Corporate setup

Hi Johnny,
thank you for your effort. Read your book, watched the videos, still questions remain:
How to setup the system in a corporate environment with seven companies, each of which have individual areas like Finance, HR, Legal, IT, Suppliers, Clients,… and (!) there are also basically the same areas with group-wide „things“.
I do not want to copy content in categories in seven companies.
How to structure the system? I thought a lot about it, but have not found a nice solution yet.
Thank you very much for your input!
Cheers and greetings from Vienna (Austria), Gerald

I would suggest reading the 13.01 Multiple Project part of the site.

Here Johnny suggests a X00. infront as a project identifier. If you only have 7 companies, with no reason to expand beyond 26, I would use one letter.

This way you can have A11.11 be finance/invoices for all companies for example. Having categories be the same over companies creates unity and ease of use I think.

This is a very short answer. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.

Yeah multiple projects at 13.01 is the place to start, but you have a large, complex setup there. 7 companies!

I’m very happy to help solve this, it’s probably going to take more than a single forum post but it sounds like an interesting pattern that could help others in the future.

How much more information can you give me here? I need to know a lot more about the structure of these companies.

If you’ve gone through the workbook, can you share your working? (If you haven’t, that’s going to be your first step.)

It feels like you need to apply the workbook’s methods to each company individually — which will just take time, there’s no way round that — but also consider as its own iteration of the workbook the ‘shared’ structure stuff.

There’s no shortcut here. You’re in for a bit of work; you just need to recognise, and probably convince a bunch of other people, that it’ll be worth the effort.

You can reach me privately by email if you don’t want to share here, which would be understandable.