vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"I used to manage a start-up fast-casual restaurant that was owned by the largest franchisers of a non-related coffee shop. None of the guys that owned the coffee shop or my restaurant had gone to school for business management. The most they'd done is advertising (and frankly they were shit at it).   &amp;nbsp;  90% of what you need to run a successful business is going to be on the front end. Knowing how to manage employees, balance your labor hours with your revenue, knowing how and when to utilize different food products, knowing trends in the area, and being able to take all of that and apply it to a crowd of people who are predominantly going to be younger employees that don't has nearly as much vested in it as you. Good management is consistency and nit-picking. You have to drill the same thing, over and over, until it becomes muscle memory.   &amp;nbsp;  Have you tried talking to the owners about franchising? I'm assuming this isn't a franchise and is just a private shop. Being able to franchise this café will not only give you the support you need from experienced professionals to run the same business but will also allow you to build on the customer base they've grown. You can come to the table with, ""I'll put XX in, pay you XX in royalties, and I want to have a say in the business operation as a primary franchisor."""
No, in my opinion, a company exists to accomplish the goals of it's owner(s). If the owners want to be willing to give up some of the bottom line to help people in their community then that is fine.  If however the owners are primarily concerned with maximizing profit, then they should do whatever is necessary to maximize profit. In the case of a publicly traded company like Wal-Mart, I would assume that the shareholders are primarily concerned with the company profits and as such, management should take whatever steps necessary to maximize those profits.  Additionally, don't forget that for that American that lost his/her job,  a person from China gained a job. Are Chinese people less important than American people?
"Synergy is when a relationship makes its members stronger. ""Relationships"" doesn't cut it. Results and [ROI](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/returnoninvestment.asp) are very different. If a subordinate brings an insignificant problem to their manager, ""be realistic"" doesn't have quite the kick that ""deal with it"" does, IMO, but I'll give it to you. I'm not sure what you're getting at with ""Expectations? Goals?"", but managing expectations is conveyed in neither.  Your terms do not suffice, and your lack of understanding leads me to believe that you're either really junior or not in business at all."
How the ruddy hell can a business keep on reporting increase in profits year over year, especially an entity like mcdonalds in a field like fast food. Deeply entrenched in a fast paced competition, and yet stable with its universal brand recognition. Unless you expand into fringe markets like infant fast food or some bizarre explored stuff like that.
I agree with you on that. The larger the purchase the more important the CEO.  However, you are a looking at the CEO from a B2B perspective. I am trying to see the CEO from a B2C perspective. And I am also trying to identify which aspects of the CEO that are the most vital/prominent in the decision making process in a B2C situation.
"I'd start by asking yourself why you need a business plan. Is it for you, or for raising funds?  If it's for you, I'd distinguish between ""writing a business plan"" and ""business planning."" Not the same thing - there are much more time-efficient ways to do the latter, such as Business Model Generation and Customer Development.  If you're fund-raising, the content of your plan will depend on if you're seeking investment or bank loans. Being clear about the purpose of your plan, and the stage of your business, will help people better answer your question."
As JB hints, it is likely due to superior or improving, fundamentals. If the fundamentals of a company improve then its ability to repay loans improves. If its ability to repay improves then more sources of cash become willing to lend to the company. Also if fundamentals are improving then more sources are willing to buy and/or hold the stock.
"Things are the way they are because they got that way.   - Gerald Weinberg Banks have been in business for a very long time. Yet, much of what we take for granted in terms of technology (capabilities, capacity, and cost) are relatively recent developments. Banks are often stuck on older platforms (mainframe, for instance) where the cost of redundant online storage far exceeds the commodity price consumers take for granted. Similarly, software enhancements that require back-end changes can be more complicated. Moreover, unless there's a buck (or billion) to be made, banks just tend to move slowly compared to the rest of the business world. Overcoming ""but we've always done it that way"" is an incredible hurdle in a large, established organization like a bank — and so things don't generally improve without great effort. I've had friends who've worked inside technology divisions at big banks tell me as much. A smaller bank with less historical technical debt and organizational overhead might be more likely to fix a problem like this, but I doubt the biggest banks lose any sleep over it."
"This line of thinking is wrong.  You don't control time, you control place.  The secret to winning is to ALWAYS BE OUT THERE.  If you're constantly 24/7 selling your wares, you're going to get ""lucky"" and make a few great sales.  Being at the right place at the right time means ALWAYS BEING IN NEW AND DIFFERENT PLACES UNTIL YOU HIT THE RIGHT TIME.  This is why food trucks do so well.  You travel until you hit the ""right place at the right time"".  You can call this luck.  Sure to some degree it is.  But the real secret is just to work harder and longer than everyone else.  That's how you get ""lucky""."
This sounds like a real consistency issue, then. When it comes to saying one thing and doing another with regard to spending money it seems common that a company just hasn't figured out why that kind of consistency is important.  To me it's a question of ROI. If a company insists on huge money-blowing events, what's the return? What is that event supposed to achieve, and is it worth it? Huge money blowing events can certainly be worth it when they actually generate long-term sales, significantly boost employee morale (in turn generating sales, hopefully) or similar. But as you obviously know, if all the employees involved in the event feel like it's bullshit before, during, and after it goes down then somebody didn't really look at the ROI before approving it.
Early stage investors by their nature prefer opportunities which are disruptive to existing technologies. They look for a ‘big idea’ in a relatively small but rapidly expanding market. They don’t tend to be attracted to marginal improvements which yield marginal returns. They’re in the business of betting on the nature of the next new world.
An ACN Company Review: Is the ACN MLM Business Model a Success?  As we take a moment to deem great companies or opportunities we will have to take a step back and make sure that the information we will be using is accurate and does not have a skewed viewpoint. Often times the people that write company reviews hold a motivation for writing these articles, as they may represent the corporation or know people within the organization. I guess that’s the case here… I just got involved with ACN about three months ago. I feel lucky that this residual income platform was introduced to me. My goal here is to provide a clear concise objective snapshot of the company that I’ve chosen to partner with.
This is not good advice, it's all buzzwords with no substance. Obsession can help but can be just as much of a hindrance when it has to be perfect rather than profitable. No exit strategy is a great way to lose your house. It's great having employees who love working for you but if they're not competent workers, they're not going to be productive. Et cetera.  The only advice you should take here is to not hire a PR firm since it's easy to see what PR firms would do and copy the parts you think will work for you (basically: setup a functional website and some social media accounts)
Most of the money gained through PE is done through financial engineering/deal structuring. There are funds that are operationally focused which do make changes on the portfolio company level. From what I have seen, most people who are operationally focused do not achieve that much in the way of results. Picture it as consulting, except that the results of your initiatives are actually important.    As for turn-arounds, there are funds that specialize in that. Golden Gate Capital comes to mind. These are far more exciting investments, but can be very frustrating. If you want to look at it in terms of the public markets, turnarounds in PE are essentially levered value investments. It is likely that you aren't going to change the business much, but are actually just buying an out-of-favor business and waiting on the industry to bounce back.    The argument that PE funds just gut companies and sell with the new higher operating profitability is somewhat flawed. There is really only so much cost cutting you can do, once you have fired staff or corrected a mistake you won't likely have more chances to gain from that original problem. What people should be criticizing is that funds often cut capex and reinvestment to increase results at the expense of the future profitability of the company.
You create products and services that aren't tied to your personal hours worked. They generate income, like a golden egg. They need various amounts of care, but in general, they have a positive return on time spent on it. The returns can be 1000x even, like the one man who created flappy bird. Luck helps too, in those cases :)  The author of that article, on the other hand, is selling his time, not a product. That doesn't scale well, especially if you're one human.
Adopting the appreciative inquiry note, advocates suggest that instead of focussing on what causes employees to leave, companies should focus on what causes them to stay. Research conducted in this area has uncovered many variables that help people stay on board. These three major variables are fit, connection and sacrifice.
This is focused on communication rather than the decision process.  Communication is flat but decisions can follow a structure.    Many managers out there force employees to follow the structure.  Musk is right, that is self-serving.    This is an awesome memo.  I've worked in places that needed that memo printed on every door.
You are confusing two things.  One is the business side and the other is the social safety net.  I believe very strongly in a social safety net.  I do not believe in a business safety net.  If you don't want progress then have central planning. Let the central planners work out how much to make of everything and direct employers on how many people to employ.  There won't be any overt creative destruction. There will however be a significant decrease in prosperity.  It is like getting a lower rate of interest - doesn't seem to be so bad in the short term, but really bites in the long term.
It gives you a strong fundamental understanding of the operations of a business and can be leveraged into various areas within a business. It also gives you a wide range of opportunities from auditing, investment banking, consulting, and finance based on your drive and interests. It also has strong future job growth and good career progression.
By taking the decisions which are not conducive to the desired profit level and, in this case, to talks about laying off people. They may forget it often, but every relevant decision in the business falls on an executive whether they take it directly or not.
Maybe have a more clearly stated goal and plan to get there. Were they selling just a nicely built machine no one needs (the single design flaw) or were they trying to sell us a way to buy their juice repeatedly and maintain revenue.
so you'd rather work with someone who doesn't set boundaries and is willing to sacrifice family relationships and personal obligations?  This provides short-term profitability at a substantial cost in employee morale, long-term productivity, and turnover.  Yes, there are some industries that thrive on the latter (e.g, Wall Street), but most of those people have a short horizon of employability in those areas (make your fortune and scram).  Startups may have the same attitude.  But if you are planning to have a stable career (as an employee), or if you are an employer who wants loyal employees and long-term stability (and yes, profitability), this is just a recipe for disaster.
Some innovations increase productivity quite a bit. So in the long run, innovations is a main driver or economical growth. And innovation is fueled by, indeed, debt.  The straight curve in the video, the economical growth, should not be a straight line, but a upwardly curved one. It cannot go down because innovations in productivity are not lost (I challenge you for an example contradicting this.  Normally, every upward cycle should create an extra increase in productivity. The government also plays a role in stimulating innovation.  I loved this video btw.
They get a piece of existing and potential market for a relatively small cost. Even large players can't ignore new market entrants,as some of them tend to grow at a fascinating rate. If you buy a company withhuge potential to grow, you save yourself in the process and also make money long term.
In highly developed and competitive industries companies tread a continuous and very fine line between maximising shareholder profits by keeping prices up while making products as cheaply as possible, vs competitors lowering prices when they work out a way to make equivalents cheaper. In the short run you will quite often see companies hold onto large portions of efficiency savings (particularly if they make a major breakthrough in a specific manufacturing process etc) by holding old prices up, but in the long run competition pretty quickly lowers prices as the companies trying to keep high margins and prices get ruthlessly undercut by smaller competitors happy to make a bit less.
Well the stated intended goal for the organization is to change the car market and they seem to have been very successful at that so far. I see where you're coming from, but I think you're using a different measuring stick than what is intended for their strategy.   They released all their patents. That should be a great indicator of what success means for them.
The question isn't sales but profits. Banks traditionally profit by making loans. Just as with a physical product, there are costs involved, income produced, and the difference between the two is gross profit. From there you can get net profit, and from there you can look at efficiency or profit per share or whatever other metric floats your boat. Or you can just  buy index funds, get average rates of return, and not have to think about it.
In addition to all the complete sample plans, Business plan includes example content for every text item in your business plan. Browse through a few examples to get an idea how others he worded their Executive Summary, for instance. Find an good that really works for you? One click adds it right into your plan. Then you can personalize it to fit your business and business management are best tips.
My entrepreneurship prof said that in most cases if you really believe in your product/idea and it is differentiated from what exists already, you can afford to have someone steal your idea and try to make a go of it because you should still be able to do a much better job of it than they can, and their heart isnt in it the way yours is.   I think ultimately it really depends on the product though. You definitely don't want to try going 2nd to market against someone with superior resources unless you can 100% beat their version of the product by a good margin (either on price or quality and hopefully both) and you can scale up quickly
I don't understand why these things are always either/or. It's not just lucky circumstances and it's not just hard work that makes someone successful. Example abound of rich kids who don't pan out and poor kids who make it.   Personally, I had access to a good education growing up and I pushed myself hard to capitalize on it. Luck is the access, but hard work was necessary to convert. I've had success in my career. Part of it is that I had opportunities to tackle tough challenges, but I also pushed to convert on those opportunities.
Anyone have any ideas or suggestions for how a delivery startup can separate itself from the rest?   It seems they are all following the same business model and pattern as one another.  They only one that seems slightly different is Caviar with its curated approach. But, even that isn't a change in business model. It's just a change in marketing.
"&gt;a startup has every intention of doing right.  Most self-identified ""startups"" I have known (as distinguished from actual profit-seeking ""small businesses"") have, as their primary intent, the long-term goal of *selling shares to investors*.   This is different from an actual *business* that sells products to customers. I'm sometimes a little skeptical."
. Implementing latest principle that will keep simple and stupid, the target ad will be blustering with responses from the audience. Such responses show the business dominance in market.  So following such successful advertisiments will surely make your position on top.
"The answer to your question depends on what you mean when you say ""growth"". If you mean a literal increase in the aggregate market capitalization of companies, across the entire market, then, no, this sort of growth is not possible without concomitant economic growth. The reason why is that the market capitalization of each company is proportional to its gross revenue, and the sum of all revenue from selling ""final goods"" (i.e., things purchased and used by consumers) is, apart from a few technicalities, the definition of GDP. The exact multiplier might fluctuate up or down depending on investors' expectations about how sales will grow or decline going forward, but in a zero-growth economy this multiplier should be stable over the long run. It might, however, still fluctuate over the short term, but more about that in a minute. Note that all of this applies to aggregate growth across all firms. Individual firms can still grow, of course, but as they must do this by gaining market share from other companies such growth would be balanced by a decline for some other firm. Also, I've assumed zero net exports (that's one of the ""technicalities"" I mentioned above) because obviously you could have export-driven growth even if the domestic economy were stationary. However, often when people talk about ""growth"" in the market, what they really mean is ""return"". That is, how much does your investment earn for you. This isn't really the same thing as growth, but people often think of it that way, particularly in the saving phase of their investing career, when they are reinvesting their returns, and therefore their account balances are growing. It is possible to have a positive return, averaged across the market, even in a stationary economy. The reason why is that there are really only two things a firm can do with its net profits. One possibility is that it could invest it in growing the business. However, there is not much point in doing that in a stationary economy because by assumption no increase in aggregate consumption (and therefore, in the long run, aggregate production) are possible. Therefore, firms are left with only the second option, which is to pay them out to investors as dividends.
I have a hard time swallowing this opinion from somebody who actually thinks startups can or should get into a contract with anybody stipulating continuing employment.  Nobody does that.  If that was done, any VC worth their salt would insist that it be undone before they got involved.  As for the rest of her article, I don't care for the venom but underneath theres a lot of stuff that's mostly true.  VCs have a set of motivations that you have to understand to be successful with them.  Those motivations are often at cross purposes with cofounders and almost certainly at cross purposes for general employees.  The problems start when startup folks don't understand the motivations.    Yes, you have to check your wallet and your fingers too whenever you deal with VCs but if you don't think that's the case with almost every deal you make, you are delusional.
While losing market share. That's the required context to understand why their model isn't working.   Price hikes reduced their losses but people still jumped ship. Their top line growth is a result of market growth and not competitive growth as a company.
Hey thanks for all of this info! I've been here with the owners since they've opened and I'm slowly rising to the top, I think they'll offer me management soon because they need someone but I'm really in no rush to offer any personal business ideas to them. I'd like to learn all I need before I even consider it. As I said elsewhere I'm only 20 so this is still early days I would just like a good grasp of what to expect and you've certainly delivered that.  I'll definitely check that movie out
"&gt; ""We are making progress on the strategic priorities we outlined earlier this year and remain focused on returning our Company to profitability,"" Sears Holdings CEO Eddie Lampert said in a statement.  It's been how many years? I'm impressed that it could last this long, but if it hasn't happened by now, it's not going to happen, ever. Maybe it would if they got new leadership. In fact,   &gt; We are primarily focused on profitability instead of revenues, market share and other metrics which relate to but don’t necessarily drive profit.   in 2014.   &gt; To this end, we have set out to improve the profitability of our business model. Our objective is disciplined growth. We do not want to grow simply for the sake of becoming bigger. Rather, our aim is to become more profitable, and as such we need to ensure that any revenue growth occurs at an appropriate level of profitability.  2007. [Source](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1310067/000119312507043471/dex992.htm). He's been saying the same line for at least 10 years  I may be a naysayer, but I would absolutely love being proved wrong by Mr. Lampert"
"There is no secret sauce. Leadership and good decision making is an organic process. Sometimes, the Sr. VP is going to say, ""This quarter, it was more important to expand X through hiring than it was to upgrade Y infrastructure. Next quarter, we'll do Y. I know it sucks to have your project delayed, because you've worked very hard on it, but that's the decision we've made.""  The difficulty is when corporations get to the point where everyone is running around CYA, instead of admitting that real business constraints can mean that the best-laid plans have to be scrapped or delayed."
That's an interesting observation. Do you have any examples?   I wonder if this topic has been research: is it better to spend cash up-front to kill a threat than to concede some market share and earn less for longer in the future? Surely, the target company knows they are a strategic asset, and won't sell themselves cheap.