A free interactive guide from The Founder’s Trap

Explore the Business Model Canvas

Nine building blocks. Thirty-six relationships. Most founders know their customers, products and daily work; the harder question is how those parts fit together. Explore each block, then the connections that can strengthen or weaken the whole business.

Explore the nine blocks See the 36 relationships

The method

Why the blocks are only the beginning

The Business Model Canvas organises any business into nine familiar blocks. BusinessBuilder adds one more layer: examining how those blocks support or constrain one another. The nine blocks form 36 relationships, and a list of nine reasonable-looking blocks can still hide a business under pressure—because the pressure usually lies in the relationships, not the blocks themselves.

Reading a relationship well needs evidence about both sides—not a confident-sounding guess. The examples here use Coolgardie Commercial Refrigeration, the fictional business that runs through The Founder’s Trap.

Step 1 · The nine blocks

Start with the building blocks

Select any block to see what it covers, how it looks at Coolgardie, and what evidence a founder might check.

Selected block · VP

Value Propositions

Why should customers choose us?

The result or benefit customers value enough to select this business. A value proposition should give customers a reason to choose the business beyond the lowest price. The question is whether that promise can actually be delivered economically.

Coolgardie exampleCoolgardie could differentiate by protecting food stock through fast, dependable refrigeration repairs and preventive servicing.

Possible pressure: Customers treat the service as interchangeable and ask each provider to beat the cheapest quote.

Evidence worth looking for: Customer interviews, lost quotes, service outcomes and competitor alternatives.

Step 2 · The 36 relationships

Now look at what happens between two blocks

Choose a relationship. Each has the question The Founder’s Trap suggests investigating, a worked Coolgardie example and its four possible readings.

The nine blocks of the Business Model Canvas form 36 unique pairs (9 × 8 ÷ 2 = 36). Select a number to open that relationship.

	CS	VP	CH	CR	RS	KR	KA	KP	C$
CS
VP
CH
CR
RS
KR
KA
KP
C$

CS Customers · VP Value · CH Channels · CR Relationships · RS Revenue
KR Resources · KA Activities · KP Partners · C$ Costs

Or choose from the list

Relationship 1 of 36

Customer Segments × Value Propositions

A question worth investigatingDoes the evidence show these buyers value the promised benefit in their real buying circumstances?

At CoolgardieA dependable rescue for a café whose stock spoils within hours is a different offer from the keener rates a small supermarket group is asking for. Serving both on one set of terms can blur positioning and compress margins.

Possible signal: Different customer groups expect conflicting service promises or insist on competing mainly on price.

Evidence worth looking for: Segment-level interviews, lost bids, service requirements and gross margin by segment.

Related idea in the book: The Price Trap—shown as a lens to think with, not a finding.

How this relationship can read

On the evidence available, each block reads as strong or weak, giving four states, shown here in plain English with the official wording one click away. The letters are a compact label, not a verdict; where the evidence can’t support a reading, the relationship is recorded as indeterminate (“can’t tell yet”) rather than forced into a state.

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated RelevanceThere’s evidence that what you offer fits what your chosen customers actually want—not just that each looks good on its own. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: a specific customer-relevant value promise is evidenced to match the specified customer group, not merely that each exists.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Customer Segments strong, Value Propositions weak)	Segment Strength / Value UncertaintyYou have a clearly defined group of customers, but what you offer could come from almost anyone. Precise wording Customer Segments is high while Value Propositions is low: a sufficiently specific customer group is evidenced; the value promise is broad or undifferentiated.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Customer Segments weak, Value Propositions strong)	Value Strength / Segment UncertaintyIt isn’t clear who your customers are, but customers clearly value what you offer. Precise wording Customer Segments is low while Value Propositions is high: the customer group is diffuse or poorly defined; a specific customer-relevant value promise is evidenced.
LLBoth weak	Weak RelevanceIt isn’t clear who your customers are, and what you offer could come from almost anyone. Precise wording Both sides are low: the customer group is diffuse or poorly defined; the value promise is broad or undifferentiated.

Relationship 2 of 36

Customer Segments × Channels

A question worth investigatingDo the routes to market actually reach the customers the business is built to serve?

At CoolgardieA channel can generate enquiries while failing to reach the customers who value the offer. More leads can mean more quoting effort, not more profitable work.

Possible signal: High enquiry volume but low conversion or weak margin in one channel.

Evidence worth looking for: Lead source by segment, conversion, acquisition cost, cancellations and margins.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated AccessThere’s evidence that your routes to market actually reach the customers you’ve chosen. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: a workable route is evidenced to reach the specified customer group, not merely that a segment and a route each exist.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Customer Segments strong, Channels weak)	Segment Strength / Access UncertaintyYou have a clearly defined group of customers, but the way customers find, buy from or receive from you is patchy or unreliable. Precise wording Customer Segments is high while Channels is low: a sufficiently specific customer group is evidenced; the route to the customer is fragmented or unreliable.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Customer Segments weak, Channels strong)	Access Strength / Segment UncertaintyIt isn’t clear who your customers are, but customers can reliably find you, buy from you and receive what they buy. Precise wording Customer Segments is low while Channels is high: the customer group is diffuse or poorly defined; a workable route for awareness, purchase or delivery is evidenced.
LLBoth weak	Weak AccessIt isn’t clear who your customers are, and the way customers find, buy from or receive from you is patchy or unreliable. Precise wording Both sides are low: the customer group is diffuse or poorly defined; the route to the customer is fragmented or unreliable.

Relationship 3 of 36

Customer Segments × Customer Relationships

A question worth investigatingDoes the way relationships are formed suit how these customers buy and stay?

At CoolgardieCafés want someone they trust to answer at nine at night; a supermarket group may want agreed response times and invoices that suit its systems. At Coolgardie, every customer gets the same thing—a call to Jason.

Possible signal: Some customers feel neglected while others take far more time than their spend justifies.

Evidence worth looking for: Contact frequency by customer group, after-hours calls, complaints and repeat work by group.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated EngagementThere’s evidence that the way you deal with customers works for the customers you’ve chosen. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the intended interaction and retention pattern is evidenced to hold with the specified customer group.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Customer Segments strong, Customer Relationships weak)	Segment Strength / Relationship UncertaintyYou have a clearly defined group of customers, but the way you deal with customers and keep them is weak or inconsistent. Precise wording Customer Segments is high while Customer Relationships is low: a sufficiently specific customer group is evidenced; the interaction or retention pattern is weak or inconsistent.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Customer Segments weak, Customer Relationships strong)	Relationship Strength / Segment UncertaintyIt isn’t clear who your customers are, but the way you win customers and keep them is working. Precise wording Customer Segments is low while Customer Relationships is high: the customer group is diffuse or poorly defined; the intended interaction and retention pattern is evidenced.
LLBoth weak	Weak EngagementIt isn’t clear who your customers are, and the way you deal with customers and keep them is weak or inconsistent. Precise wording Both sides are low: the customer group is diffuse or poorly defined; the interaction or retention pattern is weak or inconsistent.

Relationship 4 of 36

Customer Segments × Revenue Streams

A question worth investigatingWhich customer groups generate the revenue, and on what terms?

At CoolgardieA major account may bring much of the turnover without creating proportional profit, and its ability to walk away can shift price and service terms. At Coolgardie, a small supermarket group now books close to a third of the team’s hours.

Possible signal: A small number of customers account for a large share of revenue.

Evidence worth looking for: Customer concentration, contribution by account, contract terms and churn sensitivity.

Related idea in the book: The Holdup Trap—shown as a lens to think with, not a finding.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated MonetisationThere’s evidence that your chosen customers pay, and pay on your terms. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the specified customer group is evidenced to pay under the stated willingness-to-pay and collection logic.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Customer Segments strong, Revenue Streams weak)	Segment Strength / Revenue UncertaintyYou have a clearly defined group of customers, but it’s unclear whether customers will pay, or what they would pay isn’t being collected. Precise wording Customer Segments is high while Revenue Streams is low: a sufficiently specific customer group is evidenced; payment logic or willingness to pay is unreliable or poorly captured.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Customer Segments weak, Revenue Streams strong)	Revenue Strength / Segment UncertaintyIt isn’t clear who your customers are, but customers are willing to pay, and you collect what you’re owed. Precise wording Customer Segments is low while Revenue Streams is high: the customer group is diffuse or poorly defined; a credible willingness-to-pay and collection logic is evidenced.
LLBoth weak	Weak MonetisationIt isn’t clear who your customers are, and it’s unclear whether customers will pay, or what they would pay isn’t being collected. Precise wording Both sides are low: the customer group is diffuse or poorly defined; payment logic or willingness to pay is unreliable or poorly captured.

Relationship 5 of 36

Customer Segments × Key Resources

A question worth investigatingAre the resources these customers rely on available when needed?

At CoolgardieServing cafés and pubs needs refrigeration skills, common parts on hand and technicians free when stock is at risk. A supermarket group may also expect compliance records and capacity across several sites. Resources built for one group may not fit another.

Possible signal: Work for one customer group often needs skills, parts or equipment the business doesn’t have to hand.

Evidence worth looking for: Jobs delayed for parts or skills by customer group, equipment on hand, certifications and technician capacity.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Customer Support CapacityThere’s evidence that you have the people, equipment and capacity to serve the customers you’ve chosen. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the critical assets and capacity are evidenced sufficient to serve the specified customer group.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Customer Segments strong, Key Resources weak)	Segment Strength / Resource UncertaintyYou have a clearly defined group of customers, but you’re short of the people, equipment or capacity you need. Precise wording Customer Segments is high while Key Resources is low: a sufficiently specific customer group is evidenced; critical assets or capacity are constrained or insufficient.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Customer Segments weak, Key Resources strong)	Resource Strength / Segment UncertaintyIt isn’t clear who your customers are, but you have the people, equipment and capacity you need. Precise wording Customer Segments is low while Key Resources is high: the customer group is diffuse or poorly defined; the critical assets and capacity are evidenced as available.
LLBoth weak	Weak Customer Support CapacityIt isn’t clear who your customers are, and you’re short of the people, equipment or capacity you need. Precise wording Both sides are low: the customer group is diffuse or poorly defined; critical assets or capacity are constrained or insufficient.

Relationship 6 of 36

Customer Segments × Key Activities

A question worth investigatingDoes the essential work match what the chosen customers require?

At CoolgardieCafés and grocers mostly call when something breaks; planned maintenance needs scheduling discipline. At Coolgardie, breakdown call-outs crowd out planned work, so the customers who would value prevention rarely get it.

Possible signal: The work the team does most is not the work its best customers value most.

Evidence worth looking for: Job mix by customer group, reactive versus planned hours, rework and response times.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Service ExecutionThere’s evidence that your essential work serves the customers you’ve chosen. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the essential operating work is evidenced to serve the specified customer group.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Customer Segments strong, Key Activities weak)	Segment Strength / Activity UncertaintyYou have a clearly defined group of customers, but the essential work isn’t clearly defined or done consistently. Precise wording Customer Segments is high while Key Activities is low: a sufficiently specific customer group is evidenced; essential work is undefined or inconsistent.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Customer Segments weak, Key Activities strong)	Activity Strength / Segment UncertaintyIt isn’t clear who your customers are, but the essential work gets done reliably. Precise wording Customer Segments is low while Key Activities is high: the customer group is diffuse or poorly defined; the essential operating work is evidenced as executable.
LLBoth weak	Weak Service ExecutionIt isn’t clear who your customers are, and the essential work isn’t clearly defined or done consistently. Precise wording Both sides are low: the customer group is diffuse or poorly defined; essential work is undefined or inconsistent.

Relationship 7 of 36

Customer Segments × Key Partners

A question worth investigatingWhich partner dependencies affect access or service to these customers?

At CoolgardieA distributor that stocks the compressors Coolgardie fits most often is a real asset. But if a key customer group needs equipment that distributor doesn’t carry, service slows and the partner sets the pace.

Possible signal: Commitments to customers depend on a partner’s stock, lead times or terms the business can’t influence.

Evidence worth looking for: Jobs waiting on parts by customer group, distributor lead times, alternative sources.

Related idea in the book: The Holdup Trap—shown as a lens to think with, not a finding.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Partnered AccessThere’s evidence that your partners help you serve the customers you’ve chosen. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the governed external dependencies are evidenced to serve the specified customer group.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Customer Segments strong, Key Partners weak)	Segment Strength / Partner UncertaintyYou have a clearly defined group of customers, but the outside partners you rely on are fragile or poorly managed. Precise wording Customer Segments is high while Key Partnerships is low: a sufficiently specific customer group is evidenced; external dependencies are fragile or poorly governed.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Customer Segments weak, Key Partners strong)	Partner Strength / Segment UncertaintyIt isn’t clear who your customers are, but the outside partners you rely on are dependable and well managed. Precise wording Customer Segments is low while Key Partnerships is high: the customer group is diffuse or poorly defined; necessary external dependencies are evidenced and governed.
LLBoth weak	Weak Partnered AccessIt isn’t clear who your customers are, and the outside partners you rely on are fragile or poorly managed. Precise wording Both sides are low: the customer group is diffuse or poorly defined; external dependencies are fragile or poorly governed.

Relationship 8 of 36

Customer Segments × Cost Structure

A question worth investigatingHow does the cost to serve differ across the customer groups?

At CoolgardieCafés close together can be serviced efficiently; scattered sites, after-hours demands and long payment terms make some customers far costlier than others. The supermarket group’s request for keener rates matters more if it is also costly to serve.

Possible signal: Some busy, loyal accounts barely cover what they cost.

Evidence worth looking for: Cost to serve by customer group: travel time, after-hours share, admin and payment days.

Related idea in the book: The Price Trap—shown as a lens to think with, not a finding.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Segment EconomicsThere’s evidence that serving your chosen customers costs no more than you can sustain. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the bounded cost burden is evidenced sustainable for serving the specified customer group.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Customer Segments strong, Cost Structure weak)	Segment Strength / Cost UncertaintyYou have a clearly defined group of customers, but your main costs or workload are high or poorly controlled. Precise wording Customer Segments is high while Cost Structure is low: a sufficiently specific customer group is evidenced; the material cost or capacity burden is high or poorly controlled.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Customer Segments weak, Cost Structure strong)	Cost Strength / Segment UncertaintyIt isn’t clear who your customers are, but your main costs and workload are known and under control. Precise wording Customer Segments is low while Cost Structure is high: the customer group is diffuse or poorly defined; the material cost and capacity burden is evidenced and bounded.
LLBoth weak	Weak Segment EconomicsIt isn’t clear who your customers are, and your main costs or workload are high or poorly controlled. Precise wording Both sides are low: the customer group is diffuse or poorly defined; the material cost or capacity burden is high or poorly controlled.

Relationship 9 of 36

Value Propositions × Channels

A question worth investigatingDoes the buying and delivery route support the promised benefit, or dilute it?

At CoolgardieCoolgardie’s value is a dependable rescue for stock that spoils within hours, yet customers find it by ringing around and comparing fresh quotes—a route that reduces every operator to a price. Routes that let customers see reliability, such as maintenance arrangements and referrals, carry the promise better.

Possible signal: Customers arrive asking for the cheapest quote rather than for what the business does best.

Evidence worth looking for: How enquiries arrive, what customers ask first, and win rates on fresh quotes versus repeat work.

Related idea in the book: The Price Trap—shown as a lens to think with, not a finding.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Promise DeliveryThere’s evidence that the way customers find and buy from you carries your offer to them intact. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the workable route is evidenced to carry the specific value promise to buyers.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Value Propositions strong, Channels weak)	Value Strength / Access UncertaintyCustomers clearly value what you offer, but the way customers find, buy from or receive from you is patchy or unreliable. Precise wording Value Propositions is high while Channels is low: a specific customer-relevant value promise is evidenced; the route to the customer is fragmented or unreliable.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Value Propositions weak, Channels strong)	Access Strength / Value UncertaintyWhat you offer could come from almost anyone, but customers can reliably find you, buy from you and receive what they buy. Precise wording Value Propositions is low while Channels is high: the value promise is broad or undifferentiated; a workable route for awareness, purchase or delivery is evidenced.
LLBoth weak	Weak Promise DeliveryWhat you offer could come from almost anyone, and the way customers find, buy from or receive from you is patchy or unreliable. Precise wording Both sides are low: the value promise is broad or undifferentiated; the route to the customer is fragmented or unreliable.

Relationship 10 of 36

Value Propositions × Customer Relationships

A question worth investigatingDoes the ongoing relationship strengthen or undermine the promise?

At CoolgardieCustomers trust Coolgardie largely because they trust Jason—his reassurance that the cool room will hold is part of what they buy. That makes the promise hard to grow and hard to hand over.

Possible signal: Customers value the business mainly because of one person rather than a repeatable service.

Evidence worth looking for: Who customers ask for, what their feedback praises, and outcomes when other technicians attend.

Related idea in the book: The Fragility Trap—shown as a lens to think with, not a finding.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Experience FitThere’s evidence that the way you look after customers strengthens what you promise them. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the interaction and retention pattern is evidenced to reinforce the specific value promise.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Value Propositions strong, Customer Relationships weak)	Value Strength / Relationship UncertaintyCustomers clearly value what you offer, but the way you deal with customers and keep them is weak or inconsistent. Precise wording Value Propositions is high while Customer Relationships is low: a specific customer-relevant value promise is evidenced; the interaction or retention pattern is weak or inconsistent.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Value Propositions weak, Customer Relationships strong)	Relationship Strength / Value UncertaintyWhat you offer could come from almost anyone, but the way you win customers and keep them is working. Precise wording Value Propositions is low while Customer Relationships is high: the value promise is broad or undifferentiated; the intended interaction and retention pattern is evidenced.
LLBoth weak	Weak Experience FitWhat you offer could come from almost anyone, and the way you deal with customers and keep them is weak or inconsistent. Precise wording Both sides are low: the value promise is broad or undifferentiated; the interaction or retention pattern is weak or inconsistent.

Relationship 11 of 36

Value Propositions × Revenue Streams

A question worth investigatingWhich part of the value offered is actually paid for, and how?

At CoolgardieA 24-hour emergency response can be genuinely valuable, but if the invoice charges only for repair time, the business may bear the cost of availability without being paid for it.

Possible signal: Praise and repeat demand are strong, but contribution margins remain weak.

Evidence worth looking for: Pricing schedules, actual job margins, customer willingness to pay and renewal rates.

Related idea in the book: The Price Trap—shown as a lens to think with, not a finding.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Value CaptureThere’s evidence that customers pay for the value you offer, not just for your time. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the willingness-to-pay and collection logic is evidenced to capture the specific value promise.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Value Propositions strong, Revenue Streams weak)	Value Strength / Revenue UncertaintyCustomers clearly value what you offer, but it’s unclear whether customers will pay, or what they would pay isn’t being collected. Precise wording Value Propositions is high while Revenue Streams is low: a specific customer-relevant value promise is evidenced; payment logic or willingness to pay is unreliable or poorly captured.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Value Propositions weak, Revenue Streams strong)	Revenue Strength / Value UncertaintyWhat you offer could come from almost anyone, but customers are willing to pay, and you collect what you’re owed. Precise wording Value Propositions is low while Revenue Streams is high: the value promise is broad or undifferentiated; a credible willingness-to-pay and collection logic is evidenced.
LLBoth weak	Weak Value CaptureWhat you offer could come from almost anyone, and it’s unclear whether customers will pay, or what they would pay isn’t being collected. Precise wording Both sides are low: the value promise is broad or undifferentiated; payment logic or willingness to pay is unreliable or poorly captured.

Relationship 12 of 36

Value Propositions × Key Resources

A question worth investigatingWhich resources are essential to making the promise credible?

At CoolgardieDistinctive technical expertise may justify premium pricing, but if scarce expertise is locked in the founder, the proposition is difficult to scale or transfer.

Possible signal: Customers buy a specialist promise the business cannot deliver without one person.

Evidence worth looking for: Capability register, certifications, training plans, quality checks and customer outcomes.

Related idea in the book: The Fragility Trap—shown as a lens to think with, not a finding.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Promise CapabilityThere’s evidence that you have the people, equipment and capacity to deliver what you promise. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the critical assets and capacity are evidenced sufficient to deliver the specific value promise.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Value Propositions strong, Key Resources weak)	Value Strength / Resource UncertaintyCustomers clearly value what you offer, but you’re short of the people, equipment or capacity you need. Precise wording Value Propositions is high while Key Resources is low: a specific customer-relevant value promise is evidenced; critical assets or capacity are constrained or insufficient.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Value Propositions weak, Key Resources strong)	Resource Strength / Value UncertaintyWhat you offer could come from almost anyone, but you have the people, equipment and capacity you need. Precise wording Value Propositions is low while Key Resources is high: the value promise is broad or undifferentiated; the critical assets and capacity are evidenced as available.
LLBoth weak	Weak Promise CapabilityWhat you offer could come from almost anyone, and you’re short of the people, equipment or capacity you need. Precise wording Both sides are low: the value promise is broad or undifferentiated; critical assets or capacity are constrained or insufficient.

Relationship 13 of 36

Value Propositions × Key Activities

A question worth investigatingDoes the work performed consistently deliver the promised benefit?

At CoolgardieA promise of fast emergency response requires dispatch capacity, spare parts and disciplined prioritisation. Marketing a promise that operations cannot reliably deliver can destroy trust.

Possible signal: Customer expectations exceed capacity, especially during peak demand.

Evidence worth looking for: Response times, service failures, capacity, overtime and complaints.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Promise ExecutionThere’s evidence that your essential work delivers what you promise. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the essential operating work is evidenced to deliver the specific value promise.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Value Propositions strong, Key Activities weak)	Value Strength / Activity UncertaintyCustomers clearly value what you offer, but the essential work isn’t clearly defined or done consistently. Precise wording Value Propositions is high while Key Activities is low: a specific customer-relevant value promise is evidenced; essential work is undefined or inconsistent.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Value Propositions weak, Key Activities strong)	Activity Strength / Value UncertaintyWhat you offer could come from almost anyone, but the essential work gets done reliably. Precise wording Value Propositions is low while Key Activities is high: the value promise is broad or undifferentiated; the essential operating work is evidenced as executable.
LLBoth weak	Weak Promise ExecutionWhat you offer could come from almost anyone, and the essential work isn’t clearly defined or done consistently. Precise wording Both sides are low: the value promise is broad or undifferentiated; essential work is undefined or inconsistent.

Relationship 14 of 36

Value Propositions × Key Partners

A question worth investigatingWhich parts of the promise depend on an outside party?

At CoolgardieA fast-repair promise depends on parts arriving quickly. The distributor that supplies Coolgardie’s most-used compressors has quietly raised its prices; if supply also slows, the promise suffers and Coolgardie takes the blame.

Possible signal: Promised outcomes slip because of partners the customer never sees.

Evidence worth looking for: Delays caused by partners, distributor terms and price history, and alternative suppliers.

Related idea in the book: The Holdup Trap—shown as a lens to think with, not a finding.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Partner-Enabled ValueThere’s evidence that your partners help you deliver what you promise. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the governed external dependencies are evidenced to enable the specific value promise.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Value Propositions strong, Key Partners weak)	Value Strength / Partner UncertaintyCustomers clearly value what you offer, but the outside partners you rely on are fragile or poorly managed. Precise wording Value Propositions is high while Key Partnerships is low: a specific customer-relevant value promise is evidenced; external dependencies are fragile or poorly governed.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Value Propositions weak, Key Partners strong)	Partner Strength / Value UncertaintyWhat you offer could come from almost anyone, but the outside partners you rely on are dependable and well managed. Precise wording Value Propositions is low while Key Partnerships is high: the value promise is broad or undifferentiated; necessary external dependencies are evidenced and governed.
LLBoth weak	Weak Partner-Enabled ValueWhat you offer could come from almost anyone, and the outside partners you rely on are fragile or poorly managed. Precise wording Both sides are low: the value promise is broad or undifferentiated; external dependencies are fragile or poorly governed.

Relationship 15 of 36

Value Propositions × Cost Structure

A question worth investigatingWhat does the promise cost to keep, including exceptions and availability?

At CoolgardieA dependable rescue means after-hours cover, vehicles ready, parts on hand and spare capacity—costs that exist whether or not the phone rings. If the price covers only time on site, the promise quietly erodes the margin.

Possible signal: The features customers praise most are the ones that cost most and are paid for least.

Evidence worth looking for: Standby and after-hours costs, idle capacity, parts stock and price per job.

Related idea in the book: The Price Trap—shown as a lens to think with, not a finding.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Value EconomicsThere’s evidence that keeping your promise costs no more than you can sustain. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the bounded cost burden is evidenced sustainable for delivering the specific value promise.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Value Propositions strong, Cost Structure weak)	Value Strength / Cost UncertaintyCustomers clearly value what you offer, but your main costs or workload are high or poorly controlled. Precise wording Value Propositions is high while Cost Structure is low: a specific customer-relevant value promise is evidenced; the material cost or capacity burden is high or poorly controlled.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Value Propositions weak, Cost Structure strong)	Cost Strength / Value UncertaintyWhat you offer could come from almost anyone, but your main costs and workload are known and under control. Precise wording Value Propositions is low while Cost Structure is high: the value promise is broad or undifferentiated; the material cost and capacity burden is evidenced and bounded.
LLBoth weak	Weak Value EconomicsWhat you offer could come from almost anyone, and your main costs or workload are high or poorly controlled. Precise wording Both sides are low: the value promise is broad or undifferentiated; the material cost or capacity burden is high or poorly controlled.

Relationship 16 of 36

Channels × Customer Relationships

A question worth investigatingWho controls the customer connection before and after the sale?

At CoolgardieWhen work arrives through someone else—a marketplace, a referral partner or a head contractor—the business can lose direct contact, continuity and bargaining power. Coolgardie’s customers still ring it directly, which keeps that relationship in its own hands.

Possible signal: A channel can change fees, block access or redirect repeat work.

Evidence worth looking for: Channel terms, customer contact ownership, repeat-direct work and channel concentration.

Related idea in the book: The Holdup Trap—shown as a lens to think with, not a finding.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Journey ContinuityThere’s evidence that customers who come through your channels go on to become ongoing relationships. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the interaction and retention pattern is evidenced to continue the workable route into an ongoing relationship.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Channels strong, Customer Relationships weak)	Access Strength / Relationship UncertaintyCustomers can reliably find you, buy from you and receive what they buy, but the way you deal with customers and keep them is weak or inconsistent. Precise wording Channels is high while Customer Relationships is low: a workable route for awareness, purchase or delivery is evidenced; the interaction or retention pattern is weak or inconsistent.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Channels weak, Customer Relationships strong)	Relationship Strength / Access UncertaintyThe way customers find, buy from or receive from you is patchy or unreliable, but the way you win customers and keep them is working. Precise wording Channels is low while Customer Relationships is high: the route to the customer is fragmented or unreliable; the intended interaction and retention pattern is evidenced.
LLBoth weak	Weak Journey ContinuityThe way customers find, buy from or receive from you is patchy or unreliable, and the way you deal with customers and keep them is weak or inconsistent. Precise wording Both sides are low: the route to the customer is fragmented or unreliable; the interaction or retention pattern is weak or inconsistent.

Relationship 17 of 36

Channels × Revenue Streams

A question worth investigatingHow do channel terms and buying behaviour affect the revenue received?

At CoolgardieWhen every job is won on a fresh quote, revenue arrives job by job and is renegotiated each time. Planned-maintenance arrangements would need a different route—offers made before anything breaks, and renewals—to produce steadier income.

Possible signal: Revenue is uneven, and every sale starts again from zero.

Evidence worth looking for: Revenue by source, quote win rates, repeat and arranged work, and time spent quoting.

Related idea in the book: The Price Trap—shown as a lens to think with, not a finding.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Conversion PathThere’s evidence that your routes to market turn interest into payment. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the willingness-to-pay and collection logic is evidenced to convert through the workable route.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Channels strong, Revenue Streams weak)	Access Strength / Revenue UncertaintyCustomers can reliably find you, buy from you and receive what they buy, but it’s unclear whether customers will pay, or what they would pay isn’t being collected. Precise wording Channels is high while Revenue Streams is low: a workable route for awareness, purchase or delivery is evidenced; payment logic or willingness to pay is unreliable or poorly captured.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Channels weak, Revenue Streams strong)	Revenue Strength / Access UncertaintyThe way customers find, buy from or receive from you is patchy or unreliable, but customers are willing to pay, and you collect what you’re owed. Precise wording Channels is low while Revenue Streams is high: the route to the customer is fragmented or unreliable; a credible willingness-to-pay and collection logic is evidenced.
LLBoth weak	Weak Conversion PathThe way customers find, buy from or receive from you is patchy or unreliable, and it’s unclear whether customers will pay, or what they would pay isn’t being collected. Precise wording Both sides are low: the route to the customer is fragmented or unreliable; payment logic or willingness to pay is unreliable or poorly captured.

Relationship 18 of 36

Channels × Key Resources

A question worth investigatingAre the resources required to run the channel actually in place?

At CoolgardieBeing the business people ring first takes a phone that’s answered, a good local name and someone able to respond well. If Jason is the only person who can answer confidently, the channel depends on him.

Possible signal: Enquiries are missed or slow when one key person is busy.

Evidence worth looking for: Missed calls, response times, who handles enquiries, and the state of online listings and reviews.

Related idea in the book: The Fragility Trap—shown as a lens to think with, not a finding.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Channel CapacityThere’s evidence that you have the people and resources to run your routes to market. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the critical assets and capacity are evidenced sufficient to run the workable route.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Channels strong, Key Resources weak)	Access Strength / Resource UncertaintyCustomers can reliably find you, buy from you and receive what they buy, but you’re short of the people, equipment or capacity you need. Precise wording Channels is high while Key Resources is low: a workable route for awareness, purchase or delivery is evidenced; critical assets or capacity are constrained or insufficient.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Channels weak, Key Resources strong)	Resource Strength / Access UncertaintyThe way customers find, buy from or receive from you is patchy or unreliable, but you have the people, equipment and capacity you need. Precise wording Channels is low while Key Resources is high: the route to the customer is fragmented or unreliable; the critical assets and capacity are evidenced as available.
LLBoth weak	Weak Channel CapacityThe way customers find, buy from or receive from you is patchy or unreliable, and you’re short of the people, equipment or capacity you need. Precise wording Both sides are low: the route to the customer is fragmented or unreliable; critical assets or capacity are constrained or insufficient.

Relationship 19 of 36

Channels × Key Activities

A question worth investigatingWhat work does the channel create or remove?

At CoolgardieQuoting every job, returning calls and coordinating call-outs take real time. At Coolgardie that coordination falls to Jason—time not spent on the work only he can do.

Possible signal: Winning work takes almost as much effort as doing it.

Evidence worth looking for: Time spent quoting and coordinating, quotes per job won, and admin hours.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Channel OperationThere’s evidence that your day-to-day work keeps your routes to market running. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the essential operating work is evidenced to sustain the workable route.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Channels strong, Key Activities weak)	Access Strength / Activity UncertaintyCustomers can reliably find you, buy from you and receive what they buy, but the essential work isn’t clearly defined or done consistently. Precise wording Channels is high while Key Activities is low: a workable route for awareness, purchase or delivery is evidenced; essential work is undefined or inconsistent.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Channels weak, Key Activities strong)	Activity Strength / Access UncertaintyThe way customers find, buy from or receive from you is patchy or unreliable, but the essential work gets done reliably. Precise wording Channels is low while Key Activities is high: the route to the customer is fragmented or unreliable; the essential operating work is evidenced as executable.
LLBoth weak	Weak Channel OperationThe way customers find, buy from or receive from you is patchy or unreliable, and the essential work isn’t clearly defined or done consistently. Precise wording Both sides are low: the route to the customer is fragmented or unreliable; essential work is undefined or inconsistent.

Relationship 20 of 36

Channels × Key Partners

A question worth investigatingWhich parties control or enable the route to market?

At CoolgardieSome routes belong to others—an equipment supplier that recommends installers, a facilities manager who allocates work, a platform that sells call-outs. They can bring volume but also set the terms. Coolgardie’s customers still ring it directly, which is worth protecting.

Possible signal: A partner could redirect enquiries or change the terms of access.

Evidence worth looking for: Share of work by referring partner, referral terms, and direct versus referred customers.

Related idea in the book: The Holdup Trap—shown as a lens to think with, not a finding.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Channel DependencyThere’s evidence that your partners support your routes to market. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the governed external dependencies are evidenced to support the workable route.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Channels strong, Key Partners weak)	Access Strength / Partner UncertaintyCustomers can reliably find you, buy from you and receive what they buy, but the outside partners you rely on are fragile or poorly managed. Precise wording Channels is high while Key Partnerships is low: a workable route for awareness, purchase or delivery is evidenced; external dependencies are fragile or poorly governed.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Channels weak, Key Partners strong)	Partner Strength / Access UncertaintyThe way customers find, buy from or receive from you is patchy or unreliable, but the outside partners you rely on are dependable and well managed. Precise wording Channels is low while Key Partnerships is high: the route to the customer is fragmented or unreliable; necessary external dependencies are evidenced and governed.
LLBoth weak	Weak Channel DependencyThe way customers find, buy from or receive from you is patchy or unreliable, and the outside partners you rely on are fragile or poorly managed. Precise wording Both sides are low: the route to the customer is fragmented or unreliable; external dependencies are fragile or poorly governed.

Relationship 21 of 36

Channels × Cost Structure

A question worth investigatingWhat does the channel cost across acquisition, fulfilment and support?

At CoolgardieQuoting every job carries costs nobody invoices: visits to scope the work, time writing quotes, and the quotes that are lost. A channel can look free while it quietly uses up capacity.

Possible signal: The cost of winning work rises while job values don’t.

Evidence worth looking for: Quoting time and travel, win rates, listing and marketing costs, and cost per job won.

Related idea in the book: The Price Trap—shown as a lens to think with, not a finding.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Channel EconomicsThere’s evidence that running your routes to market costs no more than you can sustain. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the bounded cost burden is evidenced sustainable for running the workable route.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Channels strong, Cost Structure weak)	Access Strength / Cost UncertaintyCustomers can reliably find you, buy from you and receive what they buy, but your main costs or workload are high or poorly controlled. Precise wording Channels is high while Cost Structure is low: a workable route for awareness, purchase or delivery is evidenced; the material cost or capacity burden is high or poorly controlled.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Channels weak, Cost Structure strong)	Cost Strength / Access UncertaintyThe way customers find, buy from or receive from you is patchy or unreliable, but your main costs and workload are known and under control. Precise wording Channels is low while Cost Structure is high: the route to the customer is fragmented or unreliable; the material cost and capacity burden is evidenced and bounded.
LLBoth weak	Weak Channel EconomicsThe way customers find, buy from or receive from you is patchy or unreliable, and your main costs or workload are high or poorly controlled. Precise wording Both sides are low: the route to the customer is fragmented or unreliable; the material cost or capacity burden is high or poorly controlled.

Relationship 22 of 36

Customer Relationships × Revenue Streams

A question worth investigatingHow does the relationship approach connect with repeat purchase and payment?

At CoolgardieCustomers may like the founder and call often, but goodwill alone does not make revenue predictable. Recurring maintenance agreements could improve certainty if they are properly priced and delivered.

Possible signal: Strong loyalty coexists with irregular work, slow payment or discounts.

Evidence worth looking for: Contracted versus reactive revenue, renewals, collection times and margins.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Relationship EconomicsThere’s evidence that customers keep paying within the relationship you have with them. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the willingness-to-pay and collection logic is evidenced to hold within the intended relationship pattern.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Customer Relationships strong, Revenue Streams weak)	Relationship Strength / Revenue UncertaintyThe way you win customers and keep them is working, but it’s unclear whether customers will pay, or what they would pay isn’t being collected. Precise wording Customer Relationships is high while Revenue Streams is low: the intended interaction and retention pattern is evidenced; payment logic or willingness to pay is unreliable or poorly captured.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Customer Relationships weak, Revenue Streams strong)	Revenue Strength / Relationship UncertaintyThe way you deal with customers and keep them is weak or inconsistent, but customers are willing to pay, and you collect what you’re owed. Precise wording Customer Relationships is low while Revenue Streams is high: the interaction or retention pattern is weak or inconsistent; a credible willingness-to-pay and collection logic is evidenced.
LLBoth weak	Weak Relationship EconomicsThe way you deal with customers and keep them is weak or inconsistent, and it’s unclear whether customers will pay, or what they would pay isn’t being collected. Precise wording Both sides are low: the interaction or retention pattern is weak or inconsistent; payment logic or willingness to pay is unreliable or poorly captured.

Relationship 23 of 36

Customer Relationships × Key Resources

A question worth investigatingWhich people, information or systems sustain the customer relationship?

At CoolgardieCoolgardie’s relationships rest on Jason’s knowledge of each site and owner. While that knowledge lives in his head rather than in shared records, nobody else can easily continue the relationship.

Possible signal: Customer knowledge isn’t recorded anywhere others can use it.

Evidence worth looking for: Service records, customer notes, handovers and who holds knowledge of each site.

Related idea in the book: The Fragility Trap—shown as a lens to think with, not a finding.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Relationship CapacityThere’s evidence that you have the people and systems to keep up your customer relationships. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the critical assets and capacity are evidenced sufficient to maintain the intended relationship pattern.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Customer Relationships strong, Key Resources weak)	Relationship Strength / Resource UncertaintyThe way you win customers and keep them is working, but you’re short of the people, equipment or capacity you need. Precise wording Customer Relationships is high while Key Resources is low: the intended interaction and retention pattern is evidenced; critical assets or capacity are constrained or insufficient.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Customer Relationships weak, Key Resources strong)	Resource Strength / Relationship UncertaintyThe way you deal with customers and keep them is weak or inconsistent, but you have the people, equipment and capacity you need. Precise wording Customer Relationships is low while Key Resources is high: the interaction or retention pattern is weak or inconsistent; the critical assets and capacity are evidenced as available.
LLBoth weak	Weak Relationship CapacityThe way you deal with customers and keep them is weak or inconsistent, and you’re short of the people, equipment or capacity you need. Precise wording Both sides are low: the interaction or retention pattern is weak or inconsistent; critical assets or capacity are constrained or insufficient.

Relationship 24 of 36

Customer Relationships × Key Activities

A question worth investigatingWhat ongoing work is required to maintain the relationship promised?

At CoolgardieRelationships are built in the follow-up: telling the café when the technician is coming, confirming the fix, checking back. When breakdown work fills the day, these small activities disappear first.

Possible signal: Customers have to chase the business for updates.

Evidence worth looking for: Follow-up calls, update messages, complaints about communication and response times.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Relationship OperationThere’s evidence that your day-to-day work keeps your customer relationships strong. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the essential operating work is evidenced to sustain the intended relationship pattern.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Customer Relationships strong, Key Activities weak)	Relationship Strength / Activity UncertaintyThe way you win customers and keep them is working, but the essential work isn’t clearly defined or done consistently. Precise wording Customer Relationships is high while Key Activities is low: the intended interaction and retention pattern is evidenced; essential work is undefined or inconsistent.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Customer Relationships weak, Key Activities strong)	Activity Strength / Relationship UncertaintyThe way you deal with customers and keep them is weak or inconsistent, but the essential work gets done reliably. Precise wording Customer Relationships is low while Key Activities is high: the interaction or retention pattern is weak or inconsistent; the essential operating work is evidenced as executable.
LLBoth weak	Weak Relationship OperationThe way you deal with customers and keep them is weak or inconsistent, and the essential work isn’t clearly defined or done consistently. Precise wording Both sides are low: the interaction or retention pattern is weak or inconsistent; essential work is undefined or inconsistent.

Relationship 25 of 36

Customer Relationships × Key Partners

A question worth investigatingWhat part of customer care or access is entrusted to partners?

At CoolgardieWhen a subcontractor attends, or a partner handles warranty work, the customer’s experience depends on someone else’s conduct. A poor visit damages Coolgardie’s relationship, not the partner’s.

Possible signal: Customers complain about service the business didn’t provide itself.

Evidence worth looking for: Subcontracted jobs, partner-related complaints, quality checks and agreements.

Related idea in the book: The Holdup Trap—shown as a lens to think with, not a finding.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Relationship DependencyThere’s evidence that your partners support your customer relationships. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the governed external dependencies are evidenced to support the intended relationship pattern.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Customer Relationships strong, Key Partners weak)	Relationship Strength / Partner UncertaintyThe way you win customers and keep them is working, but the outside partners you rely on are fragile or poorly managed. Precise wording Customer Relationships is high while Key Partnerships is low: the intended interaction and retention pattern is evidenced; external dependencies are fragile or poorly governed.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Customer Relationships weak, Key Partners strong)	Partner Strength / Relationship UncertaintyThe way you deal with customers and keep them is weak or inconsistent, but the outside partners you rely on are dependable and well managed. Precise wording Customer Relationships is low while Key Partnerships is high: the interaction or retention pattern is weak or inconsistent; necessary external dependencies are evidenced and governed.
LLBoth weak	Weak Relationship DependencyThe way you deal with customers and keep them is weak or inconsistent, and the outside partners you rely on are fragile or poorly managed. Precise wording Both sides are low: the interaction or retention pattern is weak or inconsistent; external dependencies are fragile or poorly governed.

Relationship 26 of 36

Customer Relationships × Cost Structure

A question worth investigatingWhat does the relationship approach cost across different customers?

At CoolgardiePersonal, any-hour service builds loyalty but costs time—especially when it all runs through the owner. Without a price or a structure, the cost of each loyal relationship keeps growing.

Possible signal: The most loyal customers take the most unpaid time.

Evidence worth looking for: Unbilled time, after-hours calls, admin per customer and retention.

Related idea in the book: The Price Trap—shown as a lens to think with, not a finding.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Relationship CostThere’s evidence that looking after customers this way costs no more than you can sustain. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the bounded cost burden is evidenced sustainable for the intended relationship pattern.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Customer Relationships strong, Cost Structure weak)	Relationship Strength / Cost UncertaintyThe way you win customers and keep them is working, but your main costs or workload are high or poorly controlled. Precise wording Customer Relationships is high while Cost Structure is low: the intended interaction and retention pattern is evidenced; the material cost or capacity burden is high or poorly controlled.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Customer Relationships weak, Cost Structure strong)	Cost Strength / Relationship UncertaintyThe way you deal with customers and keep them is weak or inconsistent, but your main costs and workload are known and under control. Precise wording Customer Relationships is low while Cost Structure is high: the interaction or retention pattern is weak or inconsistent; the material cost and capacity burden is evidenced and bounded.
LLBoth weak	Weak Relationship CostThe way you deal with customers and keep them is weak or inconsistent, and your main costs or workload are high or poorly controlled. Precise wording Both sides are low: the interaction or retention pattern is weak or inconsistent; the material cost or capacity burden is high or poorly controlled.

Relationship 27 of 36

Revenue Streams × Key Resources

A question worth investigatingHow do payment timing and revenue terms relate to resource commitments?

At CoolgardieMoving from call-out fees to planned-maintenance arrangements needs scheduling capacity, service records and technicians free for planned visits. New ways of earning stall when resources are built for the old model.

Possible signal: A new way of charging stalls because the business can’t deliver it consistently.

Evidence worth looking for: Technician capacity, scheduling tools, service records and delivery of arranged visits.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Revenue CapacityThere’s evidence that you have the resources your way of earning needs. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the critical assets and capacity are evidenced sufficient to sustain the revenue model.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Revenue Streams strong, Key Resources weak)	Revenue Strength / Resource UncertaintyCustomers are willing to pay, and you collect what you’re owed, but you’re short of the people, equipment or capacity you need. Precise wording Revenue Streams is high while Key Resources is low: a credible willingness-to-pay and collection logic is evidenced; critical assets or capacity are constrained or insufficient.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Revenue Streams weak, Key Resources strong)	Resource Strength / Revenue UncertaintyIt’s unclear whether customers will pay, or what they would pay isn’t being collected, but you have the people, equipment and capacity you need. Precise wording Revenue Streams is low while Key Resources is high: payment logic or willingness to pay is unreliable or poorly captured; the critical assets and capacity are evidenced as available.
LLBoth weak	Weak Revenue CapacityIt’s unclear whether customers will pay, or what they would pay isn’t being collected, and you’re short of the people, equipment or capacity you need. Precise wording Both sides are low: payment logic or willingness to pay is unreliable or poorly captured; critical assets or capacity are constrained or insufficient.

Relationship 28 of 36

Revenue Streams × Key Activities

A question worth investigatingIs essential delivery and coordination work actually recovered in revenue?

At CoolgardieRepairs earn revenue; call-out coordination, quoting and follow-up usually don’t. Coolgardie’s case notes unpaid coordination time—when unbilled work grows faster than billed work, the business works harder for the same income.

Possible signal: Hours worked rise, but revenue doesn’t.

Evidence worth looking for: Billable versus non-billable hours, revenue per job and coordination time.

Related idea in the book: The Price Trap—shown as a lens to think with, not a finding.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Revenue OperationThere’s evidence that your essential work supports the way you earn. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the essential operating work is evidenced to enable the revenue model.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Revenue Streams strong, Key Activities weak)	Revenue Strength / Activity UncertaintyCustomers are willing to pay, and you collect what you’re owed, but the essential work isn’t clearly defined or done consistently. Precise wording Revenue Streams is high while Key Activities is low: a credible willingness-to-pay and collection logic is evidenced; essential work is undefined or inconsistent.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Revenue Streams weak, Key Activities strong)	Activity Strength / Revenue UncertaintyIt’s unclear whether customers will pay, or what they would pay isn’t being collected, but the essential work gets done reliably. Precise wording Revenue Streams is low while Key Activities is high: payment logic or willingness to pay is unreliable or poorly captured; the essential operating work is evidenced as executable.
LLBoth weak	Weak Revenue OperationIt’s unclear whether customers will pay, or what they would pay isn’t being collected, and the essential work isn’t clearly defined or done consistently. Precise wording Both sides are low: payment logic or willingness to pay is unreliable or poorly captured; essential work is undefined or inconsistent.

Relationship 29 of 36

Revenue Streams × Key Partners

A question worth investigatingWhich partner arrangements affect revenue access, terms or continuity?

At CoolgardieSupplier price rises that can’t be passed on, referral fees and partner margins all reduce what the business keeps. When the compressor distributor raised its prices, any job quoted at the old rates absorbed the difference.

Possible signal: Partner costs rise faster than the prices the business can charge.

Evidence worth looking for: Parts margins over time, supplier price changes, pass-through terms and referral fees.

Related idea in the book: The Holdup Trap—shown as a lens to think with, not a finding.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Revenue DependencyThere’s evidence that your partners support the way you earn. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the governed external dependencies are evidenced to support the revenue model.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Revenue Streams strong, Key Partners weak)	Revenue Strength / Partner UncertaintyCustomers are willing to pay, and you collect what you’re owed, but the outside partners you rely on are fragile or poorly managed. Precise wording Revenue Streams is high while Key Partnerships is low: a credible willingness-to-pay and collection logic is evidenced; external dependencies are fragile or poorly governed.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Revenue Streams weak, Key Partners strong)	Partner Strength / Revenue UncertaintyIt’s unclear whether customers will pay, or what they would pay isn’t being collected, but the outside partners you rely on are dependable and well managed. Precise wording Revenue Streams is low while Key Partnerships is high: payment logic or willingness to pay is unreliable or poorly captured; necessary external dependencies are evidenced and governed.
LLBoth weak	Weak Revenue DependencyIt’s unclear whether customers will pay, or what they would pay isn’t being collected, and the outside partners you rely on are fragile or poorly managed. Precise wording Both sides are low: payment logic or willingness to pay is unreliable or poorly captured; external dependencies are fragile or poorly governed.

Relationship 30 of 36

Revenue Streams × Cost Structure

A question worth investigatingHow do revenue timing and cost behaviour fit across the operating cycle?

At CoolgardieA busy service company may still struggle if travel, after-hours cover, labour and overhead are under-recovered in job prices. The problem is structural economics, not necessarily sales volume.

Possible signal: Higher sales fail to produce proportionately stronger cash or profit.

Evidence worth looking for: Job-level direct costs, utilisation, pricing, overhead and cash-flow timing.

Related idea in the book: The Price Trap—shown as a lens to think with, not a finding.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Unit EconomicsThere’s evidence that what you earn covers what it costs to earn it. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the bounded cost burden is evidenced sustainable against the revenue model.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Revenue Streams strong, Cost Structure weak)	Revenue Strength / Cost UncertaintyCustomers are willing to pay, and you collect what you’re owed, but your main costs or workload are high or poorly controlled. Precise wording Revenue Streams is high while Cost Structure is low: a credible willingness-to-pay and collection logic is evidenced; the material cost or capacity burden is high or poorly controlled.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Revenue Streams weak, Cost Structure strong)	Cost Strength / Revenue UncertaintyIt’s unclear whether customers will pay, or what they would pay isn’t being collected, but your main costs and workload are known and under control. Precise wording Revenue Streams is low while Cost Structure is high: payment logic or willingness to pay is unreliable or poorly captured; the material cost and capacity burden is evidenced and bounded.
LLBoth weak	Weak Unit EconomicsIt’s unclear whether customers will pay, or what they would pay isn’t being collected, and your main costs or workload are high or poorly controlled. Precise wording Both sides are low: payment logic or willingness to pay is unreliable or poorly captured; the material cost or capacity burden is high or poorly controlled.

Relationship 31 of 36

Key Resources × Key Activities

A question worth investigatingCan the available people, assets and knowledge perform the required work?

At CoolgardieA business may have enough tools and technicians on paper but still rely on one person’s judgement for fault diagnosis, scheduling and difficult decisions.

Possible signal: Work stops when a particular employee or founder is unavailable.

Evidence worth looking for: Workflow maps, skill coverage, documented procedures, absences and backlog patterns.

Related idea in the book: The Fragility Trap—shown as a lens to think with, not a finding.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Operating CapabilityThere’s evidence that you have the people, equipment and capacity to do the essential work. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the critical assets and capacity are evidenced sufficient to perform the essential operating work.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Key Resources strong, Key Activities weak)	Resource Strength / Activity UncertaintyYou have the people, equipment and capacity you need, but the essential work isn’t clearly defined or done consistently. Precise wording Key Resources is high while Key Activities is low: the critical assets and capacity are evidenced as available; essential work is undefined or inconsistent.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Key Resources weak, Key Activities strong)	Activity Strength / Resource UncertaintyYou’re short of the people, equipment or capacity you need, but the essential work gets done reliably. Precise wording Key Resources is low while Key Activities is high: critical assets or capacity are constrained or insufficient; the essential operating work is evidenced as executable.
LLBoth weak	Weak Operating CapabilityYou’re short of the people, equipment or capacity you need, and the essential work isn’t clearly defined or done consistently. Precise wording Both sides are low: critical assets or capacity are constrained or insufficient; essential work is undefined or inconsistent.

Relationship 32 of 36

Key Resources × Key Partners

A question worth investigatingWhich essential capabilities depend on outside supply or access?

At CoolgardieIf one distributor supplies the compressors the team fits most often, and the team is trained around them, a price rise or a shortage can expose a profitable service promise.

Possible signal: One supplier controls a material input, certification or access right.

Evidence worth looking for: Supply contracts, alternative sources, lead times, inventories and supplier concentration.

Related idea in the book: The Holdup Trap—shown as a lens to think with, not a finding.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Resource DependencyThere’s evidence that your partners fill the gaps in what you have in-house. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the governed external dependencies are evidenced to complement the internal resources.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Key Resources strong, Key Partners weak)	Resource Strength / Partner UncertaintyYou have the people, equipment and capacity you need, but the outside partners you rely on are fragile or poorly managed. Precise wording Key Resources is high while Key Partnerships is low: the critical assets and capacity are evidenced as available; external dependencies are fragile or poorly governed.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Key Resources weak, Key Partners strong)	Partner Strength / Resource UncertaintyYou’re short of the people, equipment or capacity you need, but the outside partners you rely on are dependable and well managed. Precise wording Key Resources is low while Key Partnerships is high: critical assets or capacity are constrained or insufficient; necessary external dependencies are evidenced and governed.
LLBoth weak	Weak Resource DependencyYou’re short of the people, equipment or capacity you need, and the outside partners you rely on are fragile or poorly managed. Precise wording Both sides are low: critical assets or capacity are constrained or insufficient; external dependencies are fragile or poorly governed.

Relationship 33 of 36

Key Resources × Cost Structure

A question worth investigatingWhat does it cost to acquire, maintain and replace essential resources?

At CoolgardieQualified technicians, vehicles, diagnostic tools and parts stock are fixed commitments. Underused, they become overhead; stretched, they create overtime and delays.

Possible signal: Resources sit idle in some weeks and are overloaded in others.

Evidence worth looking for: Utilisation, overtime, idle time, vehicle and equipment costs, and stock levels.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Resource EconomicsThere’s evidence that your key resources cost no more than you can sustain. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the bounded cost burden is evidenced sustainable for the critical resources.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Key Resources strong, Cost Structure weak)	Resource Strength / Cost UncertaintyYou have the people, equipment and capacity you need, but your main costs or workload are high or poorly controlled. Precise wording Key Resources is high while Cost Structure is low: the critical assets and capacity are evidenced as available; the material cost or capacity burden is high or poorly controlled.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Key Resources weak, Cost Structure strong)	Cost Strength / Resource UncertaintyYou’re short of the people, equipment or capacity you need, but your main costs and workload are known and under control. Precise wording Key Resources is low while Cost Structure is high: critical assets or capacity are constrained or insufficient; the material cost and capacity burden is evidenced and bounded.
LLBoth weak	Weak Resource EconomicsYou’re short of the people, equipment or capacity you need, and your main costs or workload are high or poorly controlled. Precise wording Both sides are low: critical assets or capacity are constrained or insufficient; the material cost or capacity burden is high or poorly controlled.

Relationship 34 of 36

Key Activities × Key Partners

A question worth investigatingWhich work depends on partners, and what evidence supports continuity?

At CoolgardieOutsourcing overflow repairs or specialist work may be sensible. It becomes risky when a third party controls a promised response time or quality standard and the business lacks practical alternatives.

Possible signal: Partner delays or service failures repeatedly become our customer problem.

Evidence worth looking for: Subcontractor agreements, SLA performance, incident logs and alternatives.

Related idea in the book: The Holdup Trap—shown as a lens to think with, not a finding.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Execution DependencyThere’s evidence that your partners reliably support the work you must do well. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the governed external dependencies are evidenced to support the essential operating work.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Key Activities strong, Key Partners weak)	Activity Strength / Partner UncertaintyThe essential work gets done reliably, but the outside partners you rely on are fragile or poorly managed. Precise wording Key Activities is high while Key Partnerships is low: the essential operating work is evidenced as executable; external dependencies are fragile or poorly governed.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Key Activities weak, Key Partners strong)	Partner Strength / Activity UncertaintyThe essential work isn’t clearly defined or done consistently, but the outside partners you rely on are dependable and well managed. Precise wording Key Activities is low while Key Partnerships is high: essential work is undefined or inconsistent; necessary external dependencies are evidenced and governed.
LLBoth weak	Weak Execution DependencyThe essential work isn’t clearly defined or done consistently, and the outside partners you rely on are fragile or poorly managed. Precise wording Both sides are low: essential work is undefined or inconsistent; external dependencies are fragile or poorly governed.

Relationship 35 of 36

Key Activities × Cost Structure

A question worth investigatingWhich activities drive cost, variability and unrecorded effort?

At CoolgardieBreakdown call-outs carry travel, disruption and after-hours costs that planned work avoids. A business dominated by emergency work can be busy and still costly to run.

Possible signal: Costs per job rise as the work becomes more reactive.

Evidence worth looking for: Cost per job by type, travel time, overtime and rework.

Related idea in the book: The Price Trap—shown as a lens to think with, not a finding.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Activity EconomicsThere’s evidence that your essential work costs no more than you can sustain. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the bounded cost burden is evidenced sustainable for the essential operating work.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Key Activities strong, Cost Structure weak)	Activity Strength / Cost UncertaintyThe essential work gets done reliably, but your main costs or workload are high or poorly controlled. Precise wording Key Activities is high while Cost Structure is low: the essential operating work is evidenced as executable; the material cost or capacity burden is high or poorly controlled.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Key Activities weak, Cost Structure strong)	Cost Strength / Activity UncertaintyThe essential work isn’t clearly defined or done consistently, but your main costs and workload are known and under control. Precise wording Key Activities is low while Cost Structure is high: essential work is undefined or inconsistent; the material cost and capacity burden is evidenced and bounded.
LLBoth weak	Weak Activity EconomicsThe essential work isn’t clearly defined or done consistently, and your main costs or workload are high or poorly controlled. Precise wording Both sides are low: essential work is undefined or inconsistent; the material cost or capacity burden is high or poorly controlled.

Relationship 36 of 36

Key Partners × Cost Structure

A question worth investigatingHow do partner terms and switching conditions affect the cost model?

At CoolgardieA long-standing distributor can feel cheapest because the team knows its parts, but habit isn’t price. Coolgardie has never trialled an alternative, so it can’t tell whether the terms are fair.

Possible signal: Partner prices rise without the business ever testing alternatives.

Evidence worth looking for: Supplier price history, quotes from alternatives, switching costs and share of purchases.

Related idea in the book: The Holdup Trap—shown as a lens to think with, not a finding.

How this relationship can read

HHBoth strong	Demonstrated Partner EconomicsThere’s evidence that what your partners cost is sustainable. Precise wording Both sides are high, and the link is evidenced: the bounded cost burden is evidenced sustainable for the governed external dependencies.
HLThe first strong and the second weak (Key Partners strong, Cost Structure weak)	Partner Strength / Cost UncertaintyThe outside partners you rely on are dependable and well managed, but your main costs or workload are high or poorly controlled. Precise wording Key Partnerships is high while Cost Structure is low: necessary external dependencies are evidenced and governed; the material cost or capacity burden is high or poorly controlled.
LHThe first weak and the second strong (Key Partners weak, Cost Structure strong)	Cost Strength / Partner UncertaintyThe outside partners you rely on are fragile or poorly managed, but your main costs and workload are known and under control. Precise wording Key Partnerships is low while Cost Structure is high: external dependencies are fragile or poorly governed; the material cost and capacity burden is evidenced and bounded.
LLBoth weak	Weak Partner EconomicsThe outside partners you rely on are fragile or poorly managed, and your main costs or workload are high or poorly controlled. Precise wording Both sides are low: external dependencies are fragile or poorly governed; the material cost or capacity burden is high or poorly controlled.

Numbered and worded as in Reference B, “All 36 Relationships”, of The Founder’s Trap.

Step 3 · Where is the pressure?

Start from a problem you recognise

Choose a situation that sounds familiar. We’ll point to a relationship worth exploring, and to case studies about the same problem.

Your own businessWant your own business read this way?A Snapshot Review reads your business from your Intake Form answers: how the parts fit together, the relationships that matter most and their states, what the evidence can’t yet tell, and one question to resolve before your next move. A$249, including the book. Every review is checked and approved by a person.

Explore the Snapshot Review See an example review →

The reasoning behind itThe Founder’s TrapWhy creating distinctive value and building a business that can deliver it, keep the benefit and withstand disruption are two different challenges—and the three traps that stop effort paying off. PDF, ePub and audiobook, A$29.

Get the book · A$29 Glossary →

This guide is for learning. It does not score your business, determine a structural state or identify a trap as fact, and it does not replace a Snapshot Review. Coolgardie Commercial Refrigeration is fictional. Nothing you select here is stored or sent anywhere. The Business Model Canvas is by Osterwalder and Pigneur (Business Model Generation, 2010); the 36-relationship reading and its state names are BusinessBuilder’s application, not part of the original Canvas.