I am in a company that is making a somewhat painful transition to a new business model right now, with huge investment expense and a restructure of how we sell and support. Being of the "old school" but recently jumping to the "new school", I have questioned why you would be putting so much effort into transitioning for what is currently 10% of the business at the moment.
It wasnt until somebody explained that the majority of companies that fail under a period of change do so because they failed to get key shareholder or board approval for the change. They dont get to go ahead to invest in the air bag for the tree that they will invevitably hit. The explanation then went on to explain that, due to the way the company was funded, structured and supported at the top, we would be one of the few that would manage to jump the divide.
Now, Alexium is not necessarily in the same boat. Its business has started out in the "new school" from day one. But if we think of Alexiflam embodying old school time to market, typical of the chemicals industry, we see that glacial take up and stullified decision making is endemic in the industry. We rely on others with a different cadence, despite the obvious pressures the Toxic legislations have had. Alexicool, is new school time to market, presenting the end customer with new capability to transform their products. In the other case, we are replacing FR with FR, Alexicool is something new. So, given that, I was extremely impressed with the fast time to market of Alexicool and showed an ability to jump in an adaptable fashion to an immediate opportunity. Now was that Nick driving that, and what will happen when the next thing comes along?
So, as I said before, this doesnt new school speed doesnt happen without Board support. The last thing we want is the brakes on when the next good idea comes through the door. Forget these discussions on Board Member's gender, country or whether they have an annual ski pass or not. Does Gavin, and any new Appointee, have the ability to see an opportunity and back it, or know when an investment is worth pushing forward? Will they see it when we have to take the next big step up and be able to avoid the obvious on US Board listings, mergers/takeovers, partnerships and other transformative activities? Gavin has been around when such innovation has flowered, so for me that's of value. Our next appointee needs to be able to do the same and if people on the current Board are timeservers or single purpose people without vision or the ability to back change, then they shouldnt be there either.
