Foundational Decisions...and thoughts.

Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about what the next “unlock” at Havid Nagan is. Not who. What.

The traditional answer to the question, “Who does a watch company hire?” renders the answer obvious—a watchmaker. But before surrendering to the obvious, I’d like to discuss the axioms of Havid Nagan thus far.

From an organizational standpoint, since inception, I have been the designer, founder, CEO, CFO, COO, and everything in between. My lovely wife, Katia, has helped build out forecasts, handle general administrative tasks, and, as the company grows, her role in the company will surely become more complex.

As far as watches are concerned, to date, I’ve put three references into production—not counting HN01 Lucine—begun prototyping the fourth reference, designed the third and final model line in the catalog, and planned out the next 10 years of Havid Nagan novelties and Origins.

I have, and continue to, position the brand to move upward—not arbitrarily in terms of pricing and exclusivity. Rather, my aim is to focus the efforts of Havid Nagan proper on complicated references, which has always been my vision for the company, produced in limited quantities of 40–60 units. Origins will serve as an entry point into a more accessible portion of the market.

As the brand’s capabilities exist today, complications require modular developments. Modular developments require new tooling, unique component manufacturing, and R&D. That development process must determine: one, which base caliber will be used to build the module upon; two, what sort of modular construction will best serve the desired complications, layout, and integration; and three, how the completed caliber can remain reliable and serviceable.

Given the inherent costs associated with developing proprietary modules—which directly influence the pricing of the final product—and the consequently higher expectations from a collector’s perspective, there are two ways of going about all of this.

The first is to keep doing what we’re doing. Given that I rely on the extraordinary capabilities of some of the best suppliers in the industry, this is not a less favorable strategy. For much of watchmaking history, the industry relied on établissage, and even the largest vertically integrated brands benefited from this dynamic.

The second is to bring a watchmaker onto the team, which is the more complicated strategy. Let’s dig in.

The real question is whether I hire a watchmaker or invite someone to build a watch company with me.

The main reason I am even thinking about this is not necessarily to service the watches we produce. The manufacture has watchmakers who service the watches very well, and there is no immediate need to replace that capability. The larger question is whether Havid Nagan needs someone who can help advance its technical ideas from within.

Hiring someone and building with someone are two very different ideals. The former is the easier pathway, but it does not come without friction.

The advantages are straightforward. Having a watchmaker, most likely stateside, would allow us to handle repairs, general maintenance, and service for timepieces in need. This individual could dramatically reduce service times and work with me in a relatively similar time zone to technically advance the ideas I have come up with.

But servicing, constructing, and developing are not necessarily the same capabilities. A great service watchmaker may not be the right person to architect a proprietary module. A gifted constructor may not want to spend their time handling routine maintenance. And neither distinction necessarily tells me whether that person is capable of becoming foundational to the company.

There is also the financial reality. Given the young age of Havid Nagan, I would be committing precious resources and funds that would otherwise remain in the company to finance the development of new complications and modules, expand the scope and awareness of the brand, and continue building the overall presence of Havid Nagan.

Today, Havid Nagan designs watches. We—my technical-development partner Guillaume Tetu, his team, and I—engineer them, develop them, obsess over proportions, finishes, tolerances, and architecture. Then we rely on extraordinarily capable partners to help bring those ideas to life.

That has allowed us to create watches I’m genuinely proud of. But I also know there’s another level. That’s where my mind keeps returning.

What if that person became foundational to Havid Nagan?

The conventional answer would be to hire them. Offer a salary. Define a role. Build a workshop. It’s clean and relatively predictable. The company continues exactly as it has, only with a new capability added to it.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that approach. But then I wonder if I’m thinking too small.

If I can find the right person—not simply a watchmaker, but someone who genuinely believes in what Havid Nagan could become—should I really be thinking of them as an employee or as a partner?

Equity isn’t compensation. Equity is trust. But equity is also permanent. It is a claim on a future that has not yet been created, and a decision that cannot be treated as lightly as hiring someone to perform a function.

Is Havid Nagan simply a brand with employees? Or is it a collection of people who each become responsible for a different pillar of what the company stands for? One person obsessed with design, another with engineering, another with storytelling, another with watchmaking, and so on.

If those pillars are strong enough, maybe the company becomes more resilient than if everything simply flows through me. That thought is both exciting and uncomfortable. Simply put, I don’t know yet.

Perhaps the answer does not need to reveal itself immediately. Perhaps someone doesn’t need to enter Havid Nagan as a foundational partner. Perhaps they begin with a development, then another, and then another. We work through problems together. We disagree. We see how each of us reacts when the obvious solution fails and the work becomes difficult.

Partnership should not be offered in anticipation of alignment. It should formalize an alignment that repeated work has already revealed.

What I do know is that bringing more capability in-house has less to do with manufacturing and far more to do with culture and brand identity. And if Havid Nagan is going to become the kind of watch company I hope it can become, I suspect its foundation won’t be built from CNC machines or lathes.

It will be built by people who care about the craft as deeply as they care about the company itself.

Time (and repeated action) will tell whether I'm fortunate enough to find someone worthy of becoming one of the people who defines what Havid Nagan ultimately becomes.