Bullet

A 'Bullet' is a type of payment system. There's nothing supernatural about it; the idea is straightforward, and the results are quick to show. The name wasn't my creation; it was coined by the owner of the company where this system was implemented. After he listened to the arguments and features, he simply said: 'This is a Bullet!'

He probably meant that he likes the system, not that it is a mythical silver bullet. In reality, the system is quite limited, especially in terms of its areas of application, including the owner and the company’s development plans.

The principle of the Bullet is very simple: pay people a share of the profits. Not everyone, just those who are part of the value creation chain. It's banal, simple, and boring. The whole point isn't in the system itself or in profit-sharing, but in... well, you'll find out.

I don't claim to possess the ultimate truth. The name 'Bullet' does not imply originality or uniqueness. It's just more convenient to discuss it when named with a single word. I implemented the Bullet myself and saw how others do it. I'm not selling anything. Just sharing. Without a programmer, implementation is impossible. So, as they say, sorry for reaching out to you.

Prerequisites

The Bullet was born out of a struggle, one that is ongoing and terribly exhausting. This struggle goes by many names – business development, efficiency enhancement, loyalty, and engagement. This battle is almost always uneven. On one side stands the owner and, if fortunate, the director. On the other side are all other friends working in the company.

The owner wants the business to grow, tries to make some efforts in that direction, and encounters resistance. Initially, he thinks the resistance is coming from the external environment – clients, competitors, the government, etc. Then he realizes that the main obstacle lies within the company – those very friends.

The contradiction is clear and quite understandable. People do something and receive a salary for it. Then the owner comes along and says they need to work more or better. Why? So that he can earn more money. It doesn't matter what he promises about using all the additional profit for the company's development, so that everyone benefits. People aren't fools; they understand that, at best, he is scaling the business – buying a new workshop or building a store. Their salaries won't increase. There will just be more friends.

In simple terms, those who are working today must put in effort so that there will be work for them tomorrow. Our grandparents experienced something similar in the last century. In principle, judging by the reviews, they have no objections—on the contrary, they say it was interesting. But they want something for themselves, ideally in this life.

And here lies the contradiction. There's no need to force people to work—they manage just fine. But if you want to change, improve, accelerate, increase, or decrease something—good luck achieving that. No one is to blame, there are no villains; everyone acts strictly within their own interests.

However, there are many ways out of this situation. One of them is that very Bullet. You just need to determine the key question.

Key question

The key question is very simple: is the owner ready to pay a constant share of the profits to their employees?

If you think about it, they are already paying employees a share. Over any period—a month, a quarter, or a year—the wage fund accounts for a certain share. However, it's generally included in the costs.

The problem is that this share constantly changes from period to period. And there is a certain probability that this share can be reduced. For example, by doing something useful regarding efficiency.

The effect can be especially noticeable where people have a salary. For instance, an owner has a supply department that consumes 1 million rubles a month, including taxes, depreciation, electricity, and cookies with coffee. If, by some magical means, sales double, the supply department will still consume 1 million rubles a month, and its share of profits (or expenses, however you want to phrase it) will decrease.

The whole question lies in that very 'magical means.' A whole camp of info-salespeople comes to the rescue, trying to sell their version of 'magical means.'
The owner might give in, listen to all that 'ai-na-na-na,' and organize the implementation of something like Lean or CRM, but sees no results. They do get results, but the opposite of what was intended—bills from the info-salespeople arrive in large amounts, and it’s clear, without question, that they fall into the expense category. Yet profit does not grow.

This can go on for quite some time. One set of information peddlers is replaced by another, new methods, systems, blockchains, and artificial intelligences emerge, while the owner continues to wait for profits to increase "magically" and for the share of profits given to employees to decrease.

The owner does not always see that the information peddlers exacerbate the contradiction he is trying to overcome with their help. The problem was that people were indifferent to his desire to grow his business. But that indifference, as you understand, means apathy, disinterest, nothing at all. Zero.

Because the owner asked people themselves to increase the effectiveness of his business without paying them for it. The result is this: since you don’t want to work for free, here are the flashy beauties who I’ll pay millions to, and they’ll do it for you. And you become like a guinea pig.

People, naturally, resist. Who wants to be the foundation of the success of the information peddlers? Again, without receiving any bonus for it. After all, there is a possibility, albeit a small one, that the information peddlers offer something worthwhile. But they can’t implement and launch it themselves; they need the help of employees. Is there any reason to help them? So that they can later reference you?

In general, the sooner the owner realizes that his share of profits will not increase "magically", the better. Of course, if the owner is smart, or if he finds decent information peddlers, then no external help is needed.

But if nothing is working out, the owner might need to sit down and think hard. It doesn’t work with his own efforts. It doesn’t work with the information peddlers either. However, there’s a chance the employees can manage it if given a share of the profits.

The probability, I must say, is not very high. But it won’t get worse since you can’t do it yourself, and the external friends couldn’t help either. You just need to decide for yourself whether you’re willing to operate with a constant share of profits for yourself and a constant share for your employees.

In absolute terms, the company's income may grow. If the shares remain unchanged, then both the owner's income and the income of the employees will increase in absolute terms. In other words, there will be more money, but it will have to be shared.

If the owner is willing to try, then it’s time to start implementing a profit-sharing system.

Self-defense

Business programming teaches that any system must incorporate self-protection. Risks should be minimal, and in case of failure, there must be a way to quickly revert to the original point without losing a lot of money and the business.

In the Pool, self-protection is embedded in the very principle. The owner agrees that they are giving employees a share of the profits, and that share is fixed. This means that at the start, it's essential to determine whether the owner's share is acceptable in principle.

Sometimes, a business is already operating at a loss. In such cases, one should not implement the Pool — first, they need to sort out the expenses.

If the share seems acceptable both ways, one can begin. Just don't forget to talk to the people and explain the essence of the experiment.

In this case, people are not an object but the subject of the experiment. Roughly speaking, the owner takes them as partners, and they gain the opportunity to directly and significantly influence what happens. They are now directly interested in the company's growth. The more sales and profits, the higher their income. And vice versa.

The owner sort of steps aside, almost on equal terms. Now, if the company takes risks, it's the whole company that's at stake, not just the owner. If it succeeds — everyone will profit. If it fails — everyone ends up without pants.

Employee Self-Protection

I recommend incorporating employee self-protection into the system. On one hand, a share of the profits allows for greater earnings. On the other hand, there's a significant risk of earning not just less, but substantially less.

Ordinary employees typically do not have a good understanding of business risks, as they are used to receiving a fixed salary. If a month with poor sales occurs, it's the owner who has to figure out how to pay the employees. They will certainly cut bonuses and halt the corporate swimming program, but it won't go so far as to leave everyone without their salaries.

Therefore, simply switching to a pure profit share is too risky. People will be scared and, in case of any issue, will run away shouting that the owner deceived them and left them without pants.

I suggest a simple option: a fixed salary. If, based on the profit share, the result is higher than the salary, then pay according to the profit. If the salary is higher, then pay that amount.
But it’s not that simple – it’s too convenient for employees. It’s better to keep track of the difference.

For example, in the first month, the profit is low, and the salary is paid. Okay, we can deal with that. We just remember the difference between the salary and the profit share, and the employee will owe us that. In the next month, if we perform well – great, pay according to the profit, but deduct the difference that was created last month.

We also need to set a limit for patience. For instance, if the salary is paid for three consecutive months – the experiment can be deemed unsuccessful and canceled, returning to the baseline. In that case, the risk, in monetary terms, is known in advance.

Yes, and there’s no need to keep track of the positive difference between the profit and salary amounts. Employees, like the owner, should remain in constant tension; otherwise, the temptation will be too great to relax at some point and just receive a salary without any guilt.

Initial Shares

Here, I suggest not to worry. Since the owner has decided at the start that the share of labor costs suits them, we should take that as the starting point.

For example, if the salary for supplies actually constitutes 5% of the profit, then accept that percentage as the share. Do the same for any other positions in the value creation chain.

It’s usually easiest with salespeople – they are typically paid a percentage of profits, revenues, or payments. We just need to bring it to a common indicator – profit.

Wherever the bullet was implemented, salespeople, suppliers, warehouse workers, designers, and production were placed in the chain.

It’s clear with salespeople; I won’t go into detail.

Suppliers are generally the same. Their work affects sales, production, and even design development – samples of parts need to be ordered on time.

Warehouse workers – they are not directly in the value chain, but they were included because they already had almost piecework pay.

Production is also clear. These guys produce what will then be sold.

Constructors were included to make them at least for a moment think about sales, money, profits, and clients. Otherwise, like programmers, they prefer to stand aside while also complaining about low pay.

Trick

Here comes the moment for an important clever trick. The share should be determined based on the function as a whole, not on the employee.

If 5% for procurement, then 5% for procurement, not 0.5% for the procurer (if there were 10 people at the beginning of the experiment).

So it doesn’t matter whether it’s 10 people or 50—they always receive 5% of the profit, shared among all.

Firstly, this is one of the elements of self-defense for the system against staff bloating. Otherwise, the head of procurement might hire both his wife and mother-in-law to receive a nice percentage of the profits.

Secondly, this acts as an incentive to increase efficiency by reducing staff. Unfortunately, there are still pretty girls who only serve coffee to the boss and print meeting minutes (thanks to the admin).

Now such a girl will be a burden not only for the owner but for the entire procurement department. Including the head. If the whole procurement department wants to have a pretty girl around—it's up to them how they spend their share of the profit.

Division

It is also important to avoid another extreme—blindly giving a percentage to the department to divide as they please. In principle, sometimes this may be justified. But the examples I’ve seen in life suggest otherwise.

If the share is simply given to the head of the department for them to distribute at their discretion, it won’t result in an effective function but rather an Overlord with sycophants. The key condition for high income will be not good work but good relations with the boss.

Decent people won’t be able to work in such conditions and will leave, even despite the potentially high income. Especially since we’re not only talking about salespeople, for whom building relationships with anyone is part of the profession, but also about the constructors.

Therefore, the rules for distribution should be transparent—both within the function and outside it. Ideally, they should be automated. Let me provide a few examples.

Examples of distribution

It’s simple with sellers. There is a customer order, and it has a manager. By default, this is the manager assigned to the client, but it could also be someone else (in case the main one is on vacation or has left).

If there are two types of sellers – active and support, then the commission on the order is divided in an agreed-upon proportion. The active one is the one who found the client. The support is the one who finalizes and oversees the deal.

If two people worked on the deal, both should be indicated in the order. More precisely, they should have the opportunity to indicate themselves.

Supply can be divided more easily by nomenclature. Where this was implemented, it was divided by categories. For example, one person buys all the forged and cast blanks, another buys all the gears, a third one handles rolled products, and so on.

Shares in profit are calculated based on the cost shares of materials and components that the suppliers purchased. Roughly speaking, the supplier's share in profit equals the share of the nomenclature they bought in the cost price.

This method does not always work, as there may be discrepancies in costs – for example, if a particular part takes up half of the cost price. However, in the context where this was implemented, such discrepancies were minimal – two types.

The first type involves large body parts. But everyone agreed that there is always so much hassle with the quality of casting/forging that it’s not a problem to pay a lot of money to whoever handles them. Because there weren’t many volunteers anyway.

The second type involves small expensive parts, some with enhanced hardness. So enhanced that you can hardly find them anywhere. Here it’s even easier: they are needed so infrequently, and the difficulties are so many that paying a lot is not a big deal.

It’s more interesting with designers – they have been assigned an author’s percentage. Roughly speaking, there is a share in the profit – let’s say 5%. So, a table is attached to each nomenclature item – indicating the participation shares of each designer.

For example, if a designer created a part from start to finish. The table will have a single entry with their surname and a share of 100%. This means that when this part is sold – either separately or as part of a product – they will receive 5% of the profit.

Then another designer made an improvement and formatted a notification – a second line appears in the table with their surname and, for example, a share of 10%. Accordingly, the percentage of profits will be split in a ratio of 9 to 1.

The question arises – what to do if the designer has resigned? We decided that in this case, their share 'expires'. If they 'owned' 90% of the copyright on this item, then only 10% will be distributed to those who are still working. And when the item is refined again, the shares will be recalculated.

At that time, the warehouse workers already had a piece-rate system in rubles for the kilograms of items they shipped/received/moved. This system remained, with rubles per kg now representing not absolute income, but a share in profits.

Automation

All of this needs to be quickly automated. Nothing particularly complicated – just add the relevant fields in entities, such as customer and supplier orders, nomenclature, automate notifications, etc.

The main thing is to ensure that your cost is calculated as quickly and accurately as possible. And, accordingly, the profit. While profit only interested the owner, no one cared that the cost calculation was completed on the 20th of the following month. Now, this figure should ideally be available in the first days of the month.

The first bottleneck

The first bottleneck that the launch of the Bullet encounters is job responsibilities. And this is one of the main advantages of the bullet.

Let's go back a bit, to our dark past. There were some departments and employees. They all did something – a whole bunch of duties. Some were prescribed by regulations, instructions, and processes. Others were made up by the people themselves. A third part consisted of various assignments from higher-ups and peers.

People are doing something, and a certain result is produced. Connecting what people do with the result, i.e., profit, was impossible. Except for salespeople, of course. But no one cared – they were being paid a salary.

The procurement officer was placing orders for the necessary parts and materials. The need for these parts was determined by some plan, report, or who knows what else. In addition, he was also compiling some report, like a deficit report. Sometimes, he was even required to take a snapshot of his workday. He had to respond to emails, attend meetings, etc.

And now – bam, and they pay for profit. A cognitive dissonance arises. Why create a deficit report? How does it help to earn more? Why respond to emails from accountants, economists, programmers, etc.?

For the first few days, people continue to work as they always have, out of inertia. But then questions arise – from themselves, their manager, and other departments: why are you doing this?

And this is where things get interesting. Often, no one can remember why a certain duty is performed, for whom the report is compiled, who reads the emails, or keeps track of some silly indicator.

It gets ridiculous. The procurement officer sits there and asks – why do I have to coordinate every purchase of some part with the designers? He asks this question to his manager. The manager is outraged – why indeed? He starts running around, yelling, asking who came up with this nonsense. The search leads to the quality department, which oversees the processes, and there they find a paper – it turns out the head of procurement himself invented this nonsense to protect himself from claims from quality control during acceptance.

A tough and swift revision of job responsibilities is underway, reminiscent of an Italian New Year. It’s important to maintain a balance here. Stupid things that employees themselves came up with while performing a function can be safely discarded. However, duties invented by 'serious' departments like accounting or legal shouldn’t be simply tossed aside – it’s necessary to take a closer look. Otherwise, business risks may sharply increase.

And the salespeople will walk around saying, 'we told you so.' They were always on the same side, and they always complained, trying to avoid strange duties imposed by other departments. Nobody listened to them back then, of course, because they didn’t understand.

The right to development

The owner or director must retain the right to determine the vectors and methods for the company's development. It is clear that he already has this right, but it should be clearly stated at the beginning of the experiment.

Otherwise, people may get the impression that some sort of self-management has begun, and now they decide what to do with the profits. Unfortunately, most employees have never engaged in business, and they do not understand the importance of investment.

People primarily want to earn more while putting in minimal effort. It's easier for them to exploit the current system than to make any changes to it. They will behave like poor owners (or just regular owners, however you prefer) – trying to extract as much money as possible from the business.

In principle, their money is not needed for development; that is, there is no need to try to take a part of their profit share for investments. The right to make any changes is sufficient. And people are already trapped.

Trap

If you remember, we started from the fact that no one wants to engage in the company's development, implement new methods of work, or increase efficiency. People simply do not need this, because they get paid the same – both now, and in case of successful changes, and in case of their failure.

After the launch of the Pulse, the situation changes dramatically. If everything is left as it is, you will not earn anymore. For some time, you can sit this way, increasing income only by claiming that 'now we will work normally, given the circumstances.' But soon, and inevitably, a ceiling will be reached when the old system ceases to grow.

The difference is that now people see this ceiling, understand it, and do not want it. After all, they receive a share of the profits, but the profits are not growing. And they will accept the necessity for changes. Well, they will have to participate, perhaps even with willingness.

Moreover, people will now not be indifferent to the outcome of the changes. The success of the changes will increase their income – a positive motivation. The failure of the changes will decrease their income – a negative motivation. Both potential outcomes of the changes matter to them. Which is exactly what was needed.

Moreover, it is not even necessary to gain people's consent regarding the methods and tools that are at the core of the changes. For instance, if the director wants to implement a CRM (and we recall that he has the right to choose), people will have to not only participate in these changes but also ensure their success, as it directly affects their interests. It is clear that a poorly implemented CRM becomes a burden, a dead system that requires entering a lot of data without delivering any results.

Stakhanov

After the launch of the Pulya, there will be a strange situation at first. It seems that now one can earn more, but this does not happen. Everyone shows approximately the same result as before, on a salary basis. It's as if they are waiting for something.

They are waiting for an example. For years, people have been drilled with the concepts of 'norm' and 'plan,' and they, consciously or subconsciously, orient themselves around these concepts. Now, having launched Pulya, we seem to have removed the concept of norm – since there is no ceiling. But people will still find a norm for themselves – 'as it was before.'

Of course, one can try to explain and tell them about their wonderful new opportunities. But it is better to show by example.

For example, this was how it was done in the USSR. They took a person named Stakhanov, sent him to the mine (first evicting everyone from there), gave him assistants (for performing secondary tasks), and instructed him to set a record. And he did set one – he completed 14 norms in a shift, if I am not mistaken (the description of how this was implemented is taken from the book 'The Russian Management Model' by Prokhorov).

The essence is clear – a live, real exemplary instance is created. A new norm. Perhaps still unattainable, or seeming so, but at least there is some reference point for intention.

Sometimes, a Stakhanovite emerges by themselves. Usually, this is a new employee who has not yet adapted to the system, has not had time to get used to it, and has not been indoctrinated by the old rules. For instance, in one of the companies where the prototype of Pulya worked, such a Stakhanovite achieved 4 norms, completely changing the reality and attitude towards what was happening. No one else worked in the old way anymore.

Perhaps we can wait a month, and if the stalwart doesn't show up, we can create him artificially. Make arrangements with a good person, help him out, organize a 'feat', and support him. Better to do it secretly, of course. Well, that's how I see it.

Bottleneck

In the example I'm discussing, the Bullet was activated for the entire value creation chain from the start. This is both good and bad.

Good – because otherwise it wouldn't work. In fact, before the Bullet was implemented across the entire chain, it was already at work in one link – sales. As a result, one link was concerned about sales and profits, while the others were not. Therefore, nothing was achieved when looking at the chain as a whole.

Bad – because due to failures in one link, the entire chain could break down. The exception is constructors, as they are not in the main flow, but in the feeding one – developing new products, in other words, they are working for growth or future sales.

If during the Bullet implementation, it happens that all functions understood and accepted it and changed the way they work, but the suppliers did not, then a bottleneck will arise immediately. Here, the classical Theory of Constraints by Goldratt will apply, and the overall speed/performance of the chain will be determined by the speed/performance of the slowest link.

Before, it didn't matter, because the performance of each link was not particularly measured. A bottleneck arose, there were some arguments in meetings, and a memo was written to 'resolve immediately'. Three nails were worked on, and everyone forgot about the bottleneck.

Now, however, bottlenecks are becoming a real problem. Especially if the bottleneck is not a one-time occurrence but a systematic issue. Some guys are sitting around and don't want to live differently. Either passively, actively, or actively-passively, like an Italian strike.

Here, of course, we need to sort this out. Sometimes a bottleneck is created by one person – the head of the function. They are the one against it, and that's it. And they manage their people in the way they think is correct. In principle, there is nothing wrong with that – the person is making a choice. But they are hindering others – both colleagues and the business. It’s better to do something about it.

You don't necessarily have to fire someone—you can isolate them. Replace them with another person and assign the underperformer to a downgrading role. It’s like, since you’re so good and know how to work properly—sit down and work, stop trying to manage.

Traffic jams can be most easily tracked by unfinished tasks—all according to the TOC. Where the most tasks have accumulated, that’s where the jam is. And you'll need decent automation here.

For example, let's look at supply shortages, i.e., unsatisfied sales/production needs—that's unfinished business. Don't forget about the Iceberg, i.e., measuring the duration of this unfinished business (like 'this item has been in shortage for a month').

Mind-blowing.

At first, people will experience cognitive dissonance due to the application of the Bullet's essence to their work. They will not understand/accept that they are being paid for what is sold.

Here sits a procurement specialist who always bought bolts and nuts. He was given a list of items and quantities, he ordered, tracked payments and deliveries, and awaited the next task. He wasn’t particularly interested in who needed the bolts and nuts, why, or when. Work separately, salary separately, with little connection between them.

And then—boom, only what is sold gets paid for. You bought bolts, but they're not selling, neither as products nor as components, and you don’t receive any money. The question of why you bought those bolts arises on its own, although it never did before.

At the same time, there might be a task for purchasing an item without which a sale can’t occur. For example, a client ordered 40 items and doesn’t want to receive them in parts—only all at once. One item is out of stock, and the entire order is waiting in the box, awaiting a spring. Or, for assembling the final product, there’s a lack of FUM tape, which someone messed up procuring.

Now, with the implementation of the Bullet, you have to think. Ideally, of course, it’s the boss who should think—at least for their subordinates. It's just more comfortable that way. But sometimes you’ll have to think for yourselves.
The principle is simple: do what helps sales. It sounds banal, but no one did this before. That’s why you get mind-blown.

This principle is even harder for designers to grasp. They always stood apart from sales, consciously so. Like, we are not merchants, we are engineers. And now there’s this Bullet, and your salary depends on how well what you’ve drawn/developed/modified sells.

Designers' minds are simply boiling over. They have never thought in these terms, nor have they worked toward such goals. All they cared about in sales was whether the client's hardware would break down or not. Moreover, their interest was not technical, but rather selfish – they would be blamed if something went wrong.

None of them will refine details that are not being sold anyway. They used to make refinements because it was part of a plan someone put together a year ago.

What I'm getting at is that one must be prepared for a mental explosion, to support this process and steer it towards a positive direction. Otherwise, it will turn negative – sabotage, layoffs, open resistance.

Development Ideas

Sometimes it seems that people have plenty of great ideas for developing the company, and with proper motivation, they will not only express these ideas but also implement them. This often seems to the people themselves.

Most likely, after switching to the Bullet system for ideas and suggestions, there will indeed be more of them. But there’s one catch: the less time has passed since the transition, the worse the ideas will be.

It works somewhat like water from a tap after plumbing repair – at first, some murky water flows out. The initial ideas expressed by employees will relate to the previous reality, reflecting a different level of thinking. As Einstein said, you cannot solve problems at the same level at which they were created.

One just needs to understand: a person has spent their whole life on a salary. They think in terms of fixed pay, small bonuses, tasks from bosses, plans, and irresponsibility. After switching to the Bullet system, they will continue to think the same way out of inertia, merely rephrasing their ideas in new terms.

Particular caution is needed regarding ideas that start with "I have long suggested..." or "The whole world does this:..." If someone suggested it long ago, that idea pertained to a different context. If the whole world does it, then it's completely different because the whole world operates on salaries.

Let people acclimate to the new reality, adjust, observe, and see the real problems – those that were not previously visible. The muddle of old ideas will dissolve, revealing a clear stream of valuable proposals.

Mathematics

You might be wondering – what kind of profit should be used as a basis? Marginal? EBITDA? Net profit?

There is no exact answer; it depends on the situation. Personally, I think it’s best to use a formula that considers the maximum expenses. Besides the owner's dividends, of course – if they exist as a factor.

For example, if we take marginal profit, one could end up with nothing – employee revenue would not depend on 'heavy' costs, such as capital investments, depreciation, or the acquisition of fixed assets. Then the question of purchasing new equipment would only be a headache for the owner.

Owner's responsibility

It’s rare, but sometimes the implementation of a Bullet leads to an unexpected effect – the owner withdraws. Not from the business entirely, but from the Bullet implementation.

While everyone was receiving a salary, the owner or director could pretend he was the only one concerned about business development, while others were just loafers. He proposed, insisted, and asked for changes, but nothing happened. And he was very proud of his role as the aggrieved.

After the Bullet implementation, the situation may change. For example, it becomes obvious to everyone what changes need to be made. Unfortunately, part of the responsibility for implementing these changes falls on the owner/director.

The picture fundamentally changes. Previously, he told everyone what needed to be done. Now, they start telling him what to do. Directly telling him to act, not just proposing ideas. This is when the owner withdraws.

There is a phenomenon, I don’t know what it’s called: people suggest a lot of ideas for development, but only because they know that no one will implement them. Directors behave exactly the same way – they are just people.

As long as the owner knew that no one would, couldn't, or didn't want to implement his ideas, he kept flooding them out. But as soon as the environment becomes flexible and pliable, ready for change, he gets scared – what if he suggested something silly? And he falls silent.

And when the environment comes to him with proposals, he pushes back. The implementation of the Bullet stops at the initiative of the owner. He essentially becomes a bottleneck, even without being a link in the chain of value creation.

The Bullet is collectively discarded, everyone forgets about the experiment, everyone receives their salaries, everyone works somehow, while the director continues to complain that no one wants anything but him.

Summary

There's so much more I'd like to write, but it's already reached almost 30,000 characters. The topic is too broad for a single article, probably.

The Bullet payment system is effective but complex. Primarily mentally, as it is based on principles that are not familiar to most people. Therefore, its implementation needs to be approached cautiously, closely monitoring the process and responding promptly to emerging issues.

Source: habr.com