Decision playbooks

Start with the commercial job to be done

“Enter Vietnam” describes a geography, not a business model. Define the customer segment, the problem being solved, the proposition and the activities that need to happen locally. Selling into a market, sourcing from it and operating a facility involve different capabilities and dependencies.

Work backwards from the first credible commercial milestone. A useful entry thesis explains who is likely to buy, how access will be established, what delivery requires and which assumptions remain untested. Distinguish customer interest from an approved budget, and a potential distributor from a functioning route to market.

Questions for the first review

• What evidence supports demand within the specific target segment?
• Which activities need local ownership, people, systems or specialist support?
• What must be verified before selecting an entry structure?
• Which commitment can be staged, and what would trigger a pause?

Sequence the decision

Compare the commercial and operating implications of possible routes before asking qualified advisers to confirm their legal, tax and licensing feasibility. Record the dependencies between customer access, contracts, banking, hiring, facilities and delivery. A registration milestone should not be mistaken for operational readiness.

Qualify the process, not just the sample

A convincing sample can be produced under conditions that do not reflect normal production. Qualification examines the process that created it: equipment, people, input control, inspection, traceability, subcontracting and the handling of non-conforming work.

Define the product requirements and critical characteristics before comparing quotations. Ask suppliers to explain capacity on the relevant line, tooling responsibilities, change-control procedures and the constraints around materials or specialist processes. Where verification is needed, agree its scope with the appropriate technical team.

Build a qualification sequence

1. Screen commercial fit, capabilities and dependencies.
2. Review the relevant production process and control records.
3. Test against an agreed specification and acceptance criteria.
4. Run an appropriately scoped pilot, with documented corrective actions.
5. Agree escalation, review and change-control arrangements before scaling.

Make the comparison commercially complete

Compare the landed operating proposition, not only the quoted unit price. Include tooling, inspection, logistics, working-capital requirements, lead-time variability and responsibility for defects or rework. A supplier development plan should distinguish immediately available capability from capability that still needs investment or validation.

Organise the work around decision-changing questions

A large document collection is not the same as a tested investment thesis. Begin with the assumptions that materially affect the rationale: customer retention, demand, pricing power, competitive position, management dependence and the ability to deliver the proposed growth plan.

Separate a claim from the evidence supporting it. Historical performance, management forecasts, customer conversations and third-party market information have different strengths and limitations. Keep a visible record of source, date, verification method and confidence rather than flattening everything into one narrative.

Test the bridge from today to the plan

• Which customers and products explain the current commercial position?
• What dependencies sit behind the forecast: people, capacity, approvals or distribution?
• How exposed is performance to a small number of customers or counterparties?
• What would integration change, and who owns those actions?

Translate findings into options

For each material uncertainty, identify its relevance to the decision and a possible response: further verification, a revised operating plan, a negotiation priority or a condition for proceeding. Coordinate commercial findings with the qualified legal, financial, tax and technical workstreams without implying that one review substitutes for the others.

Move beyond a shared intention

Partners can agree on an ambition while holding different assumptions about contribution, pace and control. Before treating a relationship as an operating partnership, make the commercial roles explicit: customer access, technical contribution, facilities, working capital, management and day-to-day execution.

Ask each party to describe what the other is expected to provide, by when and against which evidence. Differences often become clearer when the conversation moves from a presentation to a realistic operating scenario, such as a delayed launch, a quality issue or a customer requiring additional investment.

Questions to settle early

• Which decisions are delegated and which require joint approval?
• Who owns the customer relationship, delivery obligation and service recovery?
• What information is shared, and how often is performance reviewed?
• How are missed commitments, deadlocks and changes of scope escalated?

Test the model under pressure

Use a small set of operational scenarios to test whether responsibilities and incentives remain workable. Document the governance concept and ask qualified legal advisers to translate agreed terms into the appropriate contractual arrangements. Commercial trust and a formal governance structure serve different purposes; neither removes the need for operating discipline.

Use readiness gates rather than a calendar alone

A launch date is useful for coordination, but it does not demonstrate readiness. Identify what must be true before the first customer commitment, first shipment, first payroll or first production run. Each milestone has dependencies across people, process, systems and external counterparties.

Build the plan around the minimum reliable operating capability. Assign one accountable owner to each workstream and make cross-functional handoffs explicit. A first-phase plan should show what can be delivered internally, what needs specialist support and which decisions remain with headquarters.

Review four kinds of readiness

• Commercial: customer scope, terms, fulfilment responsibilities and escalation.
• People: accountable leadership, roles, training and coverage for critical tasks.
• Controls: approval limits, records, reporting and issue management.
• Delivery: suppliers, facilities, systems and tested contingency arrangements.

Keep learning visible

During the early operating period, distinguish a one-off issue from a recurring constraint. Maintain an exception log with owner, impact, action and review date. Update the plan when evidence changes rather than reporting only activity completed. The aim is a controlled transition to repeatable delivery, not a list of tasks marked green.

Translate the process into location requirements

A location comparison should begin with what the operation needs, not which industrial park has the most persuasive brochure. Define the process, throughput, labour and technical requirements, logistics pattern, utilities, supplier dependencies and the conditions that must be confirmed before commitment.

Separate available infrastructure from usable capacity. A general description of power, water or connectivity is not a project-specific confirmation. Where a constraint could affect the operating case, identify the appropriate technical or specialist verification and record its assumptions, timing and scope.

Compare locations on the same basis

• Access to customers, critical inputs and relevant supplier capability.
• Recruitment requirements, training needs and management availability.
• Inbound and outbound transport patterns, not just distance to a port.
• Facility suitability, utility readiness and expansion constraints.
• Implementation dependencies and the cost of a delayed or phased start.

Keep unresolved risks in the comparison

A scoring model is helpful only when its weights reflect the actual operation. Show both the comparative score and any unresolved constraint that could invalidate a location. Ask qualified advisers to confirm land, licensing and contractual matters separately. Retain a record of visits, counterpart discussions and dated evidence so that the shortlist can be reviewed as the project develops.