Selected Work

Three examples of technology strategy tied to business decisions.

Company names are omitted. Results keep their original boundaries—for example, planned spending is not presented as realized cash savings, and team outcomes are not presented as individual accomplishments.

The decision

Twenty to thirty technology proposals competed for funding and staff each year. Departments did not have a consistent way to compare expected benefit, cost, technical feasibility, or risk, which made weak projects harder to challenge.

What I did

I created and led a cross-department review committee and worked with technical managers, project managers, division heads, program administrators, and the chief executive. We made the assumptions behind each proposal visible and compared demand, cost, benefit, feasibility, and risk before projects moved forward. I also coached managers on value-based planning and helped formalize who could approve work and how funding decisions were made.

Result

The process stopped or deferred poorly supported initiatives and reduced planned technology spending by approximately 40%. This was a reduction in planned spend, not a claim of equivalent realized cash savings.

20–30initiatives evaluated annually

~40%lower planned technology spend

The decision

The founders were considering several markets for an energy-management platform. Each opportunity required product work, customer support, integrations, and scarce engineering capacity. The question was not whether the platform could be adapted; it was where the effort had the best chance of producing a durable business result.

What I did

I managed an approximately $1 million annual technology budget and teams of up to 10. I contributed to investor pro forma revenue models, pricing and margin analysis, project budgets, build-versus-buy decisions, and ROI models for market expansion. For the snowmaking opportunity, I spoke directly with ski-area owners and operators. Those interviews exposed workflow problems that mattered more to adoption than adding another technically sophisticated feature.

Result

The analysis supported entry into snowmaking and postponement of weaker expansion options. Operator-focused product changes improved acceptance of the platform and helped support four new contracts.

~$1Mannual technology budget managed

4new contracts supported by the market expansion

The decision

Rapid growth had produced too much customer-specific work, a platform that was difficult to change, and recurring operational problems. The business needed to decide which custom work actually created customer value and which work was consuming engineering capacity without enough return.

What I did

I worked with operating, sales, and engineering leaders and used customer behavior, support costs, engineering costs, and sales data to standardize the product, reduce low-value customization, and align pricing with customer value. In parallel, I led a platform redesign and a self-service configuration capability so the operating model matched the commercial strategy.

Result

The pricing and product changes contributed to a 25% increase in annual fees. The platform work cut deployment time by approximately 60%, tripled the release rate, eliminated recurring peak-time database failures, freed 12% of engineering capacity through self-service configuration, and supported technical integration of four acquired businesses.

+25%annual fees after pricing and product changes

12%engineering capacity returned through self-service

~60%reduction in deployment time

4acquired businesses supported through integration

The common thread is judgment before implementation.

These projects differ technically, but the work follows the same pattern: clarify the business choice, test the assumptions, make the trade-off explicit, and measure the result.

About Tim