The document discusses FantasTapps, a company started by William Gallstone in 2010 to develop mobile apps related to coffee and tea. It describes FantasTapps' initial success with its first app, CoffeeRadar, and development of additional apps. However, over time some apps did not perform as well as expected and issues arose regarding app development processes. The document considers different strategies for FantasTapps' portfolio of apps going forward, such as maintaining existing apps versus investing further in them, as well as potentially developing new apps or markets. It notes that simply throwing more money at problems may not solve them and changing course based on new information could lead to better outcomes if done sensibly.

1. 1

2. 2

3. 3

4. 4

5. Next
three
slides
enact
“entering
the
bubblesphere.”
You
start
with
the
opera=onal
team
view
(short
term,
one
project),
broaden
to
the
PMO
view
(annual
and
for
all
projects),
and
then
jump
to
the
porHolio
view
(prospec=ve
and
strategic
over
life
of
project).
5

6. X
axis
shows
days,
and
opera=onal
teams
are
rightly
focused
on
hiLng
full
scope
each
itera=on.
6

7. X
axis
s=ll
shows
days,
but
program
managers
are
rightly
focused
on
how
the
overall
set
of
projects
are
performing,
and
when
they
will
be
done.
7

8. You’re
in
the
bubblesphere!
Y
axis
indicates
probability
of
success
(0-­‐1).
X
axis
indicates
net
present
value
of
each
project.
Size
of
dot
indicates
overall
likely
income
from
project
over
its
life=me.
8

9. 9

10. Note
this
porHolio
has
no
“low
risk,
high
return
items,”
and
one
high
risk,
high
return
item.
They’re
avoiding
high
risk/low
return
except
for
one
large-­‐ish
project.
I
wouldn’t
want
this
porHolio.
Kill
high
risk,
low
return
projects
in
favor
of
a
combina=on
of
high
and
low
risk
projects
with
some
returns,
preferably
large
ones.
Other
dimensions
you
might
want
to
bubble
chart:
costs,
=me,
return
on
investments
towards
different
balanced
score
card
values,
so
long
as
they
are
quan=ta=ve,
regulatory
compliance,
opera=onal
cost,
etc.
You
can
use
bubble
charts
for
any
combina=on
of
three
dimensions
on
your
porHolio.
10

11. FantasTapps
was
incorporated
by
CEO
William
Gallstone
in
2010
with
a
low-­‐interest
loan
of
$1.5M
(from
his
dad).
The
loan
was
based
on
a
promising
mobile
phone
applica=on,
CoffeeRadar,
designed
by
William.
The
app
was
launched
mid-­‐February,
2010,
to
immediate
acclaim,
and
although
the
code
quality
was
quite
low,
and
showed
the
team's
lack
of
experience,
and
maintenance
costs
on
CoffeeRadar
were
high,
it
s=ll
showed
a
good
return
on
investment
by
the
end
of
2010,
with
net
profits
of
$390,000
for
the
year.
Based
on
the
success
of
this
app,
which
was
supported
on
Android,
Apple,
and
Blackberry
plaHorms,
Gallstone's
team
used
most
of
the
remaining
loan
to
develop
three
addi=onal
applica=ons
in
the
second
half
of
2010,
and
launched
them
during
the
winter
holiday
season,
because
what
says
"Happy
Holidays"
like
a
new
coffee-­‐related
phone
app?
The
FantasTapps
team
addi=onally
designed
a
fimh
applica=on
which
was
unlike
anything
they
had
developed
before,
being
tea-­‐oriented,
with
the
plan
to
launch
some=me
in
2011.
Based
on
the
returns
of
CoffeeRadar,
FantasTapps
expects
to
get
a
3
for
1
return
on
investment
once
TeaRadar
launches.
11

12. 12

13. Looks
really
good!
Upper
right
=
CoffeeFinder,
their
anchor
app.
They
expect
2011
returns
to
be
on
par
with
2010.
Meanwhile,
they
hope
great
things
for
TeaFinder,
lower
right.
And
to
keep
things
moving
along,
they
have
avoided
high
risk,
low
return
projects
in
favor
of
low
risk,
low
return
projects
for
now,
that
s=ll
look
to
be
genera=ng
income
for
years
to
come.
13

14. Looks
good!
They
won’t
quite
pay
off
William’s
dad,
but
this
looks
to
be
an
excellent
year-­‐on-­‐year
return.
14

15. 15

16. Although
CaffeineTester,
LaqeSwirlDesigner,
and
VirtualCreamSnimer
all
went
live
as
planned
in
Q1,
sales
on
VirtualCreamSnimer
have
been
unexpectedly
low.
Boris
assures
William
that
things
are
about
to
get
beqer.
Meanwhile,
CoffeeRadar
2.0
did
not
go
live
in
Q1
as
planned
because
the
development
group,
frustrated
with
low
quality,
has
decided
to
adhere
to
CMM
level
5
standards,
and
although
product
management
has
signed
off
on
2.0
as
ready
to
ship,
IT
won’t
do
it
un=l
all
documenta=on
is
brought
up
to
spec.
Although
the
virtual
stand-­‐s=ll
in
new
feature
development
led
to
lower
than
expected
maintenance
costs
in
Q2,
sales
on
CoffeeRadar
have
been
dropping
as
compe=tors
come
out
with
their
own
applica=ons
for
finding
coffee
in
the
wild.
The
TeaRadar
team
is
ready
to
ship
a
free
version
of
their
app
in
Q3,
but
they
require
another
$200K
investment
to
get
the
paid
version
of
the
app
into
the
various
app
stores
by
the
end
of
the
year.
Based
on
what
he
sees
now,
William’s
dad
feels
that
William
going
to
lose
money
this
year,
and
go
down
to
only
$22K
in
cash
reserves.
All
the
same,
he
strongly
feels
William
and
the
board
should
s=ck
to
the
original
budget,
and
just
make
the
teams
work
harder
in
H2,
to
cover
the
shorHall.
16

17. 17

18. CaffeineTester:
despite
the
complete
lack
of
compe=tors
at
the
start
of
2010,
two
new
ones
sprang
up
in
Q32011.
A
maintenance
only
strategy
causes
the
demand
to
drop
to
0.
An
investment
strategy
extends
the
product’s
lead
and
causes
a
5-­‐fold
return
on
investment.
LaqeSwirlDesigner:
OMG,
they
opened
the
China
market.
Maintain-­‐only
=
Q2
-­‐
$20K
+
$1M.
Investment
brings
5-­‐fold
return
on
investment
over
and
above
this
amount.
VirtualCreamSnimer:
Boris
went
completely
off
the
rails
charging
things
to
the
company
credit
card.
The
applica=on
tanked,
and
your
resource
costs,
adver=sing,
and
travel
budget
is
sinking
any
profits
you
had
made.
You
have
been
completely
taken
over
by
compe=tors
and
the
your
lead
developer
has
lem
the
company.
Income
is
zero,
plus
subtract
whatever
you
invested,
and
another
$200K
to
cover
Boris’s
crazy
expenses.
CoffeeRadar:
you
can’t
solve
this
problem
just
by
throwing
money
at
it.
Maintain:
Q2
Revenue
-­‐
40%
=
$60,000.
Also
subtract
$170,000.00
as
you
had
to
bring
on
contractors
to
just
maintain
the
product
as
your
internal
employees
are
now
working
on
the
update
=
-­‐110K
Invest
-­‐
Take
what
you
invested
and
mul=ply
by
3,
then
subtract
from
-­‐110K,
because
throwing
money
at
the
problem
only
made
it
worse.
IT
hired
a
slew
of
tech
writers
who
all
had
to
be
brought
up
to
speed,
addi=onal
18

19. 19

20. CaffeineTester:
Maintenance-­‐only
leads
to
a
10%
decrease
in
profits.
An
investment
strategy
extends
the
product’s
lead
and
causes
a
2-­‐fold
return
on
investment.
LaqeSwirlDesigner:
Maintain-­‐only
=
Q3
–
20%.
Investment
brings
2-­‐fold
return
on
investment
over
and
above
Q3
returns.
VirtualCreamSnimer:
Not
even
an
op=on.
Dead
as
a
duck.
CoffeeRadar:
you
s=ll
can’t
solve
this
problem
just
by
throwing
money
at
it.
Maintain:
Q3
Revenue
-­‐
40%
=
$36,000.
Also
subtract
$170,000.00
as
you
had
to
bring
on
contractors
to
just
maintain
the
product
as
your
internal
employees
are
now
working
on
the
update
=
-­‐134K
Invest
-­‐
Take
what
you
invested
and
mul=ply
by
3,
then
subtract
from
-­‐134K,
because
throwing
money
at
the
problem
only
made
it
worse.
IT
hired
a
slew
of
tech
writers
who
all
had
to
be
brought
up
to
speed,
addi=onal
hardware
was
purchased,
etc.
TeaRadar.
If
you
invested,
you
get
$1.5M.
It
totally
took
off,
especially
now
that
you
have
a
foothold
in
China.
If
you
didn’t,
you
don’t
get
anything.
20

21. 21

22. PorHolio
strategies
to
correct
“the
plan”
include:
• Less
op=misim
about
VirtualCreamSnimer
• Factor
in
poten=al
China
market
for
LaqeSwirlDesigner
• Update
compe==ve
informa=on
about
CaffeineDetector
PorHolio
strategies
to
beat
“the
plan”
include:
To
really
win,
though,
you
need
a
new
governance
model
for
the
plaHorm
app
which
allows
for
quicker
go-­‐live.
• Invest
in
CoffeeSwirlDesigner
and/or
LaqeSwirlDesigner
• Kill
VirtualCreamSnimer
22

23. Likely
findings:
-­‐ Throwing
money
at
a
process
problem
doesn’t
help
-­‐ You
have
to
spend
money
to
make
money
-­‐ Changing
course
based
on
coalface
knowledge
leads
to
a
beqer
overall
result,
if
the
team
is
sensible.
23

24. Likely
findings:
-­‐ You
have
to
spend
money
to
make
money
-­‐ Changing
course
based
on
coalface
knowledge
leads
to
a
beqer
overall
result,
if
the
team
is
sensible.
24