# Service FAQ 50 frequently asked questions across the six engagements, used by the on-site assistant for token-saving lookup before falling back to Claude. ## Service: diagnostic --- service: diagnostic title: Operational Diagnostic & Roadmap --- # Operational Diagnostic — Seeded Q&A ## What's in the 30-day operational diagnostic? A structured findings report covering current-state operations, risks and dependencies, a 90-day execution roadmap, and recommended org and process changes. By the end you have a defensible written view of what's actually working, what isn't, and what to do about it. See [diagnostic]. ## Who do you talk to during a diagnostic? The CEO, exec team, and a tier of senior managers — typically 8–15 conversations depending on company size — plus a read of the existing operating artifacts (OKRs, dashboards, meeting cadences, recent Board materials). Conversations are confidential; the report is the output. ## Will the team know it's happening? That's a choice you make up front. Most engagements run openly because honesty in interviews depends on it being a known activity, not a covert one. Either way the framing is "diagnostic for improvement" — not a personnel review. ## What does the deliverable look like? A written report (not a deck) you can hand to a Board or use as a planning input. Sections: current-state assessment, risks and dependencies, 90-day execution roadmap, and recommended org/process changes. Tight, defensible, decision-ready. ## How is this different from a McKinsey engagement? Smaller, faster, operator-grade. McKinsey deploys teams and frameworks; [diagnostic] is one experienced operator going deep for 30 days and writing a report you can act on Monday. Fewer slides, more specifics. Different tool for a different season. ## Do you implement the recommendations? Implementation is a separate engagement — typically a [fractional-coo] or [pmo-imo] scope depending on what the diagnostic surfaced. The diagnostic is intentionally standalone so the assessment is clean: nobody benefits from finding more work for themselves. ## We just want a second opinion — does that fit? Yes — that's a common reason to run a [diagnostic]. CEOs and Boards use it before a fundraise, ahead of a strategic shift, or when the exec team's view of operations diverges from reality. The output is the second opinion in writing. ## How quickly can it start? Depends on availability. The structure of the engagement is bounded: 30 days of work, defined milestones, written report. Start dates and pricing are scoped per engagement — Nicole shares timing in the intake conversation. Start at /intake. ## Service: fractional-coo --- service: fractional-coo title: Fractional COO / Strategy & Operations --- # Fractional COO — Seeded Q&A ## Is fractional COO right for a 40-person SaaS? Often, yes. The pattern that fits is: founder-CEO needs operating muscle, the team is past "scrappy" but pre-"second-line leadership," and OKRs/cadence/cross-functional alignment are starting to creak. A [fractional-coo] engagement gives you that muscle without the cost or commitment of a full-time hire. ## How is fractional COO different from a full-time hire? A full-time COO owns the operating system permanently — comp, headcount authority, succession. Fractional is sized to the season: install the operating cadence, raise the floor on execution, build a bench, hand it off. Many engagements end with a clean transition to a full-time leader once the role is real enough to recruit for. ## How many hours a week is typical? Engagements vary by scope and stage; that's part of what gets agreed up front. Pricing and time commitment are scoped per engagement — Nicole shares a proposal after the intake conversation. You can start that at /intake. ## Will she sit in our exec meetings? Yes — that's where most of the value lands. Showing up in the room (or in the doc) where decisions get made is non-negotiable for the role to work. She also shapes the meetings themselves: agenda, decision rights, follow-through. ## What does the first 30 days look like? Listening tour with the exec team and a tier of senior managers. Read of the existing operating cadence, OKRs (or absence of), KPI reporting, and recurring rhythms. By end of week 4 you typically have a written diagnosis, a 90-day operating roadmap, and the first cadence changes already in motion. If a 30-day deep dive is all you need, look at [diagnostic]. ## We don't have OKRs yet — does she set them up? Yes. OKR design and the company planning cycle are core to the [fractional-coo] engagement: the framework, the cadence (typically quarterly with a monthly check), and the dashboards that make the OKRs visible week to week. The goal is something your team actually uses, not a deck nobody opens. ## How does she work with our CEO? Tightly. The relationship is structured like a chief-of-staff-meets-operating-partner: she's the person the CEO can hand operating problems to and get a result, and she pushes back when the CEO is the bottleneck. Trust gets built fast or the engagement doesn't work. ## When does it make sense to convert to full-time? Usually when (a) the role has stabilized — you know what you actually need a COO to own — and (b) you have the comp budget and ICP for the hire. Nicole is fractional by design, so the path is usually to define the role, raise the floor, and then help recruit. ## We're pre-Series A — is it too early for fractional COO? Often yes — but not always. If you're pre-revenue and 8 people, an [fractional-coo] is rarely the right tool; you need to keep building. If you're approaching a Series A and the gap is operating maturity rather than people count, it can be exactly right. Easiest path is to share specifics at /intake. ## Service: ma-integration --- service: ma-integration title: M&A Integration Leadership --- # M&A Integration — Seeded Q&A ## What does an M&A integration engagement typically cover? End-to-end oversight: integration strategy, PMO setup, Day-1 planning, and execution across org, systems, GTM, product, and customer migration. Nicole runs the IMO, owns executive and Board reporting cadence, and brings the playbooks and KPI frameworks so your team isn't building them from scratch in the middle of a deal. See [ma-integration]. ## How early in the deal should I bring her in? Earlier than most teams think — ideally before signing, alongside diligence. The integration thesis, Day-1 readiness, and synergy ownership get cheaper to design pre-close and exponentially harder once the clock is ticking. If you're already past signing, that's still workable; the work just compresses. For a real scoping conversation, start at /intake. ## We're doing a tuck-in — is a full integration playbook overkill? Tuck-ins still need a Day-1 plan, customer continuity, systems migration, and people transition — they just need them faster and lighter. The [ma-integration] engagement scales down for tuck-ins: same disciplines, fewer workstreams, shorter horizon. ## What's the difference between integration leadership and an IMO? Integration leadership is the role; the IMO is the structure that role runs. Nicole typically owns both — designing the IMO and running it — because the two are inseparable in practice. If your existing exec team owns the role and just needs the structure, see [pmo-imo]. ## We just signed and Day-1 is in 60 days — can she help? Yes. Compressed timelines are normal. The first move is a fast triage of Day-1 critical paths (legal/HR/IT/customer comms) versus everything that can be sequenced post-Day-1. After that we work backwards into a 30/60/90 plan you can defend to the Board. If that's where you are, share specifics at /intake. ## What does she own vs. what stays with our team? She owns the integration plan, the PMO/IMO, executive reporting, and unblocking. Functional execution — engineering, sales, finance — stays with your leaders, with clear synergy and milestone ownership. The point of the engagement is that your team can keep operating the business while integration runs in parallel. ## How does she report to the Board? A short, dense weekly executive update plus a structured monthly Board pack: status by workstream, synergies tracking against thesis, risks and dependencies, decisions needed. Whatever cadence your Board is used to, the format adapts. ## What playbooks and frameworks does she bring? Integration thesis canvas, Day-1 readiness checklists by function, synergy capture trackers, integration risk registers, customer migration playbooks, and a KPI framework that ties to the deal model. They're starting points — every deal needs tailoring — but you're not paying for someone to invent the wheel. ## Carve-out rather than acquisition — does that fit? Yes. Carve-outs are mostly the same disciplines run in reverse: TSAs instead of synergies, separation instead of consolidation, customer continuity through the transition. If you're standing up a new entity post-divestiture, [post-acquisition] also applies. Want Nicole to weigh in on your specific situation? Drop your email below or start at /intake. ## Service: pmo-imo --- service: pmo-imo title: PMO / IMO Design & Build --- # PMO / IMO — Seeded Q&A ## We need a PMO from scratch — where does she start? With the operating problem, not the tool. First pass is: what decisions are getting made, by whom, on what cadence, with what evidence? From there, the PMO is designed to make those decisions repeatable — frameworks, governance, reporting standards, and only then tooling. See [pmo-imo]. ## What's the difference between a PMO and an IMO? PMO is the durable program office that runs your portfolio of initiatives in steady state. IMO is the temporary structure that runs an integration or major transformation. Same disciplines, different lifespans. Many companies need both at different times — see [ma-integration] for the IMO use case. ## Do you replace our existing PMs? Almost never. The work is at the layer above PMs: governance, prioritization, reporting standards, decision rights. Your PMs keep running their workstreams; the [pmo-imo] engagement gives them an operating system around it. Sometimes one or two PM hires get recommended, but that's an output, not the goal. ## How do you handle governance and decision rights? A clear RACI on the initiatives that matter, a steering structure with the right exec attendance and the right cadence, and crucially — pre-defined escalation paths so decisions don't sit in the cracks. The boring discipline is what makes it work. ## Do you bring tooling like Jira or Asana, or work in ours? We work in yours. Tooling is the cheapest part of a PMO; switching tools mid-build burns trust and time. The [pmo-imo] engagement focuses on the disciplines and reporting standards; once those are real, tool changes are easy if you want them. ## What enterprise reporting does she set up? Initiative-level status with consistent definitions across teams (so "yellow" means the same thing everywhere), portfolio-level rollups for the exec team, and a Board-ready format that shows progress against strategic bets. The reporting is what your CEO can actually defend in a Board meeting without hand-holding. ## RACI feels like overkill — do we really need it? If decisions are getting made the wrong way ("loudest voice in the meeting" or "whoever follows up most") then yes. RACI is just a tool — the point is _clarity on who owns what_. If your team already has that, skip it. If not, the [pmo-imo] work will introduce it lightly. ## We're scaling fast — when is it time for a real PMO? Common triggers: more than 5–7 cross-functional initiatives running at once, exec meetings that keep re-litigating the same priorities, status updates that nobody trusts, or a major event (M&A, fundraise, launch) coming. If two of those are true, it's time. Want a fit conversation? Start at /intake. ## Service: post-acquisition --- service: post-acquisition title: Post-Acquisition People, Process & Systems --- # Post-Acquisition — Seeded Q&A ## What does post-acquisition support actually include? Specialized integration support for high-growth SaaS and tech companies: GTM and revenue ops alignment, customer onboarding and retention continuity, data and systems migration oversight, and employee transition management. It picks up where the legal close ends. See [post-acquisition]. ## Customer churn after acquisitions — how do you prevent it? Continuity is the lever. Customers churn when their experience changes unexpectedly: their CSM disappears, the product roadmap shifts, billing breaks, support feels different. The [post-acquisition] playbook protects each of those touchpoints during transition and communicates explicitly when something does change. ## We're worried about employee transition — what's the playbook? Three buckets, in order: clarity (people need to know their role, manager, and comp situation fast — ambiguity is what causes flight), narrative (why this acquisition is good for them, told honestly), and rhythm (recurring forums where they can ask hard questions). The mechanics are well-trodden; the discipline is consistency. ## How do you align GTM between acquirer and acquired? Map the overlap and the wedge first: where do the two motions compete, where do they complement? Then sequence — territory, ICP, packaging, comp plans — so reps aren't optimizing against each other on Day-30. Most GTM integration failures trace back to skipping that mapping step. ## Data and systems migration is messy — do you own it? Nicole owns the program — sequencing, dependencies, exec reporting, risk — not the keyboard work. Your engineering and IT teams (or chosen vendors) execute; she keeps it on the rails. Trying to do migrations without a single integration owner is how dual-running drags from "two months" to "two years." ## How is this different from M&A integration? [ma-integration] is the deal-wide IMO — strategy, Day-1, the works. [post-acquisition] is the specialized SaaS/tech operations slice that runs through and after Day-1: GTM, customer, employee, systems. They overlap; many engagements use both, scoped together. ## What metrics tell us integration is going well? Customer: gross retention holds within target, NRR doesn't crater on the acquired book. People: regrettable attrition flat, manager survey scores stable. Systems: dual-running ends on schedule, billing/data integrity clean. Synergy: tracking against the deal model, with honest variance reporting. ## We're 90 days post-close and things are off-track — too late? Not too late, but the work changes. Day-90 recovery starts with a fast diagnosis (what's actually broken vs. what just feels off), then triage by customer/people/systems risk, then a defensible recovery plan for the Board. If that's where you are, share specifics at /intake. ## Service: technical-program --- service: technical-program title: Technical Program Delivery --- # Technical Program Delivery — Seeded Q&A ## What kind of technical programs has she delivered? Biometrics, AI, and security-tech programs — high complexity, regulated industries. Includes facial and fingerprint biometric system delivery in aviation, compliance and RFP/RFQ execution, and ISO 9001 quality management implementation. See [technical-program]. ## We're regulated (FedRAMP, aviation, etc.) — does that fit? That's the home turf. Regulated programs require the same disciplines as any technical delivery — milestones, dependencies, evidence — but with audit-ready documentation, traceable decisions, and compliance artifacts as first-class outputs. Regular TPMs often miss that layer. ## Biometrics is niche — does she have real depth there? Yes. Biometric system delivery (facial, fingerprint, aviation) is one of the explicit anchors of the [technical-program] practice. If your program touches identity, access, or biometric capture in a regulated environment, the experience translates directly. ## We're responding to a major RFP — can she lead it? Yes. RFQ/RFP execution is part of [technical-program]: managing the response cross-functionally, owning the timeline back from submission date, structuring the win-themes, and keeping the response defensible to procurement. Most RFP losses are program failures, not pricing failures. ## Do you handle compliance prep like ISO 9001? Yes, including ISO 9001 and adjacent quality management systems. The implementation is the easier half; the harder half is making it stick — building the audit cadence, document control, and corrective-action discipline into the operating model so it survives certification. ## How is this different from a generic TPM? A generic TPM owns a feature or platform. [technical-program] is exec-level: regulated delivery, multi-year programs, board-visible commitments, vendor and partner orchestration. Different ceiling, different toolkit. If you have a strong internal TPM, the work usually sits one layer above them. ## We have engineering managers — why bring her in? Engineering managers run their teams; they shouldn't also be running a 12-month regulated delivery program with auditors, partners, and exec reporting attached. [technical-program] adds the program-leadership layer so your EMs can stay focused on the engineering. ## AI/ML programs in regulated industries — has she done them? Yes — that intersection (AI/ML inside regulated tech, often combined with biometrics or security) is where [technical-program] applies most cleanly. The compliance posture and the model lifecycle have to be designed together, not bolted on at the end. Want a scoping conversation? Start at /intake.