Startups don’t fail because they add systems too early. They fail because they add the wrong ones—or none at all.

Welcome back to Part 3 of this blog series. In Part 1, we discussed the importance of validating market fit before scaling. In Part 2, we focused on where founders add the most value—and where they must let go—to enable growth. Today, we turn to systems and why they matter, even for startups and scale-up companies.

Research consistently points to the same root cause behind failure at this stage: the inability to develop consistent, repeatable execution. Early-stage companies often rely on spreadsheets, ad-hoc workflows, and informal communication. While this can work in the beginning, it usually comes at the cost of long hours, miscommunication, inconsistent quality, and burnout. Many founders also assume that implementing structure is expensive or overly complex.

The reality is simpler: processes that work for a 2- or 10-person team do not work for a 30–50 person organization—or for supporting hundreds or thousands of customers. Without repeatable workflows, growth becomes chaotic.

Systems should define minimum viable operating discipline—not maximum process.

After years of working with small technology businesses implementing products for both small and large clients, I’ve learned that the solution isn’t large, complex systems. It’s having a small set of core systems that are non-negotiable—and knowing when additional rigor is required based on the company’s maturity and risk profile.

So which systems should you choose? The honest answer is “it depends,” but doing nothing is a guaranteed path to failure.

Consider a startup implementing software for two clients: one mid-sized customer and one “big fish”—a marquee client whose success could propel the company into the next tier.

In both cases, implementation should start with the same question: What outcome is the client expecting from the product? While client goals will differ, that does not mean you need entirely unique processes for every situation.

For the smaller client, baseline capabilities are typically sufficient: scope definition, quality control, schedule management, appropriate communication, and risk management. These form your minimum operating procedures for success. They give the team structure without unnecessary burden.

When those fundamentals are understood, teams can flex when needed—such as when landing a larger, higher-risk client.

The difference with larger clients is not entirely different processes, but additional diligence. Risk exposure is higher. Expectations are greater. You may need to increase rigor in specific areas:

• More robust quality assurance

• Greater flexibility in scope or features

• More frequent or structured communication to meet internal reporting needs

What you don’t want to do is promote “big client rigor” to the default operating model for every engagement.

Successful startups understand they can’t treat every client the same. But without baseline delivery expectations, every engagement becomes a one-off—and chaos follows. If your team can’t clearly articulate the minimum way work gets done—and when that bar needs to rise—you don’t have flexibility. You have fragility.

Do Right by supporting your clients, your team, and your risk.
Be Effective by scaling with intention—not chaos or burnout.