Business Case or Gut Feeling? Why Financial Metrics Fail to Capture Systematic Acceleration
Why linear thinking and polished spreadsheets miss the compounding, exponential nature of real strategic decisions
I love numbers, and I trust my intuition. In my opinion the best results come from combining raw instinct with structured intelligence.
Linear brains in an exponential world
A business case assumes a linear trajectory. The world we operate in today is exponential. Systematic acceleration is the compounding velocity of an entire ecosystem — not the isolated return of a single initiative.
Take Jim Collins' famous flywheel concept. A business case only measures the cost of pushing the flywheel once. It fails to calculate the kinetic energy already stored in the wheel — the energy that makes the 10th push, and the 100th, effortless.
A race to the bottom
Most business cases capture cost avoidance and, at best, linear growth. What they miss are the ripple effects and the systematic acceleration across the bigger picture — in both directions.
An investment that looks weak on hard numbers alone can unlock acceleration we simply can't see yet, opening up entirely new potential.
A rock-solid business case can quietly wipe out an entire business by ignoring ripple effects and systemic linkage.
On paper it makes sense — until reality disagrees
A completely different example: the Swissair grounding. A solid arbitrage strategy on paper that missed a fundamental flaw in the system around it.
In the 1990s, Switzerland rejected membership in the European Economic Area, restricting Swissair's ability to operate freely across Europe. To counter this, McKinsey developed the "Hunter Strategy," aimed at securing a 20% European market share by buying equity stakes in other airlines.
- checkThe acquisitions: Swissair acquired stakes in a dozen carriers, most notably a 49.5% stake in the loss-making Belgian airline Sabena.
- checkThe fatal flaw: EU law prevented Swissair from taking full control of these foreign airlines — meaning Swissair was forced to keep absorbing their losses without ever having the operational authority to turn them around.
Black and white thinking: strategic direction vs. cycling revenue
There are two types of decisions: type 1 and type 2. Most decisions are actually reversible — type 2. Start with the why and the vision, define the direction, and start executing. Change course if things go wrong; adjust as you learn.
Small steps are often faster than the large implementation. Go too big, too early, and you either burn out or end up in discussions that go nowhere.
Who controls the levers
If a consultant tells you what to do, think again. It can be good advice, it can be bad advice — but ask yourself: why do we need this, and who profits from it? Financial numbers alone aren't enough. What's missing is strategic direction.
Polishing what isn't there
Never trust a chart you didn't build yourself. I can construct almost any business case if I tweak the assumptions, round a few numbers, add a bit of polish, and glue the pieces together the right way. Rip it apart. Break it down. Then decide if it still holds.
Calculating the risk of doing nothing
We calculate the risk of doing something rather than the risk of doing nothing. If we don't act, are we still relevant tomorrow? How do you innovate when you can't predict what innovation will even look like?
Things change
Things change during execution. Business cases get turned around, revisited, sometimes ripped apart entirely — That's business.