Tom Crowther

Decisions that were easy at 20 locations feel different at 50, 100 or more.

• The symptoms are organisational: more decisions reach the leadership team, exceptions and workarounds multiply, responsibility becomes less clear, and changing one thing can affect another.
• The answer is not automatically to build an internal IT department; many franchisors rightly keep using external suppliers.
• What they need is someone to own the overall picture and answer leadership questions about direction, standards, franchisee choice, supplier value, system fit, risk and investment priorities.

Crowther lists the questions ownership covers: where the network is going, what should be standard across it, where franchisees should have choice, which suppliers deliver value, which systems still support the business's direction, where unnecessary risk is being carried and which technology investments should be a priority. These are leadership questions, not technical ones.

Read original · Original 2

Start by mapping the whole picture: where technology decisions are made, what the franchisor controls versus what franchisees choose, who owns each system, which suppliers are responsible for what, where responsibilities overlap, and which decisions keep returning to the managing director, chief operating officer or leadership team.

• A franchisor can have good software and capable suppliers yet find technology harder to control because nobody has stepped back to see how it all fits together.
• Without that wider view, individual fixes leave the underlying problems untouched.

In one post, Crowther describes a franchisor with perfectly good software and capable suppliers that still finds technology increasingly difficult to control. The cause is not one bad system or supplier; it is that no one has looked at how the pieces fit together.

Read original · Original 2

Start with what head office controls, what franchisees can choose for themselves, who decides which suppliers can access systems or data, whether the network has minimum standards, and whether anyone knows when a franchisee does something differently.

• A franchisor can have strong central security while franchisees use different devices, suppliers, systems and working practices.
• Individually reasonable local decisions can add up to a very different picture across a large network.
• Without visibility into how technology is used and where control becomes unclear, it is hard to know where the real risks lie.
• This helps locate risk; it is not a security standard or a claim about any particular network's exposure.

Crowther replaces the question 'Are our systems secure?' with 'Do we understand how technology is being used across the network, who is responsible for it and where control becomes unclear?'

Read original · Original 2

But it cannot secure only its own environment and assume the rest sits with the franchisee.

• The key is clarity about what every franchisee must do, what they can decide locally, what head office needs visibility of, and where responsibility moves from one side to the other.
• Without that clarity, gaps appear: head office assumes the franchisee has something covered, the franchisee assumes head office or the IT supplier has it covered, and sometimes nobody does.
• Crowther frames this as an ownership problem more than a technology problem.

Crowther describes a typical gap: head office assumes the franchisee has something covered, the franchisee assumes head office or the IT supplier has it covered, and sometimes neither does. Good cyber security, they write, starts with knowing exactly who is responsible for what.

Read original · Original 2

They avoid product recommendations, vendor names and technical detail.

• Each opens with a challenge to the expected first step—do not start with the security software; do not ask which system to replace—then offers plain questions franchisors can work through.
• The questions are aimed at leaders, not IT specialists, and the tone is measured rather than alarmed.

One post says that if cyber risk is the question, do not start with the security software; start with who makes the technology decisions. Another says not to begin a technology review by asking which system needs replacing.

Read original · Original 2 · Original 3 · Original 4 · Original 5

Start here: it frames the wider question of who owns technology decisions across a franchise network.

The post argues that scale, not a failing system, triggers the need for change.

• A network's complexity can outgrow the way it manages technology even while every individual system still works.
• The answer is not automatically an internal IT department: many franchisors sensibly continue to rely on external suppliers for most technology delivery.
• What goes missing is ownership of the overall picture.
• Crowther lists the questions that role covers — where the network is heading, what should be standard across it, where franchisees should retain choice, which suppliers deliver value, which systems still fit the direction, where unnecessary risk is carried, and which investments should be priorities.
• These are leadership questions, not technical ones.
• The structure for answering them should be proportionate to the organisation's size and complexity, but it has to exist.

For brands planning a campaign

Useful as the anchor piece in a governance proposal: it names the problem (diffuse ownership) and anticipates the objection (we do not need an IT department) in the same argument. The recommended deliverable can therefore be a defined ownership role and decision structure rather than headcount.

Crowther walks through how the drift happens: a system is added because somebody needs it, a supplier comes in to solve one problem, a franchisee finds a tool that works locally, and another department buys something else.

• None of those decisions looks wrong at the time.
• Growth multiplies the moving parts — more franchisees, users, locations, systems, suppliers and decisions across the network.
• What was easy to manage at 20 locations feels different at 50 or 100.
• Because the change is gradual, nobody is likely to declare that technology has become difficult to manage.
• Instead, symptoms appear: more decisions reaching the leadership team, more exceptions and workarounds, more questions about who is responsible for what, and more difficulty changing one thing without affecting another.
• The technology has not suddenly got worse; the business around it has become more complicated.

For brands planning a campaign

Works as a discovery-session opener for a client that does not yet believe it has a technology problem. The symptom list gives a consultancy something concrete to test against a prospect's experience, turning an abstract pitch into a shared diagnosis.

It argues against starting with a replacement system and sets out the questions to ask first.

Crowther says plainly that the first question should not be which system needs replacing: the system causing the most frustration is not necessarily the real problem.

• They would first map where technology decisions are made, what the franchisor controls versus what franchisees decide for themselves, who owns each system, which suppliers are responsible for what, where responsibilities overlap, and which decisions keep reaching the managing director, chief operating officer or leadership team.
• A franchisor can have perfectly good software and capable suppliers and still find technology harder to control because nobody has stepped back to see how it all fits together.
• Without that wider view, time goes into fixing individual problems without addressing why they keep appearing.

For brands planning a campaign

Supports a phased engagement that maps decision rights and system ownership before procurement or replacement work begins. It gives a consultancy a defensible reason to charge for a diagnostic phase rather than jumping straight to vendor selection.

It argues against starting with security software and offers a short set of questions to open with instead.

The reasoning is that cyber risk rarely sits neatly inside head office.

• A franchisor can have strong security centrally while franchisees use their own devices, suppliers, systems and working practices.
• Individually, none of those choices looks significant; across a large network, the picture can be very different.
• Crowther's opening questions focus on control rather than technology: what does head office control, what can franchisees choose for themselves, who decides which suppliers can access systems or data, are there minimum standards across the network, and if a franchisee does something differently, does anybody know?
• They would replace the question "are our systems secure?" with "do we understand how technology is being used across the network, who is responsible for it, and where control becomes unclear?"
• Without that visibility, it is very hard to know where the real risks are.

For brands planning a campaign

Functions as a scoping checklist for a security or governance audit. A consultancy can send the questions ahead of a workshop and use the answers to size the engagement, positioning the work around visibility and control rather than product purchase.

Crowther argues that cyber security in a franchise network is not only a security problem; it is a question of who owns what.

• A franchisor cannot realistically make every technology decision for every independently operated franchise business, and should not try.
• But head office also cannot secure its own environment and assume the rest belongs to the franchisee.
• There has to be clarity in the middle: what every franchisee must do, what they can decide locally, what head office needs visibility of, and where responsibility moves from one side to the other.
• Without that clarity, gaps open.
• Head office assumes the franchisee has something covered; the franchisee assumes head office or the IT supplier has it covered; sometimes nobody does.
• The harder part, as the post puts it, is keeping enough consistency to protect the network without removing the independence that makes the franchise model work.

For brands planning a campaign

Makes the case for a written responsibility split as the deliverable, rather than another security product. A consultancy can use this reasoning in a proposal that ends with a documented framework covering what franchisees must do, what they may decide locally and what head office needs visibility of.

Growth adds franchisees, locations, systems and suppliers gradually, so the strain rarely shows up as one obvious failure.

• Instead, it appears as symptoms: more decisions reaching the leadership team, more exceptions and workarounds, more questions about who is responsible for what, and more difficulty changing one thing without disturbing another.
• The answer is not automatically an internal IT department; they say many franchisors are right to keep using external suppliers for most delivery.
• What is missing is someone who owns the whole picture and can answer leadership questions: where the business is going, what should be standard across the network, where franchisees should have choice, which suppliers are delivering value, which systems still support the direction of travel, where unnecessary risk is being carried, and which technology investments should be a priority.

For brands planning a campaign

A franchise consultancy selling a technology governance framework can build its opening around this without arguing for a system replacement: Crowther frames the gap as an ownership and structure problem, not a software problem. The leadership questions work almost as-is for a diagnostic workshop or lead-magnet assessment.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

The more useful starting point is a map of the whole picture: where technology decisions are actually made, what the franchisor controls and what franchisees decide for themselves, who owns each system the business relies on, which suppliers are responsible for what, where those responsibilities overlap, and which decisions keep finding their way back to the managing director, chief operating officer or leadership team. They note that a franchisor can have good software and capable suppliers and still feel technology is becoming harder to control, because nothing is wrong with any single piece and nobody has stepped back to look at how the pieces now fit together.

Map decision rights, system ownership and supplier responsibilities before assessing individual systems.

For brands planning a campaign

This is a ready-made structure for a discovery call or assessment tool: a consultancy can walk a franchisor through the same questions and produce a findings document, positioning expert help as diagnosis rather than procurement.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

They suggest starting with who makes the technology decisions: what head office controls, what franchisees can choose for themselves, who decides which suppliers can access systems or data, whether there are minimum standards across the network, and whether anyone knows when a franchisee does something differently.

• They point out that a franchisor can have strong security centrally while franchisees use different devices, suppliers, systems and working practices, and that individually reasonable local decisions can add up to a very different picture across a large network.
• Head office cannot realistically make every technology decision for every independently operated franchise business, nor should it, but it also cannot secure only its own environment and assume the rest sits with the franchisee.
• Without clarity in the middle, gaps appear: head office assumes the franchisee has it covered, the franchisee assumes head office or the IT supplier has it covered, and sometimes nobody does.

Frame the problem around responsibility boundaries and network visibility, then use consistency and franchisee independence as the two constraints the answer has to balance.

This is presented as a way to locate risk, not as a security standard or a claim about any specific network's exposure.

For brands planning a campaign

For a cyber or governance brief in franchising, Crowther's framing gives a consultancy a way to sell a responsibility-mapping engagement instead of a security product. The phrase about enough consistency without removing independence is a natural headline for a workshop or guide.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

Two examples: start cyber risk with who makes the technology decisions rather than the security software, and do not begin a technology review by asking which system to replace.

• The questions target leadership rather than IT, and the posts avoid product recommendations, vendor names and technical detail.
• The tone is measured and non-alarmist, with no sales pitch.

Contrast, then questions: state the wrong starting point, give the right one, then supply a list readers can apply to their own network.

Ask for post dates to assess how the approach has changed over time; the reviewed sample covers five posts on one subject area.

For brands planning a campaign

A brand can borrow the format cheaply: a co-authored checklist, carousel or webinar segment that opens by rejecting the obvious first step, then walks the audience through the same diagnostic questions.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4 · Source 5

They point to candidate quality, onboarding, support capacity and leadership over raw lead numbers. That is the same systems-level reading Crowther applies to technology: growth is a structural problem, not a sales or software problem.

Henning writes about franchise development and sales leadership: recruiting the right partners, bringing them in and keeping sales aligned with operations. Crowther focuses on technology ownership and control across head office and franchisees.

Read original · Original 2 · Original 3

That focus on responsibility within a franchise relationship runs alongside Crowther's central question: how should responsibility be divided between head office and franchisees?

Golliver writes for people deciding whether and how to enter franchising, weighing industry, capital and day-to-day commitment. Crowther writes for franchisor leadership teams already running a network, focusing on technology and cyber risk rather than the choice to buy a franchise.

Read original · Original 2 · Original 3

That diagnose-before-you-buy argument echoes Crowther's insistence on understanding the whole picture before replacing a system or buying security software.

Meyer's subject is the franchise sales pipeline, conversion, validation and sales leadership, much of it in financial-services franchising. Crowther focuses on technology decision-making and cyber risk across a network.

Read original · Original 2 · Original 3

In a post on franchise growth, Henning argues for candidate quality, alignment between development and operations, and growth paced to support capacity. Those themes could help a consultancy connect technology decisions to the wider question of whether a network can support its next stage of growth.

The examples do not develop a technology-governance framework, decision rights, or cyber responsibilities. Henning offers a broader network-growth lens than Crowther’s posts; ask the consultancy to supply the technology-governance detail itself.

Examples: Source 1

Her posts examine where prospects stall, how validation conversations affect momentum, and why more leads may not solve a process problem. That can suit a campaign tying technology investment to sales operations or candidate experience.

The examples focus on franchise sales, lead handling, and validation—not on how a network assigns technology ownership or manages cyber risk. Choose Crowther for a campaign aimed at franchise sales; they are less direct for proposing a technology-governance framework.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

Her posts prompt readers to consider capital, time, skills, and the balance between following a system and executing it locally. This is a different route into franchise-network decisions: the prospective operator’s perspective rather than head-office governance.

The examples address franchise ownership and fit, not technology management or governance. They may help explain why network-wide standards must work for local operators; ask the consultancy to build that connection and provide the governance framework.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2