Smily: Closed a lower-value product and recovered scarce capacity

Problem and crux

Smily maintained a product for individual homeowners alongside its main property management platform. The smaller product generated less than 1% of revenue, but we believed it could grow. At the same time, it used around 20% of ten engineers' time and had four support colleagues dedicated to it.

The crux was which investment would create more future revenue and customer impact: growing the smaller product or directing the same capacity to Smily's main platform.

Assumptions to test

I compared the realistic growth potential of both products, not only their current revenue. The decision depended on how much additional growth each could generate, how engineering time constrained the main roadmap, and where the four support colleagues could create the most value.

What I did

As Head of Product and a member of the Executive Committee, I worked with the CEO and COO to compare the two growth paths. The analysis showed that investing additional engineering and support capacity in the main platform had substantially greater potential. I recommended closing the smaller product and planned the transition.

Evidence and result

Closing the product recovered around 20% of ten engineers' time for the main platform. Four support colleagues moved into the core team, which was already operating at capacity.

<1%Revenue from the smaller product

20%Engineering time recovered

4People moved to the core team

Relevance to AI safety operations

Resource allocation should consider expected future value, not only current performance. This case shows how I compare competing growth paths, account for opportunity cost and move scarce capacity to the work with greater potential impact.