The Growth System

The "What Should I Do Next?" Engine: Why Business Leaders Are Asking the Wrong Question About Data

Ali AlSharif — Sun, 31 May 2026 09:45:50 GMT

There is a quiet crisis playing out inside commercial organizations right now. It does not show up on a P&L. It does not trigger an alarm in your BI tool. But it is costing companies millions in missed opportunities, delayed responses, and frontline paralysis every single quarter.

The crisis is this: we have built the most sophisticated data collection infrastructure in the history of commerce, and yet the most common question asked in sales meetings, category reviews, and operations calls remains the same as it was twenty years ago.

“So... what do we do now?”

We have more data than ever. We have less clarity than ever. And the gap between the two is not a data problem. It is an architecture problem.

The Dashboard Trap

The conventional response to commercial complexity has been to build better dashboards. More granular. More real-time. More visually compelling. The assumption is that if leaders can just see the data clearly enough, the right decisions will follow naturally.

This assumption is wrong.

What dashboards produce is not clarity. They produce awareness without direction. A well-built dashboard tells you that SKU velocity dropped 12% in a key account last week. It does not tell you whether that is a pricing problem, a distribution problem, a promotional timing issue, or a competitor move. It gives you a signal and then leaves you standing in front of it, waiting for insight to arrive on its own.

The result is analysis paralysis. Teams spend hours in meetings reviewing the same charts, debating interpretations, and circling back to questions that should have been answered in minutes. The data is present. The decision is absent. And by the time consensus forms around an action, the window to act has often already closed.

Raw data, without a system to translate it into directed action, is not an asset. It is a liability. It consumes attention, generates noise, and creates the illusion of informed management while the real work of decision-making gets deferred, delegated, or avoided entirely.

The Real Problem: Closing the Loop

Most commercial organizations have invested heavily in the input side of the intelligence equation. They track sell-out data. They monitor inventory levels. They capture promotional performance. They receive competitive pricing alerts. The infrastructure for collecting signals is, in many cases, genuinely impressive.

What they have not built is the output side. The part that takes a signal, runs it through a decision logic, and delivers a clear directive to the person or system that needs to act.

This is the real challenge. Not data collection. Not visualization. Not even analysis.

The challenge is architecting a decision system that closes the loop between insight and action, consistently, at scale, without requiring a senior leader to be in the room every time a commercial condition change.

Until that loop is closed, organizations will continue to drown in insights they cannot act on. Frontline teams will continue to improvise responses to market dynamics that should have been pre-solved. And leadership will continue to confuse being data-rich with being decision-ready.

They are not the same thing.

Introducing the NBA Decision Framework

Over the course of working with commercial teams across FMCG, consumer electronics, and retail environments, I developed a framework for thinking about this problem in a way that is both structurally sound and practically implementable.

I call it the NBA Decision Framework. Not because it has anything to do with basketball, but because it maps the three components that any functioning commercial decision system must have: Next Best Action.

The framework operates on three layers, each dependent on the one before it.

Layer One: Inputs

The inputs layer is where most organizations already live. It includes the real-time and near-real-time data streams that describe current commercial conditions: sales velocity by SKU and account, inventory levels across distribution points, promotional uptake rates, competitor pricing shifts, shelf compliance data, and demand signals from digital and physical channels.

These are granular, transactional metrics. They are the language the market speaks moment to moment. The mistake most organizations make is treating the collection of these inputs as the end goal, when it is actually just the beginning.

Inputs without logic are noise. The value of inputs is entirely dependent on what happens next.

Layer Two: Logic Gates

This is the layer that most commercial organizations have not built, and it is where the real leverage lives.

Logic gates are predefined decision rules that connect specific input conditions to specific output actions. They are the “if this, then that” architecture of commercial intelligence. They are built by leaders who understand the business deeply enough to pre-solve the most common decision scenarios the organization will face.

A simple example: IF sales velocity for SKU X drops 15% over a rolling seven-day window AND competitor Y reduces shelf price by 5% or more in the same category, THEN trigger a price adjustment review for SKU X AND send an automated alert to the relevant sales team AND flag the account for priority review in the next commercial meeting.

That rule did not require a manager to be watching a dashboard. It did not require a weekly review meeting to surface the issue. It did not require a chain of emails to establish what happened, why it happened, and what should happen next. The logic gate handled all of that automatically the moment the conditions were met.

The power of logic gates is not that they eliminate judgment. It is that they eliminate the need for judgment on decisions that have already been made. The hard thinking happens upfront, when the rules are being designed. What follows is consistent, rapid execution.

This is the difference between a reactive organization and a responsive one. A reactive organization sees what happened and debates what to do. A responsive organization pre-decides what to do when specific things happen, and executes without friction.

Layer Three: Outputs

Outputs are the prescriptive actions that the framework delivers to the relevant team, system, or decision-maker once a logic gate is triggered. They are not reports. They are not alerts. They are directives.

A dynamic pricing update sent directly to the commercial system. A targeted promotional campaign triggered in response to a competitor move. A stock reallocation order generated when inventory levels fall below a threshold in a high-velocity account. A task assigned to a field team to investigate a compliance deviation on a key planogram.

Outputs should be specific, assignable, and time-bound. They should tell the recipient not just what happened, but exactly what action is required, by whom, and by when. The goal is to eliminate the cognitive load of “what now?” entirely for frontline and mid-level commercial teams, so that their energy goes into execution rather than interpretation.

Why This Matters More Than You Think

The organizations that will win the next decade of commercial competition will not be the ones with the most data. That race is already over, and the gap between leaders and laggards is narrowing quickly as AI technology becomes more accessible.

The organizations that will win are the ones that can translate commercial intelligence into consistent frontline action faster than their competitors. Speed of decision and quality of execution, not sophistication of reporting, will be the defining competitive variable.

The NBA Decision Framework is not a technology solution. It is an operating architecture. It can be implemented with sophisticated AI and machine learning systems. It can also be implemented with well-designed spreadsheet logic and clear process rules. The tool matters less than the thinking behind it.

What it requires is leaders who are willing to do the hard work of pre-solving decisions, committing to decision rules in advance, and building the systems to enforce them consistently. That is harder than building a dashboard. It requires genuine commercial expertise, not just data access. And it produces something that no dashboard can produce: an organization where the answer to “what do we do now?” is already built into the system.

The Question Worth Asking

I want to close with the question I find most clarifying when working with commercial teams on this kind of transformation.

It is not “what data do we need?” Most teams already have more data than they are using.

It is not “how do we improve our dashboards?” Better visualization does not solve the decision architecture problem.

The question worth asking is this: in your organization right now, which commercial decisions are being made repeatedly, causing friction, consuming leadership time, and producing inconsistent outcomes, that could and should be pre-solved?

Start there. Map the decision. Define the inputs that should trigger it. Design the logic that should govern it. Specify the output that should result from it. Then build the system to execute it without requiring human intervention every time.

That is what the “What Should I Do Next?” engine actually is. Not a product. Not a platform. An operating logic that transforms commercial intelligence from a reporting function into a decision function.

The leaders who figure that out first will not just have better data. They will have a better organization.

Thanks for reading The Growth System! This post is public so feel free to share it.

The Missing Operating Agreement in Most JBPs

Ali AlSharif — Thu, 28 May 2026 15:10:59 GMT

There is a blind spot hiding in almost every Joint Business Planning discussion I have encountered. It is not pricing. It is not promotion calendars. It is not even the quality of the commercial terms.

It is execution.

And the longer the industry ignores it, the more value gets quietly left on the shelf. Sometimes literally.

The Shelf Is Where Strategy Becomes Real

Recently I worked on an execution excellence system for one of the major retailer chains in Saudi Arabia. We engaged with vendors/brands across more than 100 categories; we reviewed processes and mapped how commercial plans actually translated into store-level reality. What emerged was not a unique problem, it was a pattern. And it was consistent enough to make me believe this is not a brand-specific issue. It is an industry-wide one.

Most vendor-retailer discussions are structured around the commercial layer: terms, volumes, promotions, rebates, and investment commitments. These conversations can run for months. They involve senior stakeholders on both sides. They produce detailed agreements, carefully worded slide decks, and forecast models that get stress-tested until everyone is satisfied.

And yet, they rarely go deep enough on the question that ultimately determines whether any of it works: what will actually happen at the shelf?
This is the gap. And it is not a small one.

The shelf is not just where products sit. It is where every strategic decision made in a boardroom finally meets the shopper. It is the last meter of a long chain that starts with a business plan and ends, or should end, with a purchase. When that last meter is poorly managed, everything upstream starts to leak value. The plan was right. The investment was real. But the execution was not aligned, and the results quietly underperform.

When a Perfect Plan Meets an Imperfect Shelf

Think about what a well-constructed JBP looks like on paper. The terms are aligned. The promotion calendar is agreed upon. The volumes are forecasted. The investment is committed. By the time both sides sign off, there is genuine confidence that the year ahead will deliver growth.

Then the plan hits the store.

Planogram compliance is inconsistent. Stock availability drops in key weeks. Secondary displays are either missing or not placed where the agreement intended. Store teams, overwhelmed with operational priorities, do not flag issues quickly enough. By the time head office notices that the numbers are trending below forecast, the promotion window has already passed.

This is not a hypothetical. It is the default experience in markets where execution is treated as an operational afterthought rather than a commercial priority.

The JBP looked perfect on paper. But it was incomplete. Because it had a commercial agreement without an execution agreement.

The Case for a Joint Execution Operating Agreement

This is why I believe every JBP needs something more than a commercial layer. It needs a Joint Execution Operating Agreement: a defined framework that governs how both sides will measure, manage, and continuously improve the in-store execution of the plan they have agreed to.

I want to be clear about what this is not. It is not another appendix to the contract. It is not another document created for governance theater, designed to look rigorous in review meetings but never actually used. Too many organizations already have those.

A Joint Execution Operating Agreement is a practical, operational contract between a brand and a retailer that answers the questions a commercial JBP never asks:

What does good execution look like? Specifically, measurably, store by store.
When availability drops below acceptable levels, who owns the issue and who triggers the response?
How fast should corrective action happen? Hours? Days? A week?
Which stores carry disproportionate commercial weight and therefore need disproportionate execution attention?
How will real-time execution visibility be shared between both parties?
Which KPIs are tracked weekly, not reviewed quarterly in a business review where the damage is already done?

Without clear answers to these questions, execution becomes something everyone vaguely cares about but no one is clearly accountable for. And when accountability is diffuse, performance is inconsistent.

What the Agreement Should Define

At minimum, a Joint Execution Operating Agreement should address six execution dimensions that directly impact commercial outcomes.

Planogram compliance.

Are the agreed shelf layouts actually implemented at store level, consistently, across the store network and not just during audit periods? Planogram compliance is one of the most commonly measured and most commonly underperformed KPIs in modern retail. An agreement that does not define the expected compliance rate, the measurement methodology, and the escalation path when compliance falls short is leaving this to chance.

Stock availability.

Are the right SKUs present where and when the shopper expects to find them? Out-of-stock events are one of the most direct value destroyers in retail, for the brand, for the retailer, and for the shopper experience. The operating agreement should define acceptable availability thresholds, trigger points for replenishment escalation, and shared visibility into stock positions at the store level.

Promotion execution.

When a promotion goes live, is it actually live? Is it priced correctly at shelf? Are the right promotional materials in place? Is secondary space activated as agreed? A promotion that exists on paper but is poorly activated at store level is a direct write-off of marketing investment. The operating agreement should define the standard for a promotion that has actually launched, not just one that has been approved.

Display quality.

Are secondary displays present, correctly stocked, clean, and positioned according to the agreed planogram? Display quality is often treated as a nice-to-have in execution reviews. In reality, secondary display compliance can be one of the highest-leverage variables in driving incremental volume, particularly for categories where visibility drives trial or impulse.

Issue escalation.

When execution fails, and it will, how is that failure reported, prioritized, and resolved? The operating agreement should define the escalation path clearly: who receives the alert, what the expected response time is, and what constitutes a resolved issue versus an ongoing one. Without a defined escalation protocol, problems get lost in email threads and message groups.

Store-level visibility.

Do both parties have access to reliable, timely execution data? One of the persistent frustrations in vendor-retailer relationships is asymmetric information. The brand does not have visibility into what is happening in individual stores. The retailer does not have visibility into where the brand’s field team has been. A shared execution dashboard, even a basic one, changes the quality of every conversation between the two parties.

These are not operational details. They are commercial value protection mechanisms. Every one of these dimensions has a direct line to revenue, conversion, and category performance. Treating them as secondary to the commercial agreement is a misunderstanding of where value is created and where it is lost.

The Real Problem Is Not Planning: It Is Joint Execution

The retail industry has become quite sophisticated at planning together. JBPs have evolved significantly over the past two decades. Most major retailers now run structured annual planning cycles with their top vendors. Category management frameworks are mature. Data sharing has improved. The conversation has genuinely improved.

But there is a persistent gap between how well brands and retailers plan together and how well they execute together.

When execution is not jointly managed, when it is treated as each party’s internal operational concern rather than a shared commercial responsibility, both sides absorb unnecessary losses.

The retailer loses category growth because the brand’s commercial plan fails to land properly in-store, driving weaker conversion, lower basket values, and missed promotional uplifts.

The brand loses conversion because the investment it made in trade promotion, display, and field execution does not translate into the shopper moments it was designed to create.

The shopper loses a better experience: harder to find products, missing promotions, inconsistent shelf layouts, and may simply buy something else, from a brand that happened to execute better that week.

And the JBP, the document both sides worked so hard to build, becomes a negotiation record rather than a live growth system.

The Next Evolution of the JBP

The next evolution of Joint Business Planning is not a better negotiation template.

It is not a smarter commercial structure or a more sophisticated rebate mechanism. These things matter, but they are not the lever that most brands and retailers are under-investing in right now.

The real frontier is shared execution. A system that connects the negotiation room conversation to the shelf reality. One that treats the last meter of the Route-to-Shopper as a strategic priority, not an operational afterthought. One where both sides have agreed, in writing, with clarity, with accountability, on what execution excellence looks like and what happens when it falls short.

The Joint Execution Operating Agreement is not a new concept. Elements of it exist in various forms across the industry. But as a formal, standalone commitment that sits alongside the commercial JBP and carries equal weight? That is still rare. And that rarity is costing both sides more than most of them realize.

The strongest commercial plan is not the one that looks best in the meeting room. It is the one that survives contact with the store.

That is the evolution worth investing in.

The Rise of Traditional Trade Modernization in the GCC

Ali AlSharif — Wed, 13 May 2026 07:06:47 GMT

Executive Summary
The Traditional Trade Landscape
Historical Challenges
The Modernization Revolution
Measurable Results
Implementation Framework
Future Outlook

Executive Summary
While headlines focus on e-commerce growth and modern retail expansion, the GCC's traditional trade channel- comprising hundreds of thousands of independent grocers, bakala shops, and small-format retailers- remains a critical distribution channel accounting for 30-45% of FMCG sales across the region.

This white paper examines how forward-thinking brands and distributors are modernizing traditional trade through digital tools, data analytics, and reimagined route-to-market strategies, unlocking growth and profitability in a historically challenging channel.

The Traditional Trade Landscape

Traditional trade in the GCC encompasses diverse formats, each serving distinct consumer needs and communities across the region:

Despite modern retail's expansion, traditional trade persists due to several structural advantages that continue to resonate with consumers:

1. Proximity

Neighborhood locations within walking distance of consumers, particularly important in areas with limited modern retail access.

2. Convenience

Longer operating hours (many open until midnight or operate 24/7), quick shopping trips, no parking hassles.

3. Personal Relationships

Shopkeepers knowing customers by name, extending informal credit, providing recommendations based on personal knowledge.

4. Cultural Comfort

Familiar environments where traditional shopping behaviors feel natural, particularly for older consumers and certain ethnic communities.

5. Price Flexibility

Negotiation possibilities and informal discounts not available in modern retail’s fixed-price environments.

Historical Challenges

Traditional trade has historically frustrated brand manufacturers due to systemic challenges across visibility, execution, standards, and financial management.

Limited Visibility

Brands lack real-time insight into what’s actually happening across thousands of dispersed outlets. This visibility gap means brands invest in distribution without knowing if products actually reach shelves in sellable condition or at appropriate prices.

Inefficient Execution

Traditional route-to-market involves significant operational inefficiencies that compound across large networks:

1. Fixed Route Visits

Sales representatives visiting stores on fixed routes regardless of actual needs, wasting time on stores that don’t require attention.

2. Manual Order-Taking

Paper forms prone to errors, illegible handwriting, and missing information leading to incorrect deliveries and customer dissatisfaction.

3. Delayed Processing

Orders submitted at day’s end, processed overnight, delivered days later—creating stock-out windows and lost sales opportunities.

4. Low Productivity

Limited sales representative productivity of only 8-12 stores visited daily, with significant time lost to travel, paperwork, and administrative tasks.

5. Administrative Burden

High overhead from manual reporting, reconciliation, and data entry that diverts resources from value-creating activities.

Inconsistent Standards

Without systematic monitoring, execution quality varies dramatically across the traditional trade network:

The Modernization Revolution

In recent years, innovative distributors and brands have reimagined traditional trade through technology and operational excellence. The modernization revolution addresses each historical challenge with targeted digital solutions.

Digital Route Management

Mobile applications now enable intelligent, data-driven route management that transforms field force productivity:

Real-Time Ordering

Representatives capture orders on mobile devices with capabilities that eliminate the errors and delays of manual processes:

1. Instant Product Catalog

Full product catalog access with images, descriptions, and real-time availability—eliminating guesswork and order errors.

2. Suggested Order Quantities

AI-powered order suggestions based on historical patterns, seasonality, and store-specific consumption data.

3. Automatic Credit Checks

Real-time credit limit verification preventing overextension and reducing bad debt risk before orders are placed.

4. Promotional Deal Integration

Active promotions, bundle offers, and volume discounts automatically applied at point of order.

5. Instant Transmission

Orders transmitted immediately to warehouse systems, enabling same-day or next-day delivery versus multi-day traditional cycles.

Image Recognition & Compliance Monitoring

AI-powered image recognition technology is transforming how brands monitor execution quality across traditional trade:

The Technology Multiplier
The combined effect of digital route management, real-time ordering, image recognition, and digital payments creates a multiplier effect. Each technology reinforces the others—better routing means more store visits, more visits mean more data, more data enables better AI recommendations, and better recommendations drive higher order values. The result is a virtuous cycle of continuous improvement.

Measurable Results

Brands and distributors implementing comprehensive traditional trade modernization programs are achieving transformative results across key performance metrics:

Implementation Framework

Successful traditional trade modernization requires a phased approach that balances technology deployment with organizational change management. Based on our experience across the GCC, we recommend a four-phase framework:

Foundation: Data & Infrastructure (Months 1-3)

Begin with comprehensive store census and classification. Deploy mobile devices and connectivity to field teams. Establish baseline KPIs for productivity, coverage, and sales performance.

Digitization: Core Processes (Months 3-6)

Implement digital order capture replacing paper-based systems. Deploy dynamic routing algorithms optimizing daily visit plans. Introduce digital payment collection and automated invoicing.

Intelligence: Analytics & AI (Months 6-12)

Deploy image recognition for automated shelf and compliance monitoring. Implement AI-powered suggested ordering based on historical patterns. Build real-time dashboards providing visibility to all stakeholders.

Optimization: Continuous Improvement (Months 12-18)

Refine algorithms based on accumulated data and performance feedback. Expand coverage to new geographies and store segments. Integrate with broader supply chain and trade promotion systems.

Critical Success Factors

Future Outlook

The modernization of traditional trade in the GCC is still in its early stages, with significant opportunity ahead. Several emerging trends will shape the next phase of evolution:

B2B E-Commerce Platforms

Digital wholesale platforms enabling traditional retailers to order directly from brands and distributors, bypassing traditional sales force models for routine replenishment.

Last-Mile Integration

Traditional trade stores becoming micro-fulfillment centers for quick commerce platforms, leveraging their neighborhood proximity for ultra-fast delivery.

Embedded Finance

Fintech solutions providing working capital loans, insurance, and financial services to traditional retailers based on transaction data and digital credit scoring.

AI-Powered Personalization

Machine learning algorithms personalizing assortment recommendations, pricing strategies, and promotional offers for individual stores based on local demand patterns.

Traditional trade will not disappear. It will evolve. The bakala of 2030 will look very different from today: digitally connected, data-enabled, financially included, and seamlessly integrated into omnichannel distribution networks.

Traditional trade modernization is not a technology project—it’s a business transformation.

The brands and distributors that recognize this distinction—investing in people, processes, and culture alongside technology—will unlock the full potential of the GCC’s most resilient and pervasive retail channel. With the right partner and the right approach, traditional trade can become your most profitable growth engine.

The Route-to-Market is Broken. Here is What Replaces It.

Ali AlSharif — Fri, 08 May 2026 15:14:42 GMT

Subscribe now

For the past 27 years, I have worked inside the engine rooms of FMCG and Retail across the Middle East. I have redesigned commercial models for Beiersdorf, turned around distressed operations for Reckitt, and driven double-digit growth for Castrol.

Across every boardroom, every category, and every market, I see the exact same conversation happening today.

CEOs are looking at their commercial teams and asking: “We have more data than ever. We have more software than ever. We have more headcount than ever. Why are our margins compressing, and why is our growth stagnating?”

This is a misdiagnosis. The problem is not effort. The problem is architecture.

Text within this block will maintain its original spacing when published

When you run a 2026 commercial team on a 2005 operating system, you do not get growth. You get friction.

The Legacy RTM Model is Dead

The industry believes that growth comes from optimizing the existing Route-to-Market. This is fundamentally wrong. The RTM model itself is broken.

Traditional RTM was built for a static world. It relies on annual Joint Business Plans that are negotiated in November and ignored by March. It relies on historical data, looking at what happened last month to guess what might happen next month. It treats the retail shelf as a point of transaction, not a node of intelligence.

When you run a 2026 commercial team on this architecture, you do not get growth. You get analysis paralysis. You get a graveyard of dashboards that tell you what went wrong, but never tell your team what to do next.

The Route-to-Shopper Operating System

Margin-protected, systemic growth requires a complete architectural tear-down. It requires replacing the legacy RTM with an intelligence-led Route-to-Shopper (RTS) Operating System.

RTS is not a project. It is not a rollout. It is not a new dashboard. It is the system that defines how execution operates every single day.

It is built on the RTS Trinity:

Insight. Shared, real-time data visibility between brand and retailer.
Activate. Precision execution of agreed initiatives at the physical and digital shelf.
Optimize. Dynamic, continuous adjustment of trade spend and resources based on execution health.

In the RTS model, data is not used for reporting. It is used for orchestration. The system ingests the noise of the market and outputs a single, prescriptive signal: “What should I do next?”

Why I Built The Growth System

I am currently architecting a centralized merchandising transformation for one of Saudi Arabia’s largest retailers. I am seeing firsthand what happens when you connect boardroom strategy directly to shelf-level reality. You unlock margin that was previously lost to friction.

I created The Growth System to document this shift.

Every two weeks, I will publish a briefing here. I will not share motivational quotes or generic leadership advice. I will share the architectural blueprints, the system designs, and the hard-won lessons of building commercial growth engines at enterprise scale.

We will cover:

Closed-Loop JBPs. How to turn annual negotiations into continuous optimization engines.
Data Overload as System Failure. Why more dashboards make things worse, and what replaces them.
Cross-Functional Commercial Teams. How to design team structures that actually integrate.
Retail Media Networks. The reality of trade strategy and digital monetization in MENA.

If you are a CEO, a PE Partner, or a Commercial Director trying to squeeze marginal gains out of a broken RTM model, it is time to stop negotiating and start orchestrating. Welcome to The Growth System.

Ali AlSharif is a Strategy and Transformation Director and the Founder of Vigil. He designs growth systems for FMCG and Retail enterprises across the Middle East.

Reply to this email and tell me what commercial challenge you are facing right now.

Share The Growth System