Executive Summary Presentation

The 60 Minutes That Determines If Your Work Gets Funded

Why Most Consultant Presentations Fail

The amateur consultant approach:

Shows up with 87-slide PowerPoint deck. Reads bullet points verbatim for 45 minutes. Drowns executives in details. No clear ask. Leaves 5 minutes for “questions.” Wonders why the project doesn’t get approved.

Client reaction (internal, unspoken):

“What are we actually approving here?”
“How much is this again?”
“I lost the thread 30 slides ago.”
“This feels like consultant theater.”
“I need to think about this.” (Translation: No)

Result: No decision. “We’ll get back to you.” Project dies.

The professional consultant approach:

Opens with the problem (in their words, using their data). Shows the quantified business impact. Presents one clear recommendation with three phases. Provides specific ROI with scenarios. Addresses the elephant in the room (complexity and past failures). Makes a specific, time-bound ask. Leaves 30 minutes for discussion. Handles objections with data. Closes with next steps.

Client reaction:

“This is clear and compelling.”
“The numbers make sense.”
“They understand our constraints.”
“The phased approach reduces risk.”
“I can defend this to the board.”
“Let’s do this.”

Result: Approval. Budget. Implementation begins.

What “Executive Summary Presentation” Actually Means

The Executive Summary Presentation is the culmination of all your analytical work—distilled into 60 minutes that drives a decision.

It is NOT:

❌ A data dump of everything you learned
❌ A detailed walkthrough of your methodology
❌ An academic presentation proving your expertise
❌ A comprehensive process documentation review

It IS:

✅ A strategic business case for investment
✅ A decision-forcing event with clear options
✅ A risk-transparent recommendation with mitigation
✅ An ROI-justified proposal with scenarios
✅ A call to action with specific next steps

The goals:

Create urgency (this problem costs too much to ignore)
Build confidence (we can solve this, here’s how)
Demonstrate ROI (the investment pays back quickly)
Mitigate risk (here’s what could go wrong and how we’ll handle it)
Force decision (approve Phase 1 by [date])

Duration: 60 minutes total

30 minutes: Presentation
30 minutes: Discussion and Q&A

The Presentation Architecture

The Golden Structure (30 Minutes)

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                  PRESENTATION STRUCTURE                     │
│                      (30 Minutes)                           │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

SEGMENT 1: THE PROBLEM (5 minutes)
├─ Hook: Start with impact, not process
├─ Problem statement (their words, their data)
├─ Quantified business impact ($1.5M/year)
└─ Why now? (urgency factors)

SEGMENT 2: THE ROOT CAUSES (3 minutes)
├─ Not symptoms, actual root causes
├─ Why the problem persists
└─ What happens if we do nothing

SEGMENT 3: THE SOLUTION (8 minutes)
├─ High-level approach (not technical details)
├─ Three phases with objectives
├─ How it addresses each root cause
└─ What changes for whom

SEGMENT 4: THE BUSINESS CASE (7 minutes)
├─ Investment: $435K over 16 weeks
├─ Return: $862K/year recurring
├─ ROI scenarios (optimistic, base, pessimistic)
├─ Payback: 6 months
└─ NPV and IRR metrics

SEGMENT 5: RISK & COMPLEXITY (4 minutes)
├─ Implementation complexity (HIGH)
├─ Top 5 risks and mitigations
├─ What could go wrong
└─ Why we'll succeed anyway

SEGMENT 6: THE ASK (3 minutes)
├─ Clear recommendation (approve all 3 phases)
├─ Specific decision requested (Phase 1 budget)
├─ Timeline (start Week of [date])
└─ Next steps if approved

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
TOTAL: 30 minutes of presentation, 30 minutes for discussion
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Slide-by-Slide Breakdown

SLIDE 1: Title / Agenda (30 seconds)

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
CUSTOMER ONBOARDING TRANSFORMATION
Executive Presentation

[Company Logo]
[Date]
Presented by: [Your Name, Consulting Firm]
To: Executive Team
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

TODAY'S AGENDA

1. The Problem & Business Impact
2. Root Cause Analysis  
3. Recommended Solution
4. Financial Case & ROI
5. Implementation Approach
6. Recommendation & Next Steps

Goal: Decision on Phase 1 approval
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Script: “Good morning. Thank you for your time. Over the past 4 weeks, we’ve conducted a comprehensive analysis of your customer onboarding process. Today I’ll present our findings and recommendation. Our goal is to get a decision on Phase 1 by the end of this meeting. I’ll present for 30 minutes and leave 30 minutes for your questions and discussion. Let’s dive in.”

Key:

Set expectations (30/30 split)
State the goal (decision today)
Be confident, not apologetic

SLIDE 2: The Problem Statement (60 seconds)

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
THE PROBLEM

Your customer onboarding process is:
• TOO SLOW: 35 days average (vs. 15-20 day industry benchmark)
• TOO COSTLY: $1,526,901 in annual inefficiency
• TOO RISKY: 5% first-90-day churn (vs. 2% benchmark)
• NOT SCALABLE: Prevents 30% growth without proportional hiring

This is costing you customers, revenue, and competitive position.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

[Visual: Simple comparison chart]
Your Onboarding:  35 days  |████████████████████|
Industry Benchmark: 20 days |███████████|

Your Churn:       5%  |█████|
Industry Benchmark: 2%  |██|
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Script: “Let me start with the bottom line. Your customer onboarding takes 35 days on average—that’s 75% longer than industry benchmarks. This costs you $1.5 million annually in quantified inefficiencies, drives 5% first-90-day churn when industry standard is 2%, and prevents you from scaling revenue 30% next year without hiring proportionally. This isn’t a process problem. It’s a business problem.”

Key:

Lead with impact, not process
Use their data (35 days, not “a long time”)
Comparative framing (vs. benchmark)
Business language (revenue, churn, scalability)
Create urgency

DON’T:

Start with your methodology
Use consultant jargon
Apologize or hedge
Go into details yet

SLIDE 3: Quantified Business Impact (90 seconds)

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ANNUAL COST OF CURRENT STATE: $1,526,901

[Visual: Stacked bar chart or pie chart]

Direct Labor Waste:        $107,518  |███|
Indirect Costs:            $185,962  |████|
Opportunity Costs:         $785,500  |████████████████|
Customer Impact (Churn):   $352,069  |███████|
Employee Impact (Turnover): $89,150  |██|
Error & Rework:             $6,702   ||

Based on:
✓ 40 hours of direct observation and time studies
✓ 28 stakeholder interviews across 5 departments  
✓ Analysis of 288 customer onboardings over 12 months
✓ Validated with Finance and HR data
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Script: “We quantified this problem across six cost categories. The total annual cost is $1.5 million. This breaks down to direct labor waste—your team spending time on manual, repetitive work. Indirect costs—context switching, waiting, coordination overhead. Opportunity costs—the revenue you’re not generating because your CS team is at capacity. Customer impact—the churn and CAC waste from poor onboarding. Employee impact—turnover driven by broken processes. And errors requiring rework.

These aren’t consultant estimates. These are based on 40 hours of time studies, 28 stakeholder interviews, analysis of 288 actual onboardings, and validation with your Finance team. High-confidence numbers at 45%, medium-confidence at 55%.”

Key:

Show the magnitude visually
Emphasize data sources (credibility)
Break down into understandable categories
Validate with “your Finance team” (not just consultant math)

SLIDE 4: The Human Impact (60 seconds)

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
WHO'S AFFECTED

28 people across 5 departments experience this daily:

Customer Success (8 CSRs + Manager)
• 3-4 status inquiry interruptions per CSR per day
• 45 min/day on manual coordination and tracking
• 15% data entry error rate requiring rework
• 3 of 8 actively looking for new jobs

Sales (6 AEs + VP)
• 50 post-sale escalations per year
• $270K lost referral revenue annually

Implementation (3 specialists)
• 2-5 day backlog on setup requests
• 10% configuration error rate

Plus: 288 customers/year waiting 35 days for value they paid for
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Script: “But this isn’t just about dollars. It’s about people. Your 8 Customer Success Reps are interrupted 3-4 times per day with status inquiries. They spend 45 minutes daily on manual coordination. Three of them are actively job-searching, citing the chaotic process as a top frustration.

Your Sales team handles 50 post-sale escalations per year from frustrated customers, losing $270K in referral revenue. Implementation has a 2-5 day backlog on every setup request.

And 288 customers per year—people who just paid you an average of $50,000—are waiting 35 days to get value. That’s the human cost.”

Key:

Make it personal (not abstract)
Use names of departments (their people)
Specific numbers (3-4 interruptions, not “many”)
Tie back to earlier churn metric
Create empathy

SLIDE 5: Root Causes (90 seconds)

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
WHY THE PROBLEM PERSISTS: ROOT CAUSES

1. NO STRUCTURED WORKFLOW
   └─ Every CSR has different approach, tasks fall through cracks

2. NO SYSTEM INTEGRATION  
   └─ Salesforce ↔ CS Tool manual handoff, 20 min data entry per customer

3. NO CUSTOMER VISIBILITY
   └─ Customers can't see status, email CSRs constantly

4. UNCLEAR HANDOFFS
   └─ Sales → CS → Implementation coordination via email/Slack

5. NO STANDARDIZED PLAYBOOK
   └─ CSRs recreate materials, new hires take 3 months to ramp

6. NO METRICS
   └─ Can't measure, can't manage, can't improve

Not a people problem. A systems and process problem.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Script: “So why does this problem persist? We identified six root causes. First, there’s no structured workflow—every CSR has their own approach, things fall through cracks. Second, Salesforce and your CS tool don’t talk to each other—20 minutes of manual data entry per customer. Third, customers have no visibility into their onboarding status, so they email constantly asking ‘what’s my status?’ Fourth, handoffs between Sales, CS, and Implementation happen via email and Slack messages—untracked, unreliable. Fifth, there’s no standardized playbook, so CSRs recreate materials and new hires take 3 months to become productive. And sixth, you can’t measure cycle time or bottlenecks, so you can’t systematically improve.

This isn’t a people problem. Your people are working incredibly hard. This is a systems and process problem.”

Key:

Be specific (not vague)
Show causality (root cause → problem)
Depersonalize (not blaming people)
Set up the solution (each cause addressed)

SLIDE 6: The Solution Overview (60 seconds)

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
RECOMMENDED SOLUTION

Transform onboarding through a phased approach combining:

PROCESS: Standardized workflow and playbook
  └─ Eliminates variation, creates consistency

AUTOMATION: Workflow orchestration platform  
  └─ Automates tasks, notifications, coordination

INTEGRATION: Salesforce ↔ Workflow Tool sync
  └─ Eliminates manual data entry and errors

VISIBILITY: Customer self-service portal
  └─ Reduces status inquiry interruptions 70%

AI (Phase 3): Intelligent assistance
  └─ Chatbot, document generation, predictive analytics

Result: 35 days → 12-15 days (57-66% improvement)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Script: “Our recommendation is a comprehensive transformation combining five components. First, process standardization—a documented workflow and playbook that eliminates variation. Second, workflow automation—a platform that orchestrates tasks, sends notifications, and coordinates handoffs automatically. Third, system integration between Salesforce and your workflow tool, eliminating manual data entry. Fourth, a customer-facing portal that gives customers real-time visibility, deflecting 70% of status inquiries. And in Phase 3, AI-powered assistance—a chatbot, automated document generation, and predictive analytics.

The result: onboarding time drops from 35 days to 12-15 days. That’s a 57 to 66 percent improvement.”

Key:

Show how solution addresses root causes
Use their language (Salesforce, not “CRM”)
Quantify the outcome (35 → 12-15 days)
Not too technical yet (details later if asked)

SLIDE 7: Phased Approach (90 seconds)

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
THREE-PHASE IMPLEMENTATION (16 Weeks)

PHASE 1: PROCESS FOUNDATION (4 weeks | $44K)
✓ Standardize workflow, create templates
✓ Quick wins, no technology spend
✓ Expected: 20% improvement (35 → 28 days)
✓ Gate decision: Approve Phase 2?

PHASE 2: AUTOMATION & INTEGRATION (8 weeks | $294K)  
✓ Workflow platform, Salesforce integration
✓ Customer portal, automated handoffs
✓ Expected: Additional 40% improvement (28 → 15 days)
✓ Gate decision: Approve Phase 3?

PHASE 3: AI ENHANCEMENT (4 weeks | $98K)
✓ Chatbot, intelligent document generation
✓ Predictive analytics
✓ Expected: Additional 10% improvement (15 → 12 days)

Each phase independently valuable. Can stop after any phase.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Script: “We recommend a three-phase approach over 16 weeks.

Phase 1 is pure process—4 weeks, $44K. We standardize the workflow, create templates, no technology spend. You see immediate 20% improvement. At the end, you decide: approve Phase 2 or stop here.

Phase 2 is automation and integration—8 weeks, $294K. We implement the workflow platform, integrate Salesforce, build the customer portal. You see an additional 40% improvement. Again, you decide: approve Phase 3 or stop.

Phase 3 is AI enhancement—4 weeks, $98K. Chatbot, automated documents, predictive analytics. Another 10% improvement.

The critical point: each phase is independently valuable. If you stop after Phase 1, you still got 20% better for $44K. This isn’t all-or-nothing.”

Key:

Phased = de-risked
Clear decision gates (control)
Independent value (can stop anytime)
Progressive investment (small → large)
Reduces “big bet” anxiety

SLIDE 8: The Financial Case (60 seconds)

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
INVESTMENT & RETURN

INVESTMENT:
One-time implementation:  $435,000 (over 16 weeks)
Ongoing annual cost:       $82,000 (software, support, improvement)

RETURN:
Gross annual benefits:    $944,000  
Net annual benefits:      $862,000 (after ongoing costs)

KEY METRICS:
Payback Period:            6.0 months
Year 1 ROI:               11% (conservative) | 67% (full year)
3-Year NPV (10%):         $1,243,163
Internal Rate of Return:   134%
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Script: “Here’s the financial case. Total investment is $435,000 over 16 weeks, plus $82,000 per year in ongoing costs for software licenses, support, and continuous improvement.

The return is $944,000 in gross annual benefits, or $862,000 net after deducting ongoing costs.

This delivers a 6-month payback period, Year 1 ROI of 11% using a conservative 6-month ramp assumption—or 67% if we achieve full-year benefits. The 3-year net present value at your 10% hurdle rate is $1.24 million. Internal rate of return is 134%.

These metrics far exceed your corporate hurdle rates.”

Key:

Simple investment → return framing
Multiple metrics (speak to finance people)
Exceed hurdle rates (reference their standards)
Confidence without arrogance

SLIDE 9: ROI Scenarios (90 seconds)

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
SCENARIO ANALYSIS: RISK-ADJUSTED ROI

                  Payback    Year 1 ROI   3-Year NPV    IRR
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Optimistic (20%)  4.3 mo        93%        $1,971K      247%
Base Case (55%)   6.0 mo        11%        $1,243K      134%
Pessimistic (20%) 12.3 mo      -58%        $463K        58%
Disaster (5%)     18.7 mo      -70%        $128K        21%
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Risk-Adjusted    7.6 mo        ~25%        $1,177K      136%

Even in PESSIMISTIC scenario:
✓ Payback within 12 months
✓ 3-year NPV positive ($463K)
✓ IRR (58%) exceeds hurdle rate (15%)

In DISASTER scenario (5% probability):
✓ Still achieves positive NPV over 3 years
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Script: “Now, we never present a single number. Here are four scenarios based on different assumptions about benefit realization and costs.

In the optimistic case—20% probability, everything goes well—4-month payback, 93% Year 1 ROI.

Base case—55% probability—is what I just showed you. 6 months, 11% Year 1 ROI, $1.24 million NPV.

In the pessimistic case—20% probability, benefits come in 35% lower—payback extends to 12 months, Year 1 ROI is negative, BUT 3-year NPV is still positive at $463,000 and IRR is 58%, well above your 15% hurdle.

Even in a disaster scenario—5% probability, everything goes wrong—we still achieve positive NPV over 3 years.

The risk-adjusted expected value, weighting these probabilities, is 7.6-month payback and $1.18 million NPV.”

Key:

Transparency about risk
Even bad scenarios acceptable
Probability-weighted = sophisticated
Shows you’ve thought about downside
Builds credibility through honesty

SLIDE 10: Sensitivity Analysis (60 seconds)

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: WHAT IF WE'RE WRONG?

How much can our assumptions be off and still break even?

Benefits can decrease:  -50% and still achieve positive NPV
Costs can increase:     +60% and still achieve positive NPV
Ramp time can extend:   To 12 months and NPV stays >$1M

[Visual: Tornado chart showing sensitivity]

            <---- Hurts NPV  |  Helps NPV ---->
Benefits    |████████████████|██████████|
Costs       |██████|██████████████|
Ramp Time   |████|██████████████|

Most sensitive to: Benefits realization
Least sensitive to: Discount rate, ramp timeline

Conclusion: Investment is ROBUST to adverse changes in assumptions
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Script: “Here’s the sensitivity analysis. How wrong can our assumptions be and the project still makes sense?

Benefits can come in 50% lower than projected and we still achieve positive NPV. Costs can overrun by 60% and we’re still positive. Benefit realization can take a full year instead of 6 months and NPV stays above $1 million.

The investment is most sensitive to benefits realization—which is why change management and adoption are critical and budgeted. It’s least sensitive to our discount rate assumptions and ramp timeline.

Bottom line: this investment is robust to significant adverse changes in our assumptions. We’d have to be dramatically wrong for this not to pay off.”

Key:

Shows you stress-tested assumptions
Quantifies “how wrong can we be”
Reinforces robustness
Anticipates CFO questions
Confidence without cockiness

SLIDE 11: Implementation Complexity (90 seconds)

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
IMPLEMENTATION COMPLEXITY: HIGH (7.5/10)

We're transparent about complexity. This is not an easy project.

PRIMARY COMPLEXITY DRIVERS:

1. INTEGRATION (8/10)
   • 8 systems, 12+ integration points
   • Legacy systems with limited APIs
   • Data synchronization challenges

2. CHANGE MANAGEMENT (8/10)
   • Large behavioral change for CSRs (primary users)
   • Past failed initiatives create skepticism
   • 3 other major initiatives competing for attention

3. TECHNICAL (7.5/10)
   • Technical debt in existing systems
   • Limited internal IT capacity

4. ORGANIZATIONAL (7.5/10)
   • 36 stakeholders, 5 departments
   • Consensus-driven decision making
   • Low organizational maturity

This requires: Experienced team, strong governance, active executive 
sponsorship, robust change management.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Script: “Let me be transparent about complexity. We rate this as HIGH—7.5 out of 10. This is not a simple project.

The primary complexity drivers are, first, integration. Eight systems, 12-plus integration points, legacy systems with limited APIs, data synchronization challenges.

Second, change management. This requires significant behavioral change for your CSRs, who are the primary users. Past failed initiatives have created skepticism. And you have three other major initiatives competing for attention right now.

Third, technical complexity from technical debt in your existing systems and limited IT capacity.

And fourth, organizational complexity—36 stakeholders across 5 departments, consensus-driven decision-making, relatively low organizational maturity in terms of process discipline.

What this means: this requires an experienced implementation team, strong governance, active executive sponsorship, and robust change management. It’s not a ‘set it and forget it’ project.”

Key:

Brutal honesty (HIGH complexity)
Specific factors (not vague)
What it means in practice (requirements)
Don’t sugarcoat
Shows you understand their reality

SLIDE 12: Top Risks & Mitigation (90 seconds)

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
TOP 5 RISKS & HOW WE'LL MITIGATE THEM

RISK 1: User Adoption Failure (35% probability)
└─ Users don't adopt new system, revert to old ways
   Mitigation:
   ✓ Dedicated change management program ($40K budgeted)
   ✓ Pilot with 2 CSRs before full rollout
   ✓ Daily office hours first 2 weeks post-launch
   ✓ Executive reinforcement (COO visible support)

RISK 2: Integration Technical Challenges (25% probability)
└─ Can't get systems to integrate reliably
   Mitigation:
   ✓ Technical discovery and prototyping in Phase 1
   ✓ 15% contingency budget ($49K) for surprises
   ✓ Vendor technical support engaged
   ✓ Fallback to manual workarounds if needed

RISK 3: Resource Constraints (20% probability)
└─ IT team pulled to other priorities, timeline slips
   Mitigation:
   ✓ Pre-commitment from CTO (in writing)
   ✓ Contract developers available if needed
   ✓ Phased approach allows adjustment

RISK 4: Organizational Politics (15% probability)
RISK 5: Budget Cuts (5% probability)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Script: “Here are the top 5 risks, ranked by probability.

Risk 1—35% probability—is adoption failure. Users don’t adopt the new system, they revert to old ways, benefits don’t materialize. We mitigate this with a dedicated change management program, $40K budgeted. We’ll pilot with 2 CSRs before full rollout. We’ll have daily office hours the first 2 weeks. And we need visible executive support—COO reinforcement that this is the new way.

Risk 2—25% probability—is integration technical challenges. We can’t get the systems to talk reliably. We mitigate this with technical discovery and prototyping in Phase 1 before major investment. We have 15% contingency budget for surprises. Vendor technical support is engaged. And we have fallback plans for manual workarounds if integrations fail.

Risk 3—20% probability—is resource constraints. Your IT team gets pulled to other priorities. We mitigate with pre-commitment from your CTO, contract developers on standby, and the phased approach allows timeline adjustment without killing the project.

I won’t detail Risks 4 and 5, but they’re in your materials.”

Key:

Rank by probability (most likely first)
For each: what it is + how we mitigate
Show mitigation is budgeted/planned
Don’t just list problems (show solutions)
Acknowledge you’ve thought this through

SLIDE 13: Why We’ll Succeed Despite Complexity (60 seconds)

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
WHY WE'LL SUCCEED

Despite high complexity, success probability is 70% because:

✓ PHASED APPROACH
  └─ Derisk through incremental implementation
  └─ Can stop after any phase if needed
  └─ Learn and adjust between phases

✓ EARLY WINS
  └─ Phase 1 delivers 20% improvement in 4 weeks
  └─ Builds credibility before asking for major investment

✓ PROVEN TEAM
  └─ Your consulting firm: 12 similar projects, 88% success rate
  └─ Platform vendor: Thousands of implementations
  └─ Your internal champion: VP CS deeply committed

✓ REALISTIC PLAN
  └─ Timelines account for complexity (18 weeks, not 8)
  └─ Budget includes 15% contingency
  └─ Built-in flexibility to adapt

Similar projects: Actual results exceeded projections by 12% on average
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Script: “So given this complexity, why will we succeed? Four reasons.

First, the phased approach de-risks implementation. We’re not betting everything on a big bang. You can stop after any phase. We learn and adjust between phases.

Second, early wins. Phase 1 delivers 20% improvement in just 4 weeks, building credibility before we ask for the major Phase 2 investment.

Third, proven team. Our firm has done 12 similar projects with an 88% success rate. The platform vendor has done thousands of implementations. And your internal champion, VP Customer Success, is deeply committed.

Fourth, realistic plan. Our timelines account for complexity—18 weeks, not 8. Budget includes 15% contingency. We’ve built in flexibility to adapt.

And I’ll note: on similar projects, actual results exceeded our projections by 12% on average. We’re conservative.”

Key:

Balance complexity with confidence
Concrete reasons (not platitudes)
Track record (evidence)
Emphasize realism (not optimism)
Credibility through past performance

SLIDE 14: What Success Looks Like (60 seconds)

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
SUCCESS METRICS (How We'll Measure Results)

OPERATIONAL METRICS:
Onboarding Cycle Time:     35 days → 12-15 days (57-66% improvement)
First Contact Time:        2.3 days → <24 hours (96% improvement)
Configuration Errors:      10% → <2% (80% improvement)
Status Inquiry Volume:     3-4/day/CSR → <1/day (75% improvement)

FINANCIAL METRICS:
Annual Cost Reduction:     $1,527K → $583K (62% reduction)
Net Annual Benefit:        $862,000 (after ongoing costs)
ROI Achievement:           Track monthly vs. projections

CUSTOMER METRICS:
First 90-Day Churn:        5% → 2% (match benchmark)
Onboarding CSAT:           6.8/10 → 8.5/10 (25% improvement)
Time to First Value:       35 days → 15 days (57% improvement)

TEAM METRICS:
CS Capacity:               24 customers/month → 36/month (50% increase)
CSR Turnover:              12.5% → 8% (match benchmark)
Process Satisfaction:      Baseline → +3 points

We'll track these monthly and report to steering committee.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Script: “Here’s what success looks like, specifically. We’ll measure across four categories.

Operational metrics: Onboarding drops from 35 days to 12-15 days. First contact happens within 24 hours instead of 2.3 days. Configuration errors drop from 10% to under 2%. Status inquiry volume drops 75%.

Financial metrics: Annual costs reduce by 62%. Net annual benefit is $862,000. We track ROI achievement monthly.

Customer metrics: First-90-day churn drops from 5% to 2%, matching benchmark. Onboarding satisfaction increases from 6.8 to 8.5 out of 10. Time to first value cut in half.

Team metrics: CS team capacity increases 50%—from 24 customers a month to 36. CSR turnover drops to benchmark. Process satisfaction up 3 points.

We’ll track all of these monthly and report to the steering committee. Complete transparency.”

Key:

Specific, measurable outcomes
Multiple dimensions (not just $)
Monthly tracking (accountability)
Ties back to original problem
Creates clarity on “done”

SLIDE 15: The Recommendation (60 seconds)

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE 3-phase implementation with decision gates:

PHASE 1 (4 weeks | $44K)
↓ Gate Review Week 4
PHASE 2 (8 weeks | $294K)  
↓ Gate Review Week 12
PHASE 3 (4 weeks | $98K)

Total: 16 weeks | $435K investment | $862K/year return

WHY THIS, WHY NOW:

✓ Problem costs $1.5M/year—too expensive to ignore
✓ Prevents scaling 30% next year without hiring
✓ 6-month payback, 134% IRR far exceed hurdle rates
✓ Phased approach mitigates risk
✓ Complexity is high but manageable with proper resources
✓ Every quarter delayed costs $382K in lost benefits

Alternative: Do nothing
└─ Cost: $1.5M/year continues, grows with volume
└─ Risk: Competitive disadvantage, employee turnover, customer churn
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Script: “Here’s our recommendation: Approve the 3-phase implementation with decision gates at Week 4 and Week 12.

Phase 1 is 4 weeks and $44K. You review results and decide whether to proceed to Phase 2. Phase 2 is 8 weeks and $294K. Same thing—review and decide on Phase 3. Phase 3 is 4 weeks and $98K.

Total: 16 weeks, $435K investment, $862K per year in recurring return.

Why this, why now? This problem costs $1.5 million per year—too expensive to ignore. It prevents you from scaling 30% next year without proportional hiring. The ROI is compelling—6-month payback, 134% IRR. The phased approach mitigates risk. Complexity is high but manageable with proper resourcing.

And every quarter you delay costs $382,000 in lost benefits.

The alternative is do nothing. That costs $1.5 million per year and grows as volume increases. You risk competitive disadvantage, employee turnover, and customer churn.”

Key:

Clear, specific recommendation
Repeat the ROI (reinforce)
Why now (urgency)
Cost of delay (creates FOMO)
State the alternative (do nothing)
Make inaction uncomfortable

SLIDE 16: The Ask (45 seconds)

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
THE ASK: DECISION REQUESTED

TODAY: Approve overall program approach
        (3 phases with gates)

BY [DATE - 1 WEEK]: Approve Phase 1 budget
                    ($44,000)

WEEK OF [DATE]: Phase 1 kickoff
                (Process design workshops begin)

If approved today, we can start Week of [specific date].

If delayed 1 month, start date pushes to [later date], 
costing $127K in deferred benefits.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Questions?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Script: “Here’s specifically what we’re asking.

Today, we need approval of the overall program approach—the three phases with decision gates.

By [date one week from today], we need approval of the Phase 1 budget, which is $44,000.

And then we can start the week of [specific date] with process design workshops.

If you approve today, we start [specific date]. If this decision is delayed one month, the start date pushes to [later date], which costs you $127,000 in deferred benefits.

Questions?”

Key:

Specific ask (not vague)
Time-bound (by when)
Consequence of delay (urgency)
Transition to Q&A
Confident, not pushy

The Q&A Strategy (30 Minutes)

The presentation is 50% of the battle. Q&A is the other 50%.

Q&A Preparation: Anticipate Objections

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ANTICIPATED QUESTIONS & PREPARED RESPONSES
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

QUESTION 1: "Why can't we do this ourselves without consultants?"
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
THE REAL CONCERN: "You're expensive and I don't want to pay."

WEAK RESPONSE:
"Well, we have expertise you don't have internally."

STRONG RESPONSE:
"You absolutely could. You have smart people. Here's what it would require: a full-time project manager for 4 months, your senior developer allocated 75% for 4 months, a change manager, vendor relationship management, and integration expertise. 

The question is capacity—your IT team has a 3-month backlog today. Your senior dev is already at 110%. You don't have a change manager. 

Our value isn't that we're smarter. Our value is capacity, focus, and pattern recognition—we've done this 12 times. You'd be learning as you go. The risk is it takes 2× as long, costs 30% more, and has lower adoption because change management gets deprioritized.

But if you have the capacity and want to tackle it internally, Phase 1 is light on consulting—you could do that yourselves and then decide."

KEY: Acknowledge they could, explain why they shouldn't, offer hybrid option
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

QUESTION 2: "How do we know the ROI is real?"
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
THE REAL CONCERN: "Consultants always overpromise."

WEAK RESPONSE:
"We did rigorous analysis."

STRONG RESPONSE:
"Great question. Let me show you how we calculated it. [Pull up backup slide with detailed ROI calculation]. The $1.5M current-state cost breaks down to [show categories]. Each is based on [show data source]. 

We validated these numbers with Sarah [VP CS], with Finance on the churn costs, with HR on turnover costs. We're not assuming 100% elimination—we're assuming 62% reduction, which accounts for residual manual work and imperfect adoption.

In the pessimistic scenario—which has 20% probability—benefits come in 35% lower and we still achieve positive NPV.

And I'll note: on our last 3 similar projects, actual benefits exceeded projections by an average of 12%. We're conservative.

But here's the key: Phase 1 is $44K. You'll see 20% improvement in 4 weeks. If you don't, stop. You're only out $44K and you got process documentation. The big bet is Phase 2, and you only make that after seeing Phase 1 results."

KEY: Show the math, validation sources, conservative assumptions, phase gates
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

QUESTION 3: "We tried automation before and it failed. Why will this be different?"
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
THE REAL CONCERN: "We've been burned. We're skeptical."

WEAK RESPONSE:
"This time will be different because we're better."

STRONG RESPONSE:
"You're right to be skeptical. We studied that project—the marketing automation initiative from last year. It failed for three specific reasons: scope creep, no executive sponsorship after the champion left, and no change management budget.

Here's what's different this time:

First, scope discipline. We have clear IN/OUT scope for each phase. Any scope change requires steering committee approval and budget adjustment. We won't let it balloon.

Second, executive sponsorship. The COO is the sponsor, not a mid-level manager. He's committed to staying engaged through completion. We have that commitment in writing.

Third, change management is budgeted—$40K, not an afterthought. It's 10% of the budget, which is appropriate for a high-adoption-risk project.

Fourth, phased approach. Last time was big-bang. This time, quick wins in Phase 1 prove it works before the big Phase 2 investment.

But look, I can't guarantee success. What I can guarantee is we've learned from that failure and designed specifically to avoid those mistakes."

KEY: Acknowledge past failure, show you studied it, contrast approaches, humility
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

QUESTION 4: "Can we just do Phase 1 and skip Phases 2 and 3?"
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
THE REAL CONCERN: "Can we get value cheaper?"

WEAK RESPONSE:
"You really need all three phases for full benefits."

STRONG RESPONSE:
"Yes, absolutely. Each phase is independently valuable.

Phase 1 alone gets you 20% improvement—from 35 days to 28 days—for $44K. You get standardization, templates, reduced variation. If that's sufficient, stop there.

But here's what you leave on the table: Phase 1 doesn't solve the integration problem—you're still manually entering data. It doesn't solve the customer visibility problem—they're still emailing asking for status. It doesn't give managers real-time dashboards. 

So you get some improvement but the big cost drivers remain. Your team is still spending 45 minutes a day on manual coordination. You're still losing $270K a year in referral revenue. The capacity constraint preventing 30% growth is still there.

Phase 2 is where you unlock the majority of the value—that's where automation and integration eliminate the high-cost activities. 

Phase 3 is truly optional—that's AI polish on top of a working system.

So yes, you can stop after Phase 1. You just need to understand what you're leaving behind."

KEY: Say yes, quantify what they get vs. leave behind, make informed choice
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

QUESTION 5: "Our IT team is already overwhelmed. How will they find time for this?"
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
THE REAL CONCERN: "Resource constraints will kill this project."

WEAK RESPONSE:
"They'll make time because this is important."

STRONG RESPONSE:
"You're right—they're at 110% capacity with a 3-month backlog. We've accounted for that.

Here's the resource reality: We need your senior developer 75% allocated for 8 weeks during Phase 2. That's 240 hours. We also need QA for 80 hours.

We've talked to your CTO. He's committed to protecting this allocation. That means two things: First, we need executive air cover—when other projects try to pull him, the COO reinforces priority. Second, we've budgeted $30K for contract developers as backup if your internal team gets pulled.

Phase 1 needs minimal IT—10 hours a week for planning. Manageable.

Phase 3 needs 60% allocation for 4 weeks.

We're also sequencing to avoid your busiest periods. We won't launch Phase 2 during your Q4 infrastructure upgrade.

The risk you're identifying is real—it's Risk #3 on our list. But we've planned for it: CTO pre-commitment, budget for contractors, phased approach allows timeline adjustment if needed.

Without adequate IT capacity, this fails. That's why we need your commitment that this is a top-3 IT priority for Q1."

KEY: Validate concern, show specific mitigation, ask for executive commitment
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

QUESTION 6: "What if the team doesn't adopt the new system?"
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
THE REAL CONCERN: "User adoption is where these things fail."

STRONG RESPONSE:
"That's our #1 risk—35% probability. Here's how we address it:

First, the team is involved in design from Day 1. Phase 1 is collaborative workshops where CSRs co-create the new process. They're not having it imposed on them.

Second, we pilot with 2 CSR champions before full rollout. These are respected team members Sarah [VP CS] has identified. If they adopt and advocate, others follow.

Third, comprehensive training—4 hours hands-on, not lecture. Practice environment. Video tutorials. Quick reference cards. Office hours daily for 2 weeks post-launch.

Fourth, visible executive support. The COO needs to message: 'This is our new way of working. I'm committed to your success with it.'

Fifth, we launch with new customers only—we don't disrupt in-flight onboardings. Gradual rollout.

But here's the reality: adoption is never 100%. We're targeting 85% within 30 days. If we're at 70%, that's still a win—70% of benefits is better than 0%.

And if adoption truly fails—we're at 40% after 2 months—we have an escalation plan: executive intervention, additional support, solution adjustment, or worst-case, pause and reassess.

But I'll be direct: if the leadership of this company isn't willing to reinforce that this is the new standard, it will fail. We need your commitment to that."

KEY: Detailed mitigation plan, realistic expectations, demand leadership commitment
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

[Continue with 10-15 more anticipated questions...]
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Q&A Handling Techniques

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Q&A BEST PRACTICES
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

TECHNIQUE 1: The Bridge
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
When asked a question you don't want to answer directly:

"That's a great question. Let me address the underlying concern..."
[Pivot to what you want to talk about]

Example:
Q: "Isn't this a lot of money for what might be a short-term problem?"
A: "I hear the concern about investment size. Let me put it in context: 
   this $435K investment addresses a $1.5M annual cost that's been 
   persistent for 2+ years and growing. The short-term question is 
   really: can we afford NOT to fix it?"

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
TECHNIQUE 2: The Boomerang
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Turn a question back to the questioner for validation:

Q: "Will the Sales team actually use this?"
A: "David [VP Sales], you've been in the workshops. What's your take 
   on Sales team adoption?"

[Lets internal champion answer, builds buy-in]

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
TECHNIQUE 3: The Data Pull
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Reference specific data points to build credibility:

Q: "How do you know customers will use the self-service portal?"
A: "Great question. In our user testing with 5 beta customers, 100% 
   said they'd prefer self-service to emailing their CSR. Industry 
   data shows 73% of B2B customers prefer self-service for status 
   updates. And in our similar project at [Client B], portal adoption 
   was 82% within 30 days."

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
TECHNIQUE 4: The Acknowledge and Contrast
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Validate concern, then show why it's mitigated:

Q: "This seems risky given our past failures."
A: "You're absolutely right to be concerned given the marketing 
   automation failure. That was a big-bang approach with no executive 
   sponsorship and no change management. This is different in three 
   ways: [contrast]."

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
TECHNIQUE 5: The Redirect
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
When question is too detailed for this forum:

Q: "Can you walk through exactly how the Salesforce integration will 
   handle custom objects?"
A: "That's a great technical question. The short answer is yes, we've 
   mapped all 15 custom objects in our technical design. Rather than 
   go through field-by-field mapping here, can we schedule 30 minutes 
   with you and your team to walk through the technical architecture? 
   For this forum, the key point is: integration is feasible, we've 
   validated with Salesforce experts, and we've budgeted contingency."

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
TECHNIQUE 6: The Honest Admission
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
When you don't know, say so:

Q: "What happens if the workflow platform vendor gets acquired mid-project?"
A: "That's a scenario we haven't specifically planned for. What I can 
   say is: the platform has been around 8 years, they're profitable, 
   no indication of acquisition. But you're right—vendor risk is real. 
   Let me add that to our risk register and come back with a specific 
   mitigation plan. Good catch."

[Honesty builds more trust than BS]

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
TECHNIQUE 7: The Reframe
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Shift from problem to opportunity:

Q: "This is a lot of change to put the organization through."
A: "You're right—change is hard. But here's how I'd reframe it: your 
   CS team is already going through change. Three people actively job 
   searching. Customers frustrated. The question isn't change vs. 
   no change. It's: controlled, planned change that improves things, 
   or chaotic, reactive change as people quit and customers churn."

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

The Objection Handling Framework

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
OBJECTION HANDLING: THE LAER MODEL
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

L - LISTEN
└─ Don't interrupt
└─ Let them finish completely
└─ Take notes visibly (shows respect)

A - ACKNOWLEDGE  
└─ Validate the concern (even if you disagree)
└─ "That's a great question"
└─ "You're right to be concerned about X"

E - EXPLORE
└─ Ask clarifying questions
└─ "Help me understand your concern about..."
└─ Surface the real objection (often hidden)

R - RESPOND
└─ Address with data, examples, or logic
└─ Reference earlier points
└─ Offer alternatives if applicable

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
EXAMPLE APPLICATION:

OBJECTION: "I'm not convinced the ROI is achievable."

LISTEN:
[Let them explain fully, don't interrupt]

ACKNOWLEDGE:
"You're right to scrutinize the ROI—that's the foundation of this decision."

EXPLORE:
"Help me understand what specifically concerns you. Is it the 
benefit estimates, the cost estimates, the timeline, or something else?"

RESPOND:
[Based on their answer]
If benefits: "Let me show you how we calculated the $1.5M current 
state cost. [Pull up detail]. Each category validated with your team..."

If costs: "Our cost estimates are based on [vendor quotes / market 
rates / prior projects]. Here's the breakdown..."

If timeline: "The 6-month payback assumes a 6-month benefit ramp. 
Even if it takes 12 months, we still achieve [X]. Here's the 
sensitivity analysis..."

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Post-Presentation: Closing the Deal

Immediate Next Steps (In the Room)

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
IN-ROOM CLOSING SEQUENCE
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

AFTER Q&A WRAPS (5 minutes remaining):

YOU: "Before we adjourn, let me summarize what I heard in the Q&A 
and make sure we're aligned on next steps."

[Summarize key themes from questions]

"I heard three main themes:
1. Concern about resource constraints, specifically IT capacity
2. Questions about user adoption given past failures  
3. Desire to understand what Phase 1 alone delivers

On resources: We have CTO commitment for Phase 2, contract developers 
budgeted. We need executive reinforcement this is top-3 priority.

On adoption: Change management is $40K of the budget, pilot approach, 
we've addressed this in the design.

On Phase 1 value: You get 20% improvement for $44K even if you stop there."

[Pause]

"So here's what I'm proposing:

Decision today: Approve the overall program approach
Decision by [date]: Approve Phase 1 budget ($44K)
Timeline: Start Phase 1 week of [date]

Can we get consensus on that?"

[WAIT. Don't talk. Let them respond.]

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
POSSIBLE RESPONSES:

RESPONSE 1: "Yes, let's move forward."
└─ YOU: "Excellent. I'll send the Phase 1 SOW this afternoon. 
         Sarah [VP CS], let's connect tomorrow on workshop scheduling. 
         Thank you all for your time and commitment."

RESPONSE 2: "We need to discuss internally."
└─ YOU: "Understood. What concerns do you need to work through? 
         Can I provide any additional information to help?"
   THEM: [Explains]
   YOU: "Got it. When can we reconvene? I want to be respectful 
         of your timeline but mindful that each week delays $21K 
         in benefits."

RESPONSE 3: "We want to approve Phase 1 only, not the whole program."
└─ YOU: "That's fine. Phase 1 is independently valuable. The only 
         thing I ask is we establish decision criteria now for Phase 2. 
         What would you need to see from Phase 1 to approve Phase 2?"
   [Establish success criteria in the room]

RESPONSE 4: "We want to negotiate price."
└─ YOU: "I'm open to that conversation. Which specific areas are 
         you concerned about? Is it the overall investment level, 
         the Phase 2 cost specifically, or something else?"
   [Understand objection, potentially offer descoping options]

RESPONSE 5: "We're not ready to decide."
└─ YOU: "I understand. What's the timeline for a decision? And what 
         information or discussion do you need to get comfortable?"
   [Establish decision timeline and requirements]

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

The Follow-Up Strategy

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
POST-PRESENTATION FOLLOW-UP
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

SAME DAY (Within 2 hours):
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Email to all attendees:

Subject: Customer Onboarding Transformation - Presentation Materials

"Thank you for your time this morning. As discussed, attached are:

1. Executive presentation (PDF)
2. Full recommendation document (45 pages)
3. Financial model (Excel - you can adjust assumptions)
4. Implementation plan (detailed)

Key takeaways from Q&A:
• Addressed IT resource constraints → CTO committed, contractors budgeted
• Clarified Phase 1 standalone value → 20% improvement for $44K
• Confirmed change management approach → $40K budgeted, pilot program

Next steps:
• Decision by [date]: Approve Phase 1 budget ($44K)
• If approved: Phase 1 kickoff week of [date]
• I'm available this week if you need additional information

Each week of delay costs approximately $21,000 in deferred benefits.

[Your name]"

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
DAY 2-3:
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Individual outreach to key stakeholders:

TO CHAMPION (VP Customer Success):
"Sarah - thank you for your partnership on this. How did you think 
the presentation landed? What concerns do I need to address? What 
can I do to help get this over the finish line?"

TO CFO:
"Jennifer - I know ROI scrutiny is critical. Happy to walk through 
the financial model in more detail if helpful. The Excel model is 
fully transparent - you can adjust any assumption and see impact."

TO CTO:
"Michael - appreciate your commitment on IT resources for Phase 2. 
Let me know if you need anything from us to make that realistic 
for your team."

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
DAY 4-5:
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
If no decision yet:

Email to executive sponsor (COO):

"Marcus - following up on Tuesday's presentation. We're at the 
decision deadline we discussed. What's the status?

If there are remaining concerns or information needed, I'm happy 
to address. If the decision is no or not now, I'd appreciate 
understanding the reasoning so we can learn.

As reminder: each week of delay costs $21K in deferred benefits, 
and Q1 start allows delivery before your busy Q2 product launch.

What do you need from me?"

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
IF APPROVED:
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Immediate actions:

1. Send Phase 1 SOW for signature (same day)
2. Schedule Phase 1 kickoff meeting (week of start date)
3. Confirm Phase 1 workshop participants with VP CS
4. Begin Phase 1 logistics (workshop space, materials prep)
5. Set up project tracking and governance

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
IF REJECTED:
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Request debrief:

"I appreciate you considering the proposal. To help us improve, 
could you share what led to the decision not to proceed? Was it:
- Budget constraints?
- Timeline concerns?
- ROI confidence?
- Resource availability?
- Other priorities?
- Something else?

Understanding this helps us serve you better on future opportunities."

[Learn, maintain relationship, plant seeds for future]

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

The Meta-Principle: Presentations Are Theater, Not Reports

The difference between consultants who close vs. consultants who don’t:

❌ Report-oriented consultant:

Comprehensive slide deck (87 slides)
Every detail documented
Reads bullet points
No narrative arc
Passive Q&A
Vague next steps

✅ Theater-oriented consultant:

Focused narrative (16 slides)
Strategic detail (what matters)
Tells a story
Clear arc: Problem → Solution → ROI → Ask
Active Q&A management
Specific, time-bound ask

Your presentation is not a data dump. It’s a strategic performance designed to drive a decision.

The key elements:

Hook fast (problem in their words, their numbers, 30 seconds)
Build case (root causes → solution → ROI)
Address elephant (complexity, risk, honesty)
Make specific ask (approve Phase 1 by [date])
Handle objections (anticipate, prepare, respond with data)
Close in room (get commitment or timeline)

Practice the presentation. Memorize the flow. Anticipate questions. Have backup slides. Know your numbers cold.

This 60 minutes determines if months of analytical work gets funded or filed.

Make it count.

What aspects of executive presentations concern you most? Handling tough questions? Reading the room? Getting to yes? Dealing with indecision? Pricing objections? Managing group dynamics? Closing techniques?