Budgeting is particularly interesting in a situation where you receive funding. It seems it would be much easier to budget in a bootstrap situation, where growt

Budgeting is particularly interesting in a situation where you receive funding. It seems it would be much easier to budget in a bootstrap situation, where growth is likely happening a bit more slowly. You're slowly adding a person(engineer, marketer, salesperson, etc.) here and there as you go along(as needed), buying more servers, etc. I would assume budgeting is a bit different in a situation where you receive a massive cash infusion. You want to spend all of it to grow even more quickly but the effects of spending may be harder to measure(because you're spending soo much soo quickly). So do you just replicate the growth strategy used in the "bootstrap" phase or do you adopt a new one? In a situation involving a massive round of funding(relative to the current size of the company), wouldn't it be difficult to attribute any problems supposedly associated with the increased budget to a "bad budgeting process"? That is to say, if the growth isn't happening, then there's no guarantee that just by adding more money to "growth" that "growth" will happen. You may have just pointlessly hired managers, salespeople, engineers and bought more servers and whatnot, for growth that wasn't going to happen in the first place. To put it a different way, when the profits don't catch up with spending, was the problem really the budgeting process? Or with the market itself? Or some other factor entirely? Basically, how do you identify a bad budgeting process in a situation where some entity just externally infused a bunch of capital?