Business practice
The 30-Day Proof.
In thirty days you have one thing measurably better, running inside your business, owned by your team. Or you do not pay.
You have paid for advice before. What arrived was a document, a set of recommendations, and a quiet return to how things already worked.
That experience is now the industry norm rather than a bad run of luck. The overwhelming majority of technology initiatives produce no measurable financial impact, and the reason is rarely the analysis. The analysis is usually fine. What fails is the gap between a recommendation and something actually changing in the work, because nobody owned crossing it.
Thirty days from now you are standing in a different position. One workflow in your business runs differently than it did, the change is written down, a named person owns it, and you have a before and after number rather than an impression. It is one thing. It is real, and it is the first piece of evidence that the rest of the list is achievable.
The commitment
Live, or free.
Something runs.
If day thirty arrives and there is no fix running in your business with a measured before and after, the engagement costs you nothing. Not a partial credit. Nothing. The commitment attaches to shipping, which is inside our control, rather than to a promised percentage, which nobody honestly controls.
It keeps running.
If the fix stops working within sixty days for a reason inside the agreed scope, we come back and repair it at no charge. Durability is part of the deliverable, not an optional extension of it.
You choose it.
The fix is agreed in writing by day seven and you select it from the scored findings. It runs inside systems you already own. If something you want will not fit in thirty days, you are told that before you choose it rather than after.
The work
Thirty days, four moves.
Observe
The first week is spent watching the work as it actually happens rather than as the org chart says it happens. Tools genuinely in use, data in motion, and the cost of the current state measured rather than estimated. Watching work does not interrupt work, so the cost to your team is close to zero.
Score
Every finding lands on one matrix: impact against complexity. Each gets an honest disposition. Fix the process, write it down, configure something you already own, automate without AI, or let AI earn its place. Most findings are not AI, and saying so out loud is the point.
Ship
One fix, chosen with you, built and put live before the engagement ends. Not recommended. Running, with its procedure written, its owner named, and its before and after measured, so the result is a number somebody else could verify.
Hold
A working session with your team so the change survives our exit, a sequenced ninety day roadmap for everything else that was found, and thirty days of support afterwards. The objective is momentum without us, not dependence on us.
What you keep
Everything below is yours.
Exposure map
Every AI tool actually in use in your firm, what data flows into each, and where the exposure sits. Most owners are wrong about this by a wide margin, which is exactly why it goes first.
Paid-for-already list
What your existing software already does that you are about to buy again. This line item has covered the cost of the engagement more than once, and it is the least glamorous finding we produce.
Written use policy
Tool tiering, permitted data classes, and signed staff acknowledgements. The document your insurer and your auditor are going to ask about. See AI use policy.
Process map and baseline
Your highest cost workflow documented as it truly runs, with a price attached. Measured, not estimated, because every later claim of improvement is judged against this number.
The priority matrix
Every finding scored on impact and complexity and tagged with a disposition. You keep the scoring method, which means you can run it again on the next problem without us.
One fix, live
Built, running, with the procedure written and the owner named. This is the deliverable the guarantee attaches to, and it is the one most engagements in this market do not include.
Ninety-day roadmap
Everything else that was found, sequenced and costed, with the next piece of work scoped. Useful whether you continue with us or hand it to your own team.
Track record
Numbers from prior operating work.
50%
Reduction in customer churn
50%
Faster client onboarding
20%
Lower support cost, one year
Documented results from operational leadership roles prior to this practice. Client engagement case studies replace these as the first Proof engagements complete.
Your side of it
The commitment runs both ways.
- Four scheduled hours of access to the person who knows how the work really happens.
- A decision when one is asked for, rather than a decision deferred to the next meeting.
- Honesty about the current state, including the parts that are embarrassing.
- Agreement on the one fix by day seven, in writing.
- If access is not available, we tell you the day it happens rather than at the end.
Related reading.
All insights
Operations
The two-person dependency test
Pick any critical workflow and ask one question. If these two specific people were both unreachable for a week, what happens. If the honest answer is that things quietly stop, you have found the real risk register of your firm, and it does not appear in
Governance
Shadow AI is already in your firm. Here is the map.
The median hundred person company shows between fourteen and twenty two distinct generative AI services in its browser telemetry. One or two of them are approved. The gap is not a technology problem and it is not solved by blocking domains, because the work that drove people to those tools does not go away when
Questions
Asked before, answered plainly.
Exactly what it says. If day thirty arrives and no fix is running and measured in your business, the invoice is zero. Not discounted. Zero. It is a safe commitment to make because it attaches to shipping rather than to a promised outcome size, and shipping is the part we control. If the fix breaks within sixty days for a reason inside scope, we repair it at no charge.
No. It is an operations engagement with an AI governance starting point. Most findings in a typical diagnostic are not AI at all. They are unwritten processes, duplicated software, and broken handoffs. AI is one disposition on the scoring matrix and it has to earn its place there like every other option.
The engagement is structured so a document cannot be the final deliverable. The readout includes a fix that is already live, its written procedure, and its measured before and after. Findings are included, but findings are the beginning of the engagement rather than the end of it. That structural difference is the whole offer.
They could. Research on comparable initiatives puts internal builds at roughly half the success rate of partner led ones, and the difference is not skill. It is that the internal owner still has their day job, which is usually the same reason the last attempt stalled at eighty percent complete. If your team has genuine protected capacity, do it internally and we will say so.
Four scheduled hours of access across the thirty days, timely decisions on the fix we scope together, and honesty about how the work really happens today. The commitment is two way. We commit to shipping. You commit to being reachable enough that shipping is possible, and if that stops being true we raise it the day it happens.