Methodology

A structured 10-day process built for PE timelines

The methodology is designed to turn one urgent operating question into a quantified roadmap without dragging the team through a broad, open-ended discovery project.

Phase 1

Days 1-2

Discovery & Data Collection

Stakeholder interviews with operating team
Current technology stack assessment
Process mapping across SG&A and RevOps
Existing automation inventory
Pain point prioritization workshop

Phase 2

Days 3-5

Analysis & Quantification

AI opportunity identification across functions
EBITDA impact modeling per opportunity
Execution feasibility scoring
Vendor landscape assessment
Risk and dependency mapping

Phase 3

Days 6-8

Roadmap Construction

30/60/90-day sequencing
Owner assignments and RACI matrix
Budget and resource requirements
ROI model with sensitivity analysis
Board memo and presentation draft

Phase 4

Days 9-10

Readout & Handoff

Executive readout with operating team
Board memo finalization
Implementation kickoff planning
Vendor introduction facilitation
90-day check-in scheduling

Who joins

We typically need the operating lead, a functional owner for the target workflow, and enough finance visibility to pressure-test the EBITDA case.

How confidentiality works

The process is NDA-ready, narrow on data requests, and designed to avoid over-collecting sensitive information just to create a generic roadmap.

What leaves the process

The output is a decision package: ranked initiatives, assumptions, owner-ready sequencing, and a board-ready narrative for what to do next.

Deliverable Preview

What the deliverable looks like

Illustrative format only. Actual engagement outputs are scoped to your portfolio company and board timeline.

Block A

EBITDA Opportunity Matrix

Initiative	EBITDA Impact	Feasibility	Time-to-Value	Owner
AP Automation	$180K–$240K/yr	High	45 days	CFO
Pricing Optimization	$400K–$600K/yr	Medium	90 days	VP Sales
Scheduling Automation	$120K–$180K/yr	High	60 days	VP Ops

Illustrative format only. Actual engagement outputs are scoped to your portfolio company and board timeline.

Block B

30/60/90 Execution Plan

Day 1–30

Validate top initiatives with functional owners
Lock scope and success metrics
Select tooling or vendor for first initiative
Begin quick-win implementation prep

Day 31–60

Launch pilot for highest-confidence initiative
Establish KPI baseline and tracking cadence
Escalation path for blockers and exceptions
Prepare second initiative for kickoff

Day 61–90

Evaluate pilot results against EBITDA case
Rollout decision and governance checkpoint
Board update with measured outcomes
Handoff notes for ongoing ownership

Block C

Board Memo Structure

1Executive Summary

2AI Maturity Assessment

3Top 3 Opportunities

4Implementation Sequencing

5Risk Flags

6Recommended Next Step

Delivered in editable format for direct board package integration.

Representative deliverable preview

The real deliverable is customized to the company and operating question. The structure below is a sample preview, not a client artifact.

Board memo

Representative preview

Operating question, board timeline, and scope boundary

Top initiatives ranked by EBITDA logic and execution feasibility

Key assumptions, dependencies, and risks that need sponsor attention

Decision recommendation: approve now, stage later, or hold

Opportunity matrix

Representative preview

Workflow or function in scope

Estimated impact range and why it matters financially

Feasibility score based on data, tooling, and owner capacity

Proof required before implementation begins

30/60/90 plan

Representative preview

First 30 days: validation, owner alignment, and quick implementation prep

Days 31-60: pilot launch, KPI baseline, and issue escalation

Days 61-90: rollout decision, governance cadence, and board update

Clear handoff notes for internal teams or vendors

Sample board memo page

Recommendation

Pursue two near-term workflow initiatives now, stage one data-heavy initiative for validation, and defer broad platform changes until owner capacity is confirmed.

Primary value lever: cycle-time compression in a repeated operating workflow

Confidence level: medium-high where evidence already exists inside current reporting

Key dependency: sponsor alignment and access to the right functional owner

Board question answered: what to do first, why now, and what can wait

Sample initiative matrix

Workflow triage

Current process evidence exists

High impact

Fast start

Pricing support layer

Needs cleaner data inputs

Medium-high impact

Moderate lift

Cross-functional copilot

Defer until first wins land

Lower near-term priority

Broader change

Review Pricing Request Fit Call