Daily finance and approval users, and senior decision makers who bought the platform but rarely used it.
Sales wanted visually impressive features for executive presentations. Product wanted to address daily workflow pain. The people deciding what to buy were not the people doing the work.
My contribution
Led product strategy, business case, scope, pricing, roadmap and implementation planning.
Created a decision matrix covering user impact, engineering effort, sales value and implementation risk.
Aligned collaborators through shared roadmaps, written tradeoffs and weekly decision meetings; coordinated regional rollout.
02 / Discovery
The buyer wasn’t the daily user.
I conducted 100+ stakeholder interviews across the enterprise work. Daily users needed reminders, status visibility and workflow improvements. Sales needed a compelling view for executive buyers, who rarely used the platform themselves. Prioritizing either audience alone would leave the other need unresolved.
I made user impact, engineering effort, sales value and implementation risk explicit in a decision matrix. We agreed on those criteria before choosing features: core workflow improvements first, then a lightweight executive reporting layer on the same data. I kept the tradeoffs visible through a shared roadmap, weekly decision meetings and written decision notes.
03 / Product judgment
The product decision.
01
Prioritize workflow fixes and narrow executive scope
Prioritize reminders, status visibility and core workflow improvements, then add a lightweight executive reporting layer using the same data. A shared foundation gave Sales a credible commercial story while preserving daily-user value.
Alternative
Prioritize the executive presentation, or defer all buyer-facing needs until daily workflows were complete.
Tradeoff
We limited executive scope to a shared reporting layer and avoided disconnected presentation-only functionality. Sales and Product both supported the phased roadmap; the company secured the three-year contract.
04 / Product experience
The scope we agreed on.
I prioritized workflow fixes, then narrowed executive scope to reporting on shared data.
Retrospective reconstructionSupported decisions · Not an original project document
Roadmap decision / Two audiencesRetrospective
Agreed direction
Core workflows first. Executive scope kept light.
Both audiences needed a useful product. I used four criteria to negotiate a phased scope.
User impactEngineering effortSales valueImplementation risk
Prioritize / Daily users
Reminders & status visibility
Address adoption barriers in the core workflow. Keep daily-user work ahead of presentation-only scope.
Narrow / Executive buyers
Reporting on the same data
Give Sales an executive view using the existing foundation, with a lightweight reporting layer.
Avoid / Disconnected scope
Presentation-only functionality
Keep high-complexity, low-user-value presentation work out of the agreed direction.
My role
Decision criteria, shared roadmap, written tradeoffs and weekly alignment.
Team contribution
Sales represented executive buying needs; engineering, design and delivery collaborators implemented the phased product.
Reconstructed from the supported project decisions. Original matrix, numeric scores and dated roadmap not available.
This retrospective shows the agreed scope and my contribution. It is a reconstruction; the original matrix and dated roadmap are unavailable.
05 / Evaluation
Outcomes and measurement context.
Project-reported outcomes are separated from discovery counts and program scale. Definitions and measurement limits are included below.
$1.5M
three-year enterprise contract
Total reported contract value: initial $500K engagement followed by $1M+ renewal.
Measurement context
Baseline
Not supplied
Population / sample
One enterprise engagement
Period
2023–2025 role period; signing dates unavailable
Method
Commercial account and Sales/Product collaboration story.
Limits
Company outcome. Tolendi led strategy, scope and roadmap alignment, with Sales and delivery collaborators. Contract documentation not supplied.
50% fewer support tickets — measurement context
Reported reduction in support-ticket volume.
Ticket counts, customer exposure and comparison window unavailable; controlled experiment not established.
Method: Project-reported comparison. Population: Not documented. Period: Not documented.
+23 NPS points — measurement context
Reported change in Net Promoter Score, in points rather than percent.
Survey sample, response rate, baseline score and dates unavailable.
Method: Project-reported survey comparison. Population: Not documented. Period: Not documented.
I ran A/B tests during the role, but the individual outcomes here are not tied to documented control groups. The commercial result and reported comparisons do not establish feature-level causal lifts. Weekly retention is omitted until its cohort, return event and observation window can be defined.
06 / What remains
The next evidence that matters.
Roadmap agreement and the contract are meaningful outcomes, but they do not prove which individual feature caused retention or NPS changes. A dated experiment log linked to adoption cohorts would strengthen the measurement story.