Skill: linuszz/business-definition (version 1.0.0)

--- name: business-definition description: "Determine unified vs separated business entities. Use for portfolio management, strategic planning, and restructuring decisions." --- # Business Definition ## Metadata - **Name**: business-definition - **Description**: Framework for defining unified vs separated businesses - **Triggers**: business definition, unified vs separated, portfolio structure, business units ## Instructions Apply business definition framework to determine organizational structure for strategic analysis. ## Framework ### The Definition Test ``` Unified Business IF: 1. Share customers? 2. Share brand? 3. Share assets/resources? 4. Share supply chain? 5. Share channels/distribution? AND: 6. Economies of scale or scope apply? 7. Common management/leadership? 8. Integrated planning across business? THEN → SAME BUSINESS IF ANY 'NO' → SEPARATE BUSINESSES ``` ### Business Unit Categories | Category | Description | When Unified | |-----------|-------------|------------| | **Product Leadership** | Same products across units | ✅ Yes | | **Market Leadership** | Same geographic focus | ✅ Yes | | **Operations** | Shared manufacturing, logistics | ✅ Yes | | **Sales & Marketing** | Shared channels, brand | ✅ Yes | | **Innovation/R&D** | Centralized development | ✅ Yes | | **Finance/Support** | Shared treasury, HR | ✅ Yes | ### Organizational Structures | Structure | Advantages | Disadvantages | |----------|----------------|------------------| | **Unified** | Synergy, efficiency, coordinated strategy | Complexity, slow decisions, potential conflicts | | **Holding Company** | Portfolio management, capital allocation, focused leadership | Agency costs, bureaucracy | | **Strategic Alliance** | Flexibility, shared expertise, reduced investment | Coordination costs, partner conflicts | | **Joint Venture** | Risk sharing, resource sharing | Profit sharing, governance complexity | | **Federated/Independent** | Agility, accountability, clear focus | Duplication, lack of synergy | ## Output Process 1. **Analyze current state** - What's the structure? 2. **Apply definition test** - Should we unify or separate? 3. **Identify synergies** - What value in integration? 4. **Define new structure** - Target organizational design 5. **Evaluate feasibility** - Culture, systems, capabilities 6. **Develop transition plan** - Timeline, steps, governance 7. **Assess value capture** - Benefits vs costs ## Output Format ``` ## Business Definition Analysis: [Company/Portfolio] ### Current Structure **Structure Type:** [Unified/Holding/Federated/Independent] **Business Units Analyzed:** N units **Shared Capabilities:** - [Capability 1] - [Description] - [Capability 2] - [Description] - [Capability 3] - [Description] ### Definition Test Results | Test Question | Result | Implication | |---------------|---------|--------------| | Share customers? | ✅ Yes | Potential cross-selling | | Share brand? | ✅ Yes | Brand consistency | | Share assets? | ✅ Yes | Asset optimization | | Share supply chain? | ✅ Yes | Cost efficiency | | Share channels? | ❌ No | Channel conflicts | | Common leadership? | ✅ Yes | Management coordination | | Integrated planning? | ❌ No | Planning autonomy | | Economies of scale? | ✅ Yes | Scale advantages | **Conclusion:** [Unified/Separate business structure] ### Proposed Structure **Target Structure:** [New structure type] **Rationale:** 1. [Reason 1] - [Why change?] 2. [Reason 2] - [Strategic benefit] 3. [Reason 3] - [Operational necessity] **Business Unit Alignment:** - [Unit A] → [New parent/placement] - [Unit B] → [New parent/placement] - [Unit C] → [New parent/placement] ### Transition Plan | Phase | Action | Owner | Timeline | |--------|--------|---------|------------| | Planning | Define new org structure | CEO | Q1 | | Design | Create governance model | Legal | Q2 | | Implementation | Transfer assets/people | Ops | Q3 | | Stabilization | Optimize processes | All Units | Q4 | ### Value Capture Assessment | Synergy Type | Estimated Value | Cost | Net Benefit | |------------|-----------------|----------|------------| | Cost reduction | $X M | $Y M | [Positive] | | Revenue enhancement | $X M | $Y M | [Positive] | | Capability leverage | $X M | $Y M | [Positive] | | **Total** | $Z M | $W M | [Net Value] | **ROI:** [Net Benefit / Cost] × 100% --- ### Risk Assessment | Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation | |------|---------|----------|-------------| | Disruption risk | High | High | [Mitigation] | | Synergy failure | Medium | High | [Mitigation] | | Cost overruns | Medium | Medium | [Mitigation] | | Governance complexity | Low | Low | [Mitigation] | --- ### Strategic Implications 1. **[Implication 1]** - [Analysis] 2. **[Implication 2]** - [Analysis] ### Governance Recommendations 1. **[Recommendation 1]** - [Description] 2. **[Recommendation 2]** - [Description] 3. **[Recommendation 3]** - [Description] ``` ## Tips - Don't force unification - structure should serve strategy - Consider cultural compatibility - can they work together? - Assess synergy potential realistically - don't assume automatic gains - Evaluate both benefits and costs - net value matters - Consider transition costs - often higher than expected - Governance is critical - define clear decision rights - Communicate transparently - manage expectations throughout ## References - Various organizational design and strategy sources - M&A case studies and corporate restructuring literature


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)