A mid-market manufacturer we worked with had funded initiatives in every one of the six strategic value levers at the same time, spread across different business units, with no priority order. Revenue programs, margin programs, differentiation programs, customer experience programs, ecosystem programs, governance programs. All running and none of them sequenced. The execution was chaotic, and the results were thin. By the end of the year, almost nothing had moved meaningfully on any single lever.
That is the version of the problem most CEOs do not see until the year-end review. The portfolio looks impressive on paper. The throughput is not there. The reason is rarely capability and almost always priority.
Over the past six posts, this series has walked through the value creation framework we use with mid-market manufacturers. The framework is not a checklist. It is a filter. By the time a project reaches a CEO for approval, the question has already narrowed to “should we fund this?”
The harder question, and the one that separates compounding companies from drifting ones, is “should this project exist at all, and ahead of what?"
Each of the 6 Strategic Value Levers asks a different question of any proposed initiative.
Revenue Growth asks whether the initiative grows the top line and, if so, through what mechanism. New customer acquisition, expansion within existing accounts, new product, new geography. If the mechanism cannot be named in a sentence, the growth is theoretical.
Margin Improvement asks whether the initiative generates more value from every dollar of revenue. We have seen direct gross margin gains of 30% from a single well-scoped pricing and process optimization initiative. Margin moves are quieter than revenue moves, but frequently more durable.
Differentiated Offerings asks a harder question than most companies admit. Does the initiative make your value proposition substitutable in fewer customer conversations than before? Most differentiation claims do not survive a serious customer interview. Your offerings that hold up are built into your operating model, not the marketing.
Customer Satisfaction is the lever most often dismissed as soft and most often underestimated in financial terms. Consider a $50M manufacturer running 15% EBITDA and 80% customer retention. Moving retention 5% from 80% to 85% lengthens expected customer lifetime by roughly a third, translating into 30 to 40% higher customer lifetime value per acquired customer. If the incremental revenue rides on existing fixed costs, EBITDA can expand anywhere from 30% to 60%+ over a multi-year period. The central scenario sits around 40 to 50% EBITDA growth, on a five-point retention gain. That is not a soft lever.
Engagement Across Your Ecosystem is the lever mid-market companies most often leave on the table. You need to involve employees, suppliers, channel partners, integrators, and communities. The mid-market manufacturers that punch above their weight typically do it by being materially easier to work with than their larger competitors.
Governance, Risk & Compliance asks whether the GRC initiative leaves you more investable, insurable, and sellable than when you started. The lever earns its place every time something goes wrong, which is the wrong time to learn its value.
A project that moves one lever significantly is worth a serious look. A project that moves three or more is the kind of program a CEO should personally sponsor. A project that moves none, regardless of how it was sold internally, is a budget line that survives only because no one has done the comparison.
Most strategic planning processes lose discipline at this comparison step. The conversation drifts toward whether a project is good in isolation, which is the wrong frame. Every project is good in isolation. The right frame is whether it earns its capital relative to other projects competing for the same dollars and operating capacity. The six levers exist to make that comparison concrete.
The manufacturer mentioned at the top of this piece, the one running initiatives in all six levers at once, did not have a portfolio problem in the strategic sense. The strategy was reasonable. What they had was a sequencing problem. Once we scored their funded initiatives against the levers and stack-ranked them, three programs were obvious priorities, four were obvious cuts, and the rest were candidates for deferral or rescoping. The total amount of capital did not change, but the pace of meaningful progress did.
Pulling the current portfolio and scoring it across the six levers is something an executive team can do in a two-hour session. The output is rarely a finished portfolio. It is a sharper conversation about what the company is actually trying to accomplish, and what the current investment mix says about that. Three patterns surface every time. A small number of programs score high across multiple levers and are usually under-resourced. A larger group scores moderately on one lever and is harder to defend on review. And a meaningful share scores low across the board, kept alive by political ownership rather than business return.
Your Executive Leadership Team needs to focus on an interlocked set of programs that drive Operational Excellence and Competitive Advantage
If your transformation portfolio exceeds your capacity to execute it, you are in the most common situation we see in mid-market manufacturing.
The next useful step is a forty-five-minute conversation about what you are funding, identifying your ideal future state, and detailing the gap between the two.
Pick a time on our calendar for a complimentary Customer Satisfaction work session. Click Now >>
