From Profitable to Resilient: Rebuilding the KulaiDelicacy Project with a PMP Framework

In the business world, profit is often seen as the ultimate measure of success. By that standard, the KulaiDelicacy project was undoubtedly a success story:

Over four years, it grew rapidly from a two-person home kitchen into a delivery brand generating millions of pesos in annual revenue. At its peak, the kitchen ran non-stop, orders flooded in, and it secured a solid position in a specific niche market in the Philippines. Even after a devastating external policy shock, it managed to survive in a streamlined form – seemingly ticking all the boxes for "success."

However, beneath this prosperous surface lay a core fragility that only those inside could truly feel.

💭The definition of success should extend beyond just profit; it must also include sustainable value delivery, goal achievement, and system resilience.

Looking back, I clearly see that this seemingly successful business was incredibly fragile. Its operation depended heavily on the all-encompassing support of one key person – myself (often working 15+ hours a day continuously). If I were absent, the project would verge on collapse. Ultimately, an external policy storm (the gambling ban) nearly wiped it out, proving this fragility was not just a worry but a reality.

This experience forced me to reflect deeply:

💭Relying solely on profit-driven "trial and error" might build a "sandcastle": profitable, yet extremely vulnerable to risks.

After leaving the project, I systematically studied the PMP (Project Management Professional) knowledge base and re-examined the project structure using this framework.

This article attempts to answer:

How can PMP's systematic thinking rebuild the KulaiDelicacy project?

The goal is not just to replicate past profits, but to build a truly sustainable and resilient business system.

👁️‍🗨️Focusing on Phase 1 – "Getting It Off the Ground"

The core idea here is Tailoring. PMP is not a rigid set of rules but a vast toolkit and thinking framework.

For a two-person startup, complex processes aren't needed, but core elements must be grasped, arming intuition with professional thinking.

Looking back, many of my actions aligned with PM principles (like rolling planning, customer feedback focus), but it was unconscious and incomplete. Learning PMP taught me how to systematically organize these scattered intuitions.

We can roughly map the project's overall path into three strategic phases:

1. Phase 1: Getting It Off the Ground (Laying the Foundation)

2. Phase 2: Organizing Others to Do It (Scaling Up)

3. Phase 3: Having Others Run It Entirely (System Self-Sufficiency)

This article focuses on Phase 1, exploring how the five PMP process groups ensure a solid foundation. PMP's value isn't just in the tools, but in providing a structured way of thinking.

1. Initiating Process Group: Define the "Rules" Before the "Passion"

Core Task: Set clear goals and boundaries for Phase 1, and resolve the critical issue in a two-person partnership – "Who has the final say?"

Key Actions:

Before investing any significant resources, I would insist on creating a concise but crucial Project Charter with the partner. This "project constitution" forces written answers for Phase 1:

• Phase Objectives? (e.g., Successfully launch the kitchen, validate market acceptance of core menu items, achieve initial profitability.)

• Ultimate Decision-Maker for Phase 1? (A tie-breaking mechanism must be predefined.)

• Core Roles & Responsibilities in Phase 1? (Who handles product R&D/quality? Who builds basic systems/manages finances?)

• Key Success Criteria for Phase 1? (e.g., Achieve XX average daily orders within 3 months, customer satisfaction score of X.)

💭This Charter lays the foundation for all subsequent rational communication and collaboration.

3. Executing Process Group: Follow the Plan, Focus on the Goal

• Core Task: Efficiently complete all tasks defined in the Phase 1 plan.

• Key Actions: Strictly follow the Phase 1 Project Management Plan. Kitchen follows SOPs, procurement follows processes. All energy is focused on achieving Phase 1 objectives.

4. Monitoring & Controlling Process Group: Use Data to Stay on Track

• Core Task: Continuously track Phase 1 progress, identify deviations early, and correct them.

• Key Actions: Develop key data recording habits (e.g., daily sales, costs, customer feedback). Regularly (e.g., weekly) compare actual performance against the Phase 1 plan. When deviations occur or plan adjustments are needed (e.g., market feedback requires a menu change), activate the pre-defined Change Control mechanism (for a 2-person team, this could be a simple "Discuss -> Assess Impact -> Agree -> Document" process), evaluate the impact on Phase 1 goals, and record the change.

5. Closing Process Group: Review Phase 1, Empower Phase 2

Core Task: Formally conclude Phase 1, systematically summarize lessons learned, and provide a basis for deciding whether and how to proceed to Phase 2 ("Organizing Others to Do It").

Key Actions: Upon achieving Phase 1 objectives (or proving them unfeasible), conduct a formal Phase Gate Review. Produce a Phase 1 Lessons Learned Report, assessing goal achievement, risks encountered, response effectiveness, etc. This report becomes the key input for deciding whether to initiate the planning process for Phase 2. This transforms the project from "groping forward" into "learning-driven iteration".

Introducing this tailored PMP framework, focused on Phase 1, would fundamentally change the project's DNA, directly addressing the three "fatal flaws" identified in the post-mortem, and leading to a healthier, faster development trajectory:

1. Resolving "Governance Chaos"

The Project Charter and formalized communication mechanisms would effectively prevent decision-making deadlocks caused by unclear authority and emotional factors right from Day 1, keeping the project on a rational track.

2. Breaking the "One-Person Army"

Clear resource planning and role definition would ensure division of labor even in Phase 1, preventing the core person from becoming overwhelmed too early. The successful closure of Phase 1 would provide clear inputs for Phase 2 ("Organizing Others"), making team expansion more planned and structured.

3. Optimizing "Necessary Exploration"

PMP doesn't eliminate exploration in startups, but it provides a thinking framework to make it more efficient and directed. Detailed upfront planning and risk management would significantly reduce ineffective trial-and-error in processes and systems, markedly shortening the time needed to achieve phase objectives. If the original project took 4 years to reach maturity (Phase 3: System Self-Sufficiency), the PMP framework might enable achieving it in 3 years or even less.