A $1.1M Roadmap That Survived the Executive Room
Strategy work is judged on whether a recommendation holds when someone senior pushes on it. Samuel Martin builds the analysis so the pushback lands on assumptions that are already written down and already tested.
This surface re-sequences the same four case studies and swaps the sentence above it. No proof point here is unique to this page, and none of the four surfaces is the real one.
The recommendation, then the reasoning that held it up.
A $99 experiment that made outbound a revenue product
The $1.1M scaling roadmap was sensitivity tested before it went to the executive team, which is why it won their buy-in. The trial behind it put booking conversion at 5.5% against 1.6% with non-overlapping confidence intervals.
One average became four peer groups
Account management had one comparison and one script. Four statistically valid peer clusters across a book of 750+ enterprise clients changed what a quarterly review opens with, and the reframing cut both ways: some comfortable accounts turned out to be at the bottom of a strong cluster.
Financial reporting went from weeks to minutes
Finance and marketing were planning against different numbers produced weeks apart. One warehouse, one definition of a conversion, and a latency of minutes ended a two-quarter argument about which number was right.
Nine months later, the real gain was 7.0 points
Choosing the measurement horizon is a strategic act. Funding a roadmap on a 30-day number is how organizations commit to features that do not hold, and this study is the shape that avoids it.
What Samuel Martin would own here.
Framing the decision, choosing the horizon it should be judged on, and carrying the analysis into the room where the money is allocated.
Figures across this site are redrawn on synthetic data, no client is named, and the method and reasoning are exact.