From STRELM to The Finanze Framework

The development of my models.

How my approach to business strategy developed into an investment framework

I developed STRELM™ to help businesses decide where to focus their commercial effort. The Finanze Framework™ emerged later from my work in property strategy and finance. Both examine connected decisions, but they answer different questions: where should a business focus, and does an investment work for the investor?

A team might need more clients. Another might have plenty of relationships but be doing too little with them. A third might have a strong proposition that the market did not properly understand. Giving all three the same instruction to “grow the business” would leave the most important question unanswered. What, specifically, needed to change?

That problem led me to develop STRELM™, the Strategic Relationship Management Model. Years later, my work in property strategy and finance brought me to another question: what has to work together for an investment to succeed?

The connection between those questions explains much of the thinking behind The Finanze Framework™. It also explains why I believe its usefulness extends beyond property.

The foundations at Aston.

My education in Management and Strategy at Aston University gave me a foundation for examining how businesses operate and how their decisions fit together. My subsequent career, consultancy work and entrepreneurial activities gave me opportunities to apply and question that thinking.

I became interested in models that could help people decide what to do. A useful framework needs enough structure to clarify a problem, while leaving room for the circumstances of the business using it.

STRELM grew out of initiatives I developed or led at Société Générale and Standard Chartered. I subsequently applied it through work involving Trans Global Partners, KIMA and Hawk. It became the intended subject of a thesis during MBA studies that I did not complete. The model nevertheless continued to influence how I approached business development.

The commercial problem behind STRELM.

STRELM organised commercial activity into four areas.

Presentation concerned how the business appeared to its market: its identity, proposition, website, materials and the way it communicated what it could offer.

Origination concerned developing new customer relationships. In the current formalisation, additional business within an existing relationship is classified as Penetration.

Coverage concerned looking after existing relationships, keeping customers satisfied and maintaining effective account management.

Penetration concerned developing those relationships further, including relevant cross-selling and increasing the proportion of a client’s requirements that the business could serve.

Each activity mattered. The managerial question was which deserved particular attention in a given team, desk, business line or country.

Consider a business with a credible service and satisfied customers but very few new enquiries. Its immediate priority might be Presentation or Origination. A business attracting plenty of customers while struggling to look after them would face a different problem. More selling could put further pressure on an already stretched service.

These examples illustrate the model’s purpose. A commercial objective becomes more useful when it identifies the activity that needs attention and explains why.

Making different priorities visible.

The visual application was deliberately simple. I used a four-part box and highlighted the corner representing the priority for a particular business unit. Those boxes could be placed on maps, making it possible to see where different teams or countries needed to concentrate their effort.

One location might need to strengthen its market presence. Another might need to improve existing relationships. A third might have an opportunity to serve more of its clients’ needs.

The same visual language could represent those differences. That was central to the model: a common approach to discussing priorities did not require every business unit to have the same priority.

The original representation also used Cost and Value Add axes. In formalising the model now, it is important to recognise that the actual economics depend on the business. Improving account management can sometimes create more value than a new sales campaign. The diagram should prompt investigation, with evidence determining the decision.

Applying that thinking at Finanze.

STRELM remains an implicit influence on how I think about Finanze Group. Communicating each business’s role, developing suitable relationships, looking after clients and understanding their wider requirements all belong within that earlier way of organising commercial attention.

Over the last five years, direct experience in property strategy and finance has required a more specific framework for the investment itself.

A property can appear attractive because of its price, rental income or potential value after improvement. But the investor still needs to establish how the transaction will work. The ownership structure must permit the plan. Cash must be available when payments fall due. The work must be deliverable, and the proposed exit must support the intended outcome.

For example, a lender may release a works advance after an inspection, while a contractor needs paying before that inspection takes place. Both arrangements may look reasonable separately. Together, they create a cash requirement that somebody must fund.

A refinancing exit raises another question. Repaying the original lender does not necessarily return all of the investor’s capital. If substantial equity remains committed, that affects the investor’s capacity to take on the next project.

These relationships are the substance of The Finanze Framework. They explain why an investment needs to be assessed as a connected set of decisions.

From commercial attention to investment judgement.

STRELM asks where a business should focus its commercial effort. TFF asks whether a particular investor can achieve an intended outcome through a particular transaction.

The continuity lies in examining how the parts affect one another. A strong sales initiative depends on the business being able to serve the clients it wins. A promising investment depends on the investor being able to fund and deliver the steps that create its value.

TFF brings that investment assessment together through Strategy, Property and Finance. Strategy starts with the investor’s objectives, resources and capacity to carry risk. Property examines the asset, its market and the basis for its value. Finance examines the usable funds, costs, obligations and timing required to complete the plan.

Protection and continuity run through those decisions. Ownership rights, personal exposure and the ability to act when circumstances change can affect the transaction from the outset.

In the accompanying paper, I formalise this approach into eight connected tests covering investor fit, asset evidence, value creation, ownership, liquidity, execution, exit and protection. This provides a structure for TFF: Deal Analysis and a way to make the reasoning behind an investment assessment visible.

The conclusion may be to investigate further, change the structure, renegotiate the price, wait or walk away. A framework earns its place when it helps someone reach a better-supported decision, including a decision not to proceed.

Why the application can extend beyond property.

Property provides a clear setting for these questions because the asset, funding, delivery work and exit are often identifiable. Similar relationships arise elsewhere.

Someone acquiring a business must consider the purchase price alongside working capital, customer retention, management capability and debt repayments. An investment in equipment depends on demand, installation, operating costs and the time required before it generates cash.

The evidence and specialist knowledge will differ. The underlying questions about purpose, resources, timing and recovery of capital remain relevant.

That is the wider application I want to explore. TFF provides a proposed structure for investigating those relationships. Its usefulness in each setting needs to be assessed against the decisions investors actually face.

Putting the models into writing.

Formalising these models has also meant examining how they relate to established management thinking.

Herzberg offers a useful comparison when considering the difference between conditions that prevent problems and factors that create additional value. Maslow prompts questions about dependencies and foundations. Porter directs attention to the competitive environment within which a business or investment operates.

Each comparison has limits. The accompanying papers explain those limits and examine other literature more directly concerned with decision-making, relationships and investment. They set out what the models propose, where they might be useful and how their effects could be tested.

For me, publishing this work records the development of an approach that began in management education, evolved through practical business experience and has become more specific through my work at Finanze.

STRELM gave me a way to ask where commercial effort should go. The Finanze Framework gives me a way to examine whether the decisions within an investment support the result the investor wants. Putting both into writing makes that thinking available for others to use, question and develop through experience.

Questions about the two models.

What is the difference between STRELM and TFF?

STRELM helps a business allocate commercial attention across its relationships and organisational units. TFF examines whether the strategy, asset, funding and delivery arrangements of an investment support the investor’s intended outcome. One does not replace the other.

Who developed STRELM and The Finanze Framework?

I developed both models through my management education, professional experience, consultancy and entrepreneurial work. The accompanying STRELM paper sets out the documentary history and distinguishes the original formulation from the analytical extensions made in 2026.

Where can I read the full papers?

The two companion papers below explain the models, their academic foundations, practical applications and proposed research. They are conceptual working papers, available for readers to examine, question and apply with appropriate judgement.

From STRELM^™ to
The Finanze Framework^™.