings?</li></ul>Product Delivery<ul><li>Do 90% of releases ship on time?</li><li>Do 90% of releases ship with the expected features?</li><li>Is your release cycle waste below 10% (measured in days against your release cycle)?</li></ul>Sales Alignment<ul><li>What is your customer attrition rate, and what does it cost you annually?</li><li>How many support tickets does each customer generate?</li><li>What does it cost to close a support ticket?</li><li>Is the overall cost of signing and supporting a customer going up or down?</li></ul>Overall Business<ul><li>What would it mean for your business to ship 30% slower than competitors?<ul><li>Most SaaS businesses release every 1.5 months with 2–3 key features. A 30% slowdown means roughly 2 fewer releases and 4–6 fewer key features per year. Over three years, that gap becomes almost impossible to recover from.</li></ul></li><li>What is your total tech waste in monetary terms?</li><li>What is your product shipment waste in monetary terms?</li><li>How many additional features could you ship per release if waste reduced by just 20%?</li><li>Tech refactoring is healthy, but it must not crowd out competitive feature delivery.<ul><li>What is your refactoring cost as a percentage of total spend — and are there faster, cheaper ways to address it?</li></ul></li></ul><figure id="figure-mst56loqiamnetharj"><img id="mst56loqiamnetharj" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/19vvls9fnNu2yWN4y1QJnnp1l0adcDEaipg93eZ3iHWtKkzw1uaiSLw4e8sn65mt.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-lg md:rounded-xl lg:rounded-2xl" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: undefined undefined;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/19vvls9fnNu2yWN4y1QJnnp1l0adcDEaipg93eZ3iHWtKkzw1uaiSLw4e8sn65mt.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: undefined undefined;"></figure><h3>Actions: Where to Start</h3>Start with the highest-impact items first. Not everything needs to happen at once.Software Delivery<ul><li>Adopt a clear delivery process and track it consistently. In tools like Jira, make sure your workflow is relevant and systematically track: estimates vs. actuals, QA bounce rate (how often items come back), and tickets getting stuck (a sign of context-switching or poor upfront analysis).</li><li>Conduct an external pen test at least annually, ideally every six months. Run internal pen tests at every release.</li><li>Invest in automated testing — both functional and non-functional (e.g. performance testing).</li><li>Use epics or tags to explicitly link every item to a business priority.</li></ul> Product Delivery<ul><li>Adopt a clear ROI process — every project should pass through it before work begins.</li><li>Maintain comprehensive release plans, and track actual vs. planned for every release.</li><li>Track release time, rollbacks, and how long completed items sit unreleased — these are all indicators of delivery waste.</li></ul> Sales Alignment<ul><li>Share upcoming release content with the sales team. Maintain a clear 2–3 month roadmap.</li><li>When plans change, communicate quickly and transparently.</li><li>Hold regular Product/Sales syncs to stay aligned.</li><li>Discuss surrounding topics — pricing, customer growth, market shifts — to build a complete picture of what the business actually needs.</li></ul> Overall Business<ul><li>Priorities will change. When they do, move decisively, follow the right process, and communicate changes broadly and clearly.</li><li>Always explain to engineers why priorities have shifted. People accept hard decisions when they understand the business rationale and feel their contribution matters.</li><li>Track waste in monetary terms — money resonates with everyone. Eliminating waste might fund an additional hire and relieve pressure on the existing team.</li><li>Communicate with the engineering team often and in detail. People want to feel included and know they're contributing to something meaningful. &nbsp;</li></ul><figure id="figure-cxbtk0qtqjmnetkhh5"><img id="cxbtk0qtqjmnetkhh5" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/34WaML9HJ6HgIXvbiPFaHhdcZrc7JvLFnZakwn8jYSnOxskNdu8AuN0GB6CmbZCI.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-lg md:rounded-xl lg:rounded-2xl" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: undefined undefined;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionX="undefined" data-positionY="undefined" data-fullWidth="false"/></figure><h3>Serenity: What Good Looks Like</h3> When you reach this stage, delivery feels almost easy. You can plan, execute on plan and on budget, and clearly articulate why every item is prioritised. Time opens up for longer-term strategic thinking and meaningful improvements.One word of caution: don't relax the process once things are going well. Discipline is what got you here. Without it, things will unravel quickly.&nbsp; "As a founder, having trust in the delivery and security of the technology has always been at the forefront of my mind. Balancing this with customer-focused decisions, timelines, and budget constraints is not an easy feat. Having confidence in the overall delivery process has enabled me to focus on business growth." — Client, SaaS Founder If you want to discuss this in more detail and understand what it means for your business right now, click <a data-mce-href="https://aldemis.com/contact" href="https://aldemis.com/contact" title="here">here</a> to contact us.

The Technology-Business Gap: A Guide for SaaS CEOs & CTOs

<h2>The importance of focus and alignment when scaling a business</h2> Last time I counted, I had been part of 21 businesses, either as a founding team member or as an advisor. Some were great successes, most were not. I began reflecting on the reasons for the failures. It is a complex topic, and there is no single reason, but a common trait among most businesses I have seen fail is a lack of focus. Trying to do too much and getting distracted by projects or tasks that will not improve the bottom line, or not significantly. For example, I joined a business many years ago that had 15 top-level KPIs. They were difficult to understand, the actual impact on the business wasn’t clear, and a large number were more vanity metrics than actual business achievements. This situation led to a disconnect within the C-level team, with each member pulling in different directions. The CEO was convinced that he had a very clear vision for the business - and maybe he did - but he was unable to articulate it in a way the team understood. When asked about the business goals, everyone gave a different answer, and their responses were often long and confusing.<h3>The One vs. the Many</h3>It might be tempting to think that, because you have many products targeting many markets, you have a greater chance of success. Or because you do many things, you must be productive. But I don’t believe that’s the case. I always felt focus was critical, but it was only when working with a great colleague and friend of mine, Nicolas Thevenet, that I truly realised why.&nbsp; While discussing the topic with Nicolas, he asked me to consider watering my garden with a hose. I could either open the hose wide and water a wide spread in front of me, but it would only go about a meter deep. Or I could be very targeted and have all the ‘power’ of the water focused very tightly, and I would reach 10x that distance.<figure id="figure-43ns3jmz98mls5picy"><img id="43ns3jmz98mls5picy" src="https://cdn.durable.co/covers/204beXPySuESMrV4K1oyKoupRvPpbJH1mmdyo8z3fscN0LEaaNrGQVDYiuFT8F9Q.png" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-lg md:rounded-xl lg:rounded-2xl" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/covers/204beXPySuESMrV4K1oyKoupRvPpbJH1mmdyo8z3fscN0LEaaNrGQVDYiuFT8F9Q.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure> That discussion will remain with me forever and has convinced me that focus is key, especially for a small team. Choose a couple of goals very carefully, communicate them clearly, and have everyone in the business working 80%-90% of their time on achieving them. Review them regularly and adapt where needed.<h3>The results that focus brings</h3>Returning to the business mentioned above, we helped them clarify their focus and refine their goals. After 3 months working with us, the CEO accepted the need for change. We helped him and the management team focus on 3 short-term goals only, aligning with the long-term vision but short-term enough to be comprehensible. All goals directly contributed to the bottom line. We aligned every discussion and decision to those 3 goals. The business saw its momentum increase and achieved significant milestones within the following 12 months.If you want to discuss this in more detail and understand what it means for your business right now, click <a data-mce-href="https://aldemis.com/contact" href="https://aldemis.com/contact">here </a>to contact us.

Blog

London Tech Week - What Should Series A Investors Ask?

The Eighteen-Month Architecture Decision: What Post-Seed ...

Aldemis Partners with Solas Compliance to Strengthen Tech...

Aldemis and Witstock Announce Strategic Partnership to De...

The Technology-Business Gap: A Guide for SaaS CEOs & CTOs

The importance of focus and alignment when scaling a busi...