feat(hands): complete i18n fixes, SKILL.md enhancements, and README overhaul
- Fix French accent characters (é/è/ê/ç/â/ô) across all 14 HAND.toml files - Fix German special characters (ä/ö/ü/ß) across all 14 HAND.toml files - Add category translations to all 6 i18n language blocks in all 14 hands - Enhance SKILL.md content for 9 hands with practical examples and workflows - Trim bloated SKILL.md files (apitester 1400→892, devops 1301→870) - Rewrite root README.md with accurate stats, complete hand/integration tables - Update hands/README.md with full 14-hand listing and i18n documentation
This commit is contained in:
Evan Hu committed
1 parent
315f955ce2
commit
33d279889c
27 files changed
+10001
-78
No files matched your search
@@ -378,6 +378,241 @@ token_consumption = "medium"
|
||||
default_active = true
|
||||
activation_warning = "Strategist hand runs continuously and performs strategic analysis, consuming tokens."
|
||||
|
||||
# ─── Internationalization (optional) ─────────────────────────────────────────
|
||||
# All i18n sections are optional. Without them, the English values above are used.
|
||||
# To localize, add [i18n.LANG] sections (e.g. zh, ja, ko, es, fr, de).
|
||||
# Settings translations are also optional — omit to keep English labels.
|
||||
|
||||
# ─── Chinese (简体中文) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.zh]
|
||||
name = "策略分析 Hand"
|
||||
description = "自主策略分析师——市场研究、竞争分析、商业规划和战略建议"
|
||||
category = "生产力"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.zh.settings.focus_area]
|
||||
label = "聚焦方向"
|
||||
description = "战略分析的主要方向"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.zh.settings.analysis_depth]
|
||||
label = "分析深度"
|
||||
description = "每次战略分析的详尽程度"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.zh.settings.industry]
|
||||
label = "行业"
|
||||
description = "重点分析的行业（例如 SaaS、金融科技、医疗健康）"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.zh.settings.competitors]
|
||||
label = "主要竞争对手"
|
||||
description = "需要追踪的竞争对手列表（逗号分隔）"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.zh.settings.auto_monitor]
|
||||
label = "自动监控"
|
||||
description = "自动追踪竞争对手动态和市场变化"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.zh.settings.report_format]
|
||||
label = "报告格式"
|
||||
description = "战略报告的格式风格"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.zh.settings.confidence_threshold]
|
||||
label = "置信度阈值"
|
||||
description = "报告中纳入分析结论的最低置信度"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.zh.settings.frameworks]
|
||||
label = "首选分析框架"
|
||||
description = "优先使用的战略分析框架（逗号分隔，例如 SWOT,Porter,PESTEL）"
|
||||
|
||||
# ─── Spanish (Español) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.es]
|
||||
name = "Hand de Estrategia"
|
||||
description = "Analista estratégico autónomo — investigación de mercado, análisis competitivo, planificación empresarial y recomendaciones estratégicas"
|
||||
category = "Productividad"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.es.settings.focus_area]
|
||||
label = "Área de enfoque"
|
||||
description = "Área principal del análisis estratégico"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.es.settings.analysis_depth]
|
||||
label = "Profundidad del análisis"
|
||||
description = "Nivel de detalle de cada análisis estratégico"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.es.settings.industry]
|
||||
label = "Industria"
|
||||
description = "Industria principal en la que enfocar el análisis (ej. SaaS, fintech, salud)"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.es.settings.competitors]
|
||||
label = "Competidores clave"
|
||||
description = "Lista de competidores a rastrear separados por comas"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.es.settings.auto_monitor]
|
||||
label = "Monitoreo automático"
|
||||
description = "Rastrear automáticamente movimientos de competidores y cambios del mercado"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.es.settings.report_format]
|
||||
label = "Formato de informe"
|
||||
description = "Formato de los informes estratégicos"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.es.settings.confidence_threshold]
|
||||
label = "Umbral de confianza"
|
||||
description = "Nivel mínimo de confianza para incluir hallazgos en los informes"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.es.settings.frameworks]
|
||||
label = "Marcos de análisis preferidos"
|
||||
description = "Marcos estratégicos a priorizar (separados por comas, ej. SWOT, Porter, PESTEL)"
|
||||
|
||||
# ─── Japanese (日本語) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.ja]
|
||||
name = "戦略分析 Hand"
|
||||
description = "自律型戦略アナリスト——市場調査、競合分析、事業計画、戦略的提言"
|
||||
category = "生産性"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.ja.settings.focus_area]
|
||||
label = "フォーカスエリア"
|
||||
description = "戦略分析の主な対象分野"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.ja.settings.analysis_depth]
|
||||
label = "分析の深さ"
|
||||
description = "各戦略分析の詳細度"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.ja.settings.industry]
|
||||
label = "業界"
|
||||
description = "分析の対象となる主要業界（例: SaaS、フィンテック、ヘルスケア）"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.ja.settings.competitors]
|
||||
label = "主要な競合"
|
||||
description = "追跡する競合のリスト（カンマ区切り）"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.ja.settings.auto_monitor]
|
||||
label = "自動監視"
|
||||
description = "競合の動向と市場の変化を自動的に追跡する"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.ja.settings.report_format]
|
||||
label = "レポート形式"
|
||||
description = "戦略レポートのフォーマット"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.ja.settings.confidence_threshold]
|
||||
label = "信頼度しきい値"
|
||||
description = "レポートに分析結果を含めるための最低信頼度"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.ja.settings.frameworks]
|
||||
label = "優先フレームワーク"
|
||||
description = "優先的に使用する戦略分析フレームワーク（カンマ区切り、例: SWOT,Porter,PESTEL）"
|
||||
|
||||
# ─── French (Français) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.fr]
|
||||
name = "Hand Stratégique"
|
||||
description = "Analyste stratégique autonome — étude de marché, analyse concurrentielle, planification d'entreprise et recommandations stratégiques"
|
||||
category = "Productivité"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.fr.settings.focus_area]
|
||||
label = "Domaine d'intérêt"
|
||||
description = "Domaine principal de l'analyse stratégique"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.fr.settings.analysis_depth]
|
||||
label = "Profondeur d'analyse"
|
||||
description = "Niveau de détail de chaque analyse stratégique"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.fr.settings.industry]
|
||||
label = "Secteur"
|
||||
description = "Secteur principal d'analyse (ex. SaaS, fintech, santé)"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.fr.settings.competitors]
|
||||
label = "Concurrents clés"
|
||||
description = "Liste de concurrents à suivre séparée par des virgules"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.fr.settings.auto_monitor]
|
||||
label = "Surveillance automatique"
|
||||
description = "Suivre automatiquement les mouvements des concurrents et les évolutions du marché"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.fr.settings.report_format]
|
||||
label = "Format de rapport"
|
||||
description = "Format des rapports stratégiques"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.fr.settings.confidence_threshold]
|
||||
label = "Seuil de confiance"
|
||||
description = "Niveau de confiance minimum pour inclure les résultats dans les rapports"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.fr.settings.frameworks]
|
||||
label = "Cadres d'analyse préférés"
|
||||
description = "Cadres d'analyse stratégique à privilégier (séparés par des virgules, ex. SWOT, Porter, PESTEL)"
|
||||
|
||||
# ─── German (Deutsch) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.de]
|
||||
name = "Strategie-Hand"
|
||||
description = "Autonomer Strategieanalyst — Marktforschung, Wettbewerbsanalyse, Geschäftsplanung und strategische Empfehlungen"
|
||||
category = "Produktivität"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.de.settings.focus_area]
|
||||
label = "Fokusbereich"
|
||||
description = "Hauptbereich der strategischen Analyse"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.de.settings.analysis_depth]
|
||||
label = "Analysetiefe"
|
||||
description = "Detailgrad jeder strategischen Analyse"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.de.settings.industry]
|
||||
label = "Branche"
|
||||
description = "Hauptbranche für die Analyse (z.B. SaaS, Fintech, Gesundheitswesen)"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.de.settings.competitors]
|
||||
label = "Wichtige Wettbewerber"
|
||||
description = "Kommagetrennte Liste der zu verfolgenden Wettbewerber"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.de.settings.auto_monitor]
|
||||
label = "Automatische Überwachung"
|
||||
description = "Wettbewerberbewegungen und Marktveränderungen automatisch verfolgen"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.de.settings.report_format]
|
||||
label = "Berichtsformat"
|
||||
description = "Format der Strategieberichte"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.de.settings.confidence_threshold]
|
||||
label = "Konfidenzschwelle"
|
||||
description = "Mindest-Konfidenzniveau für die Aufnahme von Ergebnissen in Berichte"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.de.settings.frameworks]
|
||||
label = "Bevorzugte Analyse-Frameworks"
|
||||
description = "Bevorzugte strategische Analyse-Frameworks (kommagetrennt, z.B. SWOT, Porter, PESTEL)"
|
||||
|
||||
# ─── Korean (한국어) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.ko]
|
||||
name = "전략 분석 Hand"
|
||||
description = "자율 전략 분석가 — 시장 조사, 경쟁 분석, 사업 계획 및 전략적 권고"
|
||||
category = "생산성"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.ko.settings.focus_area]
|
||||
label = "집중 분야"
|
||||
description = "전략 분석의 주요 방향"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.ko.settings.analysis_depth]
|
||||
label = "분석 깊이"
|
||||
description = "각 전략 분석의 철저함 정도"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.ko.settings.industry]
|
||||
label = "산업"
|
||||
description = "분석의 중점 산업 (예: SaaS, 핀테크, 헬스케어)"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.ko.settings.competitors]
|
||||
label = "주요 경쟁사"
|
||||
description = "추적할 경쟁사 목록 (쉼표로 구분)"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.ko.settings.auto_monitor]
|
||||
label = "자동 모니터링"
|
||||
description = "경쟁사 동향 및 시장 변화를 자동으로 추적"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.ko.settings.report_format]
|
||||
label = "보고서 형식"
|
||||
description = "전략 보고서의 형식 스타일"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.ko.settings.confidence_threshold]
|
||||
label = "신뢰도 임계값"
|
||||
description = "보고서에 분석 결과를 포함하기 위한 최소 신뢰도"
|
||||
|
||||
[i18n.ko.settings.frameworks]
|
||||
label = "선호 분석 프레임워크"
|
||||
description = "우선적으로 사용할 전략 분석 프레임워크 (쉼표로 구분, 예: SWOT,Porter,PESTEL)"
|
||||
@@ -236,3 +236,725 @@ Employee Count: [Growth indicator]
|
||||
## Implementation
|
||||
[How to execute the recommendation]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Worked Examples
|
||||
|
||||
### Example 1: B2B SaaS Market Entry into Japan
|
||||
|
||||
**Context**: A US-based B2B SaaS company (project management tool, $15M ARR, 200 employees) evaluating entry into the Japanese market.
|
||||
|
||||
**PESTEL Analysis — Japan B2B SaaS (2025):**
|
||||
|
||||
| Factor | Assessment | Impact | Score (1-5) |
|
||||
|--------|-----------|--------|-------------|
|
||||
| **Political** | Stable democracy; strong US-Japan trade relations; Digital Agency pushing government digitization | Positive | 4 |
|
||||
| **Economic** | GDP $4.2T; weak yen (150 JPY/USD) makes USD-priced SaaS expensive; enterprise IT spend growing 4% YoY | Mixed | 3 |
|
||||
| **Social** | Aging workforce accelerates automation need; consensus-driven decision making lengthens sales cycles (avg 6-9 months); strong preference for local-language support | Critical constraint | 2 |
|
||||
| **Technological** | High internet penetration (93%); cloud adoption lagging US by 3-5 years but accelerating; 5G rollout complete in urban areas | Opportunity | 4 |
|
||||
| **Environmental** | ESG reporting mandated for listed companies from 2023; sustainability-linked procurement gaining traction | Moderate opportunity | 3 |
|
||||
| **Legal** | APPI (Act on Protection of Personal Information) requires data residency consideration; strict labor laws affect HR SaaS | Compliance cost | 2 |
|
||||
|
||||
**PESTEL Score**: 18/30 — Moderately favorable. Key risk: social/cultural factors demand significant localization investment.
|
||||
|
||||
**Porter's Five Forces — Japan Project Management SaaS:**
|
||||
|
||||
| Force | Rating | Evidence |
|
||||
|-------|--------|---------|
|
||||
| New Entrants | 2/5 | High localization cost ($500K-$1M); relationship-driven market favors incumbents |
|
||||
| Supplier Power | 1/5 | Cloud infrastructure (AWS Tokyo, Azure Japan) is commodity; no supplier concentration |
|
||||
| Buyer Power | 4/5 | Enterprise buyers demand customization; long procurement cycles give buyers leverage; RFP-driven purchasing |
|
||||
| Substitutes | 3/5 | Excel/spreadsheet culture deeply entrenched; domestic tools (Backlog, Jooto) have cultural fit advantage |
|
||||
| Rivalry | 4/5 | Asana, Monday.com, Notion already present; domestic players Backlog (Nulab) and Redmine have loyal bases |
|
||||
|
||||
**Go-to-Market Recommendation:**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Strategy: Partner-Led Entry (not direct sales)
|
||||
Timeline: 18 months to first enterprise deal
|
||||
|
||||
Phase 1 (Months 1-6): Foundation
|
||||
- Hire Country Manager (must be bilingual Japanese national)
|
||||
- Full UI/UX localization (not just translation — date formats, name order, honorifics)
|
||||
- Achieve ISMAP certification (required for government/enterprise procurement)
|
||||
- Data residency: Deploy on AWS Tokyo region
|
||||
- Budget: $800K
|
||||
|
||||
Phase 2 (Months 4-12): Channel Development
|
||||
- Sign 2-3 SIer (System Integrator) partners: target NTT Data, Fujitsu, NEC
|
||||
- Japanese SIers control 60% of enterprise software purchasing decisions
|
||||
- Co-develop integration with domestic tools (kintone, Sansan, freee)
|
||||
- Budget: $600K (partner enablement + integration development)
|
||||
|
||||
Phase 3 (Months 8-18): Market Penetration
|
||||
- Target mid-market first (500-2000 employees) — faster decision cycles than enterprise
|
||||
- Launch at Japan IT Week (Spring/Autumn) and SaaS Industry Conference
|
||||
- Content marketing: Japanese-language case studies, webinars with local customers
|
||||
- Target: 20 paying customers, $500K ARR by month 18
|
||||
- Budget: $400K
|
||||
|
||||
Total Investment: $1.8M over 18 months
|
||||
Break-even: Month 30 (projected)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Decision**: Proceed with caution. The $4.2T economy and cloud adoption tailwind justify the investment, but only with proper localization and channel strategy. Direct sales without SIer partnerships has a historically high failure rate (>70% for foreign SaaS in Japan).
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Example 2: Competitive Response — Major Player Enters Your Niche
|
||||
|
||||
**Context**: You run a $5M ARR vertical SaaS for veterinary clinics (500 customers, 15% market share). Salesforce just announced "Salesforce for Veterinary" — a vertical solution built on their platform.
|
||||
|
||||
**Threat Assessment:**
|
||||
|
||||
| Dimension | Your Position | Salesforce | Gap |
|
||||
|-----------|--------------|------------|-----|
|
||||
| Brand recognition | Niche leader | Global enterprise brand | Large — but irrelevant in vet niche |
|
||||
| Product depth | Purpose-built (8 years domain expertise) | Horizontal platform with vertical skin | Strong advantage |
|
||||
| Price point | $200/mo per clinic | $500/mo estimated (Salesforce pricing) | 2.5x cheaper |
|
||||
| Implementation time | 2 weeks | 3-6 months (typical SF implementation) | Strong advantage |
|
||||
| Integration depth | Deep PMS/PIMS integration | API-based, requires middleware | Strong advantage |
|
||||
| Sales motion | Direct + word-of-mouth | Enterprise sales team + SI partners | Different segments |
|
||||
| Switching cost for your customers | Moderate (data migration + retraining) | High (Salesforce ecosystem lock-in) | Neutral |
|
||||
|
||||
**Strategic Response Framework:**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
IMMEDIATE (Week 1-4): Defend the Base
|
||||
1. Customer communication campaign
|
||||
- CEO letter to all 500 customers: "Our commitment to veterinary"
|
||||
- Emphasize: purpose-built > horizontal platform
|
||||
- Announce product roadmap acceleration
|
||||
|
||||
2. Lock in at-risk accounts
|
||||
- Identify top 50 accounts by revenue
|
||||
- Offer annual contract discounts (15-20% for 2-year commitment)
|
||||
- Schedule QBRs with all enterprise accounts within 30 days
|
||||
|
||||
3. Competitive battle card
|
||||
- Create internal sales doc: feature-by-feature comparison
|
||||
- "Why vets choose us over Salesforce" — 5 key differentiators
|
||||
- Objection handling for "shouldn't we go with the safe choice?"
|
||||
|
||||
SHORT-TERM (Month 2-6): Deepen the Moat
|
||||
4. Accelerate domain-specific features
|
||||
- AI-powered treatment plan suggestions (Salesforce can't match this)
|
||||
- Telemedicine integration (vertical-specific)
|
||||
- Inventory management tied to treatment protocols
|
||||
|
||||
5. Build switching costs
|
||||
- Launch data analytics dashboard (clinics depend on historical trends)
|
||||
- Introduce multi-location management (target growing chains)
|
||||
- API marketplace for vet-specific integrations (lab equipment, imaging)
|
||||
|
||||
6. Community defense
|
||||
- Launch "Vet Tech Community" — user forum + knowledge base
|
||||
- Annual user conference (even virtual — creates tribal loyalty)
|
||||
- Customer advisory board (top 10 clinics = co-development partners)
|
||||
|
||||
MEDIUM-TERM (Month 6-18): Counterattack
|
||||
7. Move upmarket selectively
|
||||
- Enterprise tier for 10+ location chains ($500/mo — match SF pricing)
|
||||
- Offer white-glove migration from legacy systems
|
||||
- This is the segment Salesforce will target — contest it
|
||||
|
||||
8. Geographic expansion
|
||||
- Salesforce announcement creates awareness of the category
|
||||
- Ride the wave: "Already purpose-built, already proven"
|
||||
- Target UK, Australia, Canada (English-speaking, similar vet market structure)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Pricing Response Decision Matrix:**
|
||||
|
||||
| Option | Revenue Impact | Competitive Effect | Risk |
|
||||
|--------|---------------|-------------------|------|
|
||||
| No change | Neutral | Salesforce still 2.5x more expensive | Low — price isn't the battleground |
|
||||
| Cut prices 20% | -$1M ARR | Signals weakness; Salesforce won't match | High |
|
||||
| Add premium tier | +$500K potential | Compete at enterprise level; justify R&D | Medium |
|
||||
| Usage-based addon | +$300K potential | Expand ARPU without base price war | Low |
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommendation**: Add premium tier + usage-based addons. Do NOT cut base prices. Salesforce's entry validates your market — use it to raise your valuation narrative ("Salesforce sees a $2B market opportunity in vet SaaS — we already own 15%").
|
||||
|
||||
**Confidence**: Medium-High (75%) — Historical pattern: when Salesforce enters verticals, purpose-built incumbents retain 80%+ of existing customers. Risk is in new customer acquisition where brand matters more.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Example 3: Platform Sunset Decision — Migrate or Maintain Legacy Product
|
||||
|
||||
**Context**: A mid-stage startup ($20M ARR) runs two products: a legacy desktop app (60% of revenue, declining 10% YoY) and a modern cloud product (40% of revenue, growing 50% YoY). Should they sunset the desktop app?
|
||||
|
||||
**Decision Matrix:**
|
||||
|
||||
| Criterion (Weight) | Option A: Maintain Both | Option B: Sunset in 12mo | Option C: Sunset in 24mo |
|
||||
|--------------------|------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|
|
||||
| Revenue protection (30%) | 5 — No disruption | 2 — Lose 40% of legacy revenue | 4 — Gradual migration |
|
||||
| Engineering efficiency (25%) | 1 — Two codebases drain resources | 5 — Full focus on cloud | 3 — Phased transition |
|
||||
| Customer satisfaction (20%) | 3 — Legacy stagnates | 2 — Forced migration angers users | 4 — Supported migration path |
|
||||
| Market positioning (15%) | 2 — Confused narrative | 5 — Clear cloud-first story | 4 — Transitional narrative |
|
||||
| Financial risk (10%) | 3 — Slow bleed sustainable | 2 — Revenue cliff risk | 4 — Manageable decline |
|
||||
| **Weighted Score** | **2.95** | **3.35** | **3.75** |
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommendation**: Option C — 24-month sunset with structured migration program.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Migration Program:
|
||||
Months 1-6: Feature parity audit; build top 20 missing cloud features
|
||||
Months 7-12: Migration incentive (20% discount for annual cloud commitment)
|
||||
Months 13-18: Desktop enters maintenance-only mode; no new features
|
||||
Months 19-24: End-of-life announcement; dedicated migration support team
|
||||
Month 24: Desktop product sunsets; legacy support for 6 more months
|
||||
|
||||
Financial Model:
|
||||
Current state: $12M desktop + $8M cloud = $20M ARR
|
||||
Month 12 (projected): $9M desktop + $14M cloud = $23M ARR
|
||||
Month 24 (projected): $2M desktop + $22M cloud = $24M ARR
|
||||
Month 30 (projected): $0 desktop + $26M cloud = $26M ARR
|
||||
|
||||
Net ARR risk: ~$3M from non-migrating desktop customers
|
||||
Offset: Engineering savings of $1.5M/yr + faster cloud feature velocity
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Financial Analysis Frameworks
|
||||
|
||||
### Unit Economics
|
||||
|
||||
Core metrics every strategy should quantify:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
CAC (Customer Acquisition Cost)
|
||||
= Total Sales & Marketing Spend / New Customers Acquired
|
||||
Example: $500K spend / 100 new customers = $5,000 CAC
|
||||
|
||||
LTV (Lifetime Value)
|
||||
= ARPU x Gross Margin % x (1 / Churn Rate)
|
||||
Example: $500/mo x 80% x (1 / 0.03) = $13,333 LTV
|
||||
|
||||
LTV:CAC Ratio
|
||||
Target: > 3:1 for healthy SaaS
|
||||
Example: $13,333 / $5,000 = 2.67:1 (below target — reduce CAC or increase retention)
|
||||
|
||||
CAC Payback Period
|
||||
= CAC / (ARPU x Gross Margin %)
|
||||
Example: $5,000 / ($500 x 0.80) = 12.5 months
|
||||
Target: < 18 months for SaaS
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Unit Economics Health Check:**
|
||||
|
||||
| Metric | Danger Zone | Acceptable | Excellent |
|
||||
|--------|------------|------------|-----------|
|
||||
| LTV:CAC | < 1:1 | 3:1 | > 5:1 |
|
||||
| CAC Payback | > 24 months | 12-18 months | < 12 months |
|
||||
| Gross Margin | < 60% | 70-80% | > 80% |
|
||||
| Net Revenue Retention | < 90% | 100-110% | > 120% |
|
||||
| Logo Churn (monthly) | > 5% | 2-3% | < 1% |
|
||||
|
||||
### Revenue Modeling
|
||||
|
||||
**SaaS Revenue Waterfall:**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Beginning ARR: $10,000,000
|
||||
+ New Business: +$3,000,000 (new logos)
|
||||
+ Expansion: +$1,500,000 (upsell/cross-sell)
|
||||
- Contraction: -$500,000 (downgrades)
|
||||
- Churn: -$1,200,000 (lost customers)
|
||||
= Ending ARR: $12,800,000
|
||||
|
||||
Net New ARR: $2,800,000
|
||||
Net Revenue Retention: 113% = ($10M + $1.5M - $0.5M - $1.2M) / $10M
|
||||
Gross Revenue Retention: 88% = ($10M - $0.5M - $1.2M) / $10M
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**MRR Growth Decomposition:**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
MRR Growth Rate = New MRR + Expansion MRR - Churned MRR - Contraction MRR
|
||||
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
|
||||
Beginning MRR
|
||||
|
||||
Quick Ratio = (New MRR + Expansion MRR) / (Churned MRR + Contraction MRR)
|
||||
Target: > 4 for high-growth SaaS
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Break-Even Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Break-Even Revenue = Fixed Costs / Gross Margin %
|
||||
|
||||
Example:
|
||||
Fixed Costs (monthly): $200K (salaries, rent, tools)
|
||||
Gross Margin: 80%
|
||||
Break-Even Revenue = $200K / 0.80 = $250K/month = $3M ARR
|
||||
|
||||
Break-Even Customers = Break-Even Revenue / ARPU
|
||||
= $250K / $500 = 500 customers
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Scenario Table:**
|
||||
|
||||
| Scenario | Fixed Costs | Gross Margin | Break-Even ARR | Break-Even Customers |
|
||||
|----------|------------|--------------|-----------------|---------------------|
|
||||
| Lean | $150K/mo | 85% | $2.1M | 353 |
|
||||
| Base | $200K/mo | 80% | $3.0M | 500 |
|
||||
| Growth | $350K/mo | 75% | $5.6M | 933 |
|
||||
|
||||
### Project Evaluation — Simplified DCF
|
||||
|
||||
Use for evaluating strategic investments (new market entry, build vs buy, major feature investment):
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
NPV = Σ [Cash Flow_t / (1 + r)^t] - Initial Investment
|
||||
|
||||
Where:
|
||||
r = discount rate (typically 10-15% for startups, 8-10% for established companies)
|
||||
t = year (0, 1, 2, ... n)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Worked Example — Should we build a mobile app?**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Initial Investment: $500K (development cost)
|
||||
Discount Rate: 12%
|
||||
|
||||
Year | Incremental Revenue | Incremental Cost | Net Cash Flow | PV Factor | Present Value
|
||||
------|--------------------|--------------------|---------------|-----------|-------------
|
||||
0 | $0 | $500,000 | -$500,000 | 1.000 | -$500,000
|
||||
1 | $200,000 | $80,000 | $120,000 | 0.893 | $107,143
|
||||
2 | $400,000 | $100,000 | $300,000 | 0.797 | $239,158
|
||||
3 | $600,000 | $120,000 | $480,000 | 0.712 | $341,655
|
||||
4 | $700,000 | $130,000 | $570,000 | 0.636 | $362,204
|
||||
|
||||
NPV = $550,160 → Positive NPV → Project is financially justified
|
||||
Payback Period: ~2.3 years (cumulative cash flow turns positive in Year 3)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Decision Rule:**
|
||||
- NPV > 0 → Proceed (project creates value)
|
||||
- NPV < 0 → Reject (project destroys value)
|
||||
- Compare NPV across mutually exclusive options; pick highest
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Go-to-Market Strategy Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
### Growth Motion Selection
|
||||
|
||||
| Growth Motion | Best For | Sales Cycle | CAC | Key Metric |
|
||||
|--------------|---------|-------------|-----|------------|
|
||||
| **Product-Led Growth (PLG)** | Self-serve products; low price point (<$500/mo); individual users | Minutes to days | Low ($50-$500) | Activation rate, PQL conversion |
|
||||
| **Sales-Led Growth** | Enterprise products; complex deployment; >$50K ACV | Weeks to months | High ($5K-$50K) | Pipeline velocity, win rate |
|
||||
| **Community-Led Growth** | Developer tools; open-source; platform products | Varies | Very low ($10-$100) | Community size, contribution rate |
|
||||
| **Partner-Led Growth** | Market entry; regulated industries; ecosystem products | Varies | Medium ($1K-$10K) | Partner-sourced revenue % |
|
||||
|
||||
**PLG Funnel:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
Visitor → Sign-up → Activated User → PQL → Paid Customer → Expanded Account
|
||||
100% 10% 40% 25% 15% 30%
|
||||
|
||||
Key levers:
|
||||
- Sign-up friction: Reduce form fields, add SSO
|
||||
- Time-to-value: Get user to "aha moment" in < 5 minutes
|
||||
- PQL definition: User hits usage threshold that correlates with purchase
|
||||
- Expansion trigger: Team features, usage limits, premium capabilities
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Sales-Led Funnel:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
Lead → MQL → SQL → Opportunity → Proposal → Closed Won
|
||||
100% 20% 50% 60% 70% 30%
|
||||
|
||||
Key levers:
|
||||
- Lead quality: ICP fit scoring
|
||||
- MQL→SQL handoff: Alignment between marketing and sales
|
||||
- Discovery: Deep pain identification
|
||||
- Champion building: Enable internal advocate
|
||||
- Procurement: Legal/security review preparation
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Pricing Strategy Frameworks
|
||||
|
||||
**Value-Based Pricing (recommended for most SaaS):**
|
||||
```
|
||||
1. Quantify customer value created
|
||||
Example: Your tool saves 10 hours/week per user
|
||||
Value = 10 hrs x $75/hr x 52 weeks = $39,000/year
|
||||
|
||||
2. Capture 10-20% of value created
|
||||
Price = $39,000 x 15% = $5,850/year = $487/month
|
||||
|
||||
3. Validate with willingness-to-pay research
|
||||
Van Westendorp Price Sensitivity Meter:
|
||||
- "At what price is this too expensive?" → $600/mo
|
||||
- "At what price is this a bargain?" → $200/mo
|
||||
- "At what price does it seem expensive but you'd still consider?" → $450/mo
|
||||
- "At what price does it seem too cheap to trust?" → $100/mo
|
||||
→ Optimal price range: $200-$450/mo
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Pricing Tier Architecture:**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Tier Structure (Good-Better-Best):
|
||||
|
||||
| | Starter | Professional | Enterprise |
|
||||
|---|---------|-------------|------------|
|
||||
| Target | Individual/SMB | Mid-market team | Large organization |
|
||||
| Price | $29/mo | $99/mo/user | Custom (>$500/mo) |
|
||||
| Anchor role | Drive adoption | Revenue driver (~60% of revenue) | Margin driver |
|
||||
| Features | Core functionality | Full platform | Custom + SLA + support |
|
||||
| Support | Self-serve/email | Priority email + chat | Dedicated CSM + phone |
|
||||
| Billing | Monthly/Annual | Annual preferred | Annual contract |
|
||||
|
||||
Design principles:
|
||||
- Middle tier should be the obvious best value
|
||||
- Top tier exists to make middle tier look reasonable (anchoring effect)
|
||||
- Feature gates should align with natural usage growth
|
||||
- Price metric should scale with value received (per user, per GB, per transaction)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Competitive Pricing Analysis:**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Competitor Price Map:
|
||||
|
||||
Competitor | Entry Price | Mid-Tier | Enterprise | Price Metric
|
||||
-------------|-------------|----------|------------|-------------
|
||||
Competitor A | $49/mo | $149/mo | Custom | Per user
|
||||
Competitor B | $0 (free) | $99/mo | $299/mo | Flat rate
|
||||
Competitor C | $29/mo | $79/mo | Custom | Per user
|
||||
Your Product | ??? | ??? | ??? | ???
|
||||
|
||||
Positioning options:
|
||||
- Price leader: 20-30% below average → requires cost advantage
|
||||
- Value leader: At or above average → requires clear differentiation
|
||||
- Premium: 30%+ above average → requires brand and feature superiority
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Channel Strategy
|
||||
|
||||
| Channel | Margin | Control | Scale | Best For |
|
||||
|---------|--------|---------|-------|----------|
|
||||
| Direct sales | High (85-95%) | Full | Slow | Enterprise, complex products |
|
||||
| Inside sales | High (80-90%) | Full | Medium | Mid-market, $5K-$50K ACV |
|
||||
| Self-serve | Highest (95%+) | Full | Fast | PLG, low ACV |
|
||||
| Reseller/VAR | Low (60-70%) | Medium | Medium | Regional coverage, compliance |
|
||||
| Marketplace (AWS/Azure) | Low (70-85%) | Low | Fast | Enterprise procurement shortcuts |
|
||||
| System Integrator | Low (50-70%) | Low | Medium | Complex implementations |
|
||||
| Affiliate/Referral | High (80-90%) | Low | Fast | Consumer, SMB |
|
||||
|
||||
### Launch Playbook Template
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
LAUNCH PLAYBOOK: [Product/Feature Name]
|
||||
Launch Date: YYYY-MM-DD
|
||||
Launch Type: [Major / Minor / Feature / Beta]
|
||||
|
||||
PRE-LAUNCH (T-8 weeks to T-0)
|
||||
Week -8: Finalize positioning and messaging
|
||||
Week -6: Create sales enablement materials (battle cards, one-pagers, demo script)
|
||||
Week -4: Brief analyst relations (Gartner, Forrester) if applicable
|
||||
Week -3: Seed beta customers (5-10 design partners); collect testimonials
|
||||
Week -2: Pre-brief press/media under embargo
|
||||
Week -1: Internal all-hands; sales team training; support team training
|
||||
|
||||
LAUNCH DAY (T-0)
|
||||
- Blog post (SEO-optimized)
|
||||
- Email to customer base
|
||||
- Social media campaign (LinkedIn, Twitter/X)
|
||||
- Press release (if major launch)
|
||||
- Product Hunt submission (if applicable)
|
||||
- In-app announcement for existing users
|
||||
- Founder/CEO LinkedIn post (highest engagement channel)
|
||||
|
||||
POST-LAUNCH (T+1 to T+8 weeks)
|
||||
Week +1: Monitor activation metrics; respond to all feedback
|
||||
Week +2: Publish customer case study
|
||||
Week +4: Webinar / live demo for pipeline
|
||||
Week +6: Analyze launch metrics vs targets
|
||||
Week +8: Retrospective and iteration plan
|
||||
|
||||
METRICS TO TRACK:
|
||||
- Awareness: Blog views, social impressions, press mentions
|
||||
- Activation: Sign-ups, trial starts, feature adoption rate
|
||||
- Revenue: Pipeline generated, deals influenced, new ARR
|
||||
- Sentiment: NPS from beta users, social sentiment, support ticket volume
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Scenario Planning
|
||||
|
||||
### Best / Base / Worst Case Framework
|
||||
|
||||
Structure every major strategic decision with three scenarios:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
SCENARIO PLANNING: [Decision or Initiative]
|
||||
|
||||
| Worst Case | Base Case | Best Case
|
||||
--------------------|-----------------|-----------------|------------------
|
||||
Revenue impact | [quantify] | [quantify] | [quantify]
|
||||
Timeline | [duration] | [duration] | [duration]
|
||||
Key assumption | [what goes wrong]| [most likely] | [what goes right]
|
||||
Probability | [15-25%] | [50-60%] | [15-25%]
|
||||
Trigger indicators | [early signals] | [tracking metrics]| [early signals]
|
||||
Response plan | [pivot/exit] | [continue/adjust]| [accelerate/expand]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Worked Example — Launching a New Product Line:**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
SCENARIO PLANNING: Launch enterprise analytics add-on ($200/mo)
|
||||
|
||||
| Worst Case (20%) | Base Case (55%) | Best Case (25%)
|
||||
--------------------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------
|
||||
Adoption rate | 5% of customers | 15% of customers | 30% of customers
|
||||
Year 1 revenue | $120K | $360K | $720K
|
||||
Development cost | $400K | $400K | $400K
|
||||
Year 1 ROI | -70% | -10% | +80%
|
||||
Break-even | Never (kill it) | Month 18 | Month 8
|
||||
Key assumption | Customers don't | Moderate demand; | Strong demand;
|
||||
| see value; churn | gradual adoption | pulls forward
|
||||
| increases 2% | | enterprise deals
|
||||
|
||||
Trigger Indicators:
|
||||
Worst: < 3% adoption after 3 months; NPS < 20 for add-on
|
||||
Base: 8-12% adoption after 3 months; positive but slow pipeline
|
||||
Best: > 20% adoption after 3 months; inbound enterprise interest
|
||||
|
||||
Response Plans:
|
||||
Worst: Pivot to bundling analytics into existing plan (retention play)
|
||||
Base: Continue; invest in onboarding and customer education
|
||||
Best: Hire dedicated analytics PM; accelerate roadmap; raise prices 20%
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Expected Value Calculation:**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Expected Revenue = (Worst Revenue x Worst Prob) + (Base Revenue x Base Prob) + (Best Revenue x Best Prob)
|
||||
= ($120K x 0.20) + ($360K x 0.55) + ($720K x 0.25)
|
||||
= $24K + $198K + $180K
|
||||
= $402K
|
||||
|
||||
Expected ROI = ($402K - $400K) / $400K = 0.5%
|
||||
→ Marginal on expected value alone — proceed only if strategic upside justifies the bet
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Sensitivity Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
Identify which variables have the highest impact on outcomes:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: New Market Entry
|
||||
|
||||
Base Case NPV: $550K
|
||||
|
||||
Variable | -20% Change | Base | +20% Change | Sensitivity
|
||||
--------------------|---------------|----------|----------------|------------
|
||||
Customer price | $280K (-49%) | $550K | $820K (+49%) | HIGH
|
||||
Customer volume | $310K (-44%) | $550K | $790K (+44%) | HIGH
|
||||
Churn rate | $720K (+31%) | $550K | $380K (-31%) | HIGH
|
||||
Development cost | $650K (+18%) | $550K | $450K (-18%) | MEDIUM
|
||||
CAC | $610K (+11%) | $550K | $490K (-11%) | MEDIUM
|
||||
Discount rate | $590K (+7%) | $550K | $510K (-7%) | LOW
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Interpretation**: Price and volume are the highest-leverage variables. Strategy should prioritize pricing power and demand generation over cost optimization.
|
||||
|
||||
**Tornado Chart Format (text representation):**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Variable Impact on NPV (base = $550K):
|
||||
|
||||
Customer price |████████████████████| -49% to +49%
|
||||
Customer volume |███████████████████ | -44% to +44%
|
||||
Churn rate |██████████████ | -31% to +31%
|
||||
Development cost |█████████ | -18% to +18%
|
||||
CAC |██████ | -11% to +11%
|
||||
Discount rate |████ | -7% to +7%
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Risk-Adjusted Decision Making
|
||||
|
||||
**Risk Register Template:**
|
||||
|
||||
| Risk | Probability (1-5) | Impact (1-5) | Risk Score | Mitigation | Residual Risk |
|
||||
|------|-------------------|-------------|------------|------------|---------------|
|
||||
| Key hire doesn't work out | 3 | 4 | 12 | Pipeline of 2 backup candidates | 6 |
|
||||
| Competitor launches first | 4 | 3 | 12 | Focus on differentiation not speed | 8 |
|
||||
| Technical architecture fails to scale | 2 | 5 | 10 | Prototype load test at 10x before commit | 4 |
|
||||
| Regulatory change blocks approach | 1 | 5 | 5 | Legal review + pivot plan documented | 3 |
|
||||
| Customer demand lower than projected | 3 | 4 | 12 | Pre-sell to 10 design partners before building | 6 |
|
||||
|
||||
**Risk-Adjusted NPV:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
Risk-Adjusted NPV = Base NPV x (1 - Risk Discount)
|
||||
|
||||
Where Risk Discount = Σ (Probability x Impact x Weight) for all material risks
|
||||
|
||||
Example:
|
||||
Base NPV: $550K
|
||||
Combined risk score: 0.15 (derived from risk register)
|
||||
Risk-Adjusted NPV: $550K x (1 - 0.15) = $467.5K
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Industry Analysis Templates
|
||||
|
||||
### Market Landscape Map
|
||||
|
||||
Plot all players in a market on two strategic dimensions:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
MARKET LANDSCAPE: [Industry/Category]
|
||||
|
||||
Enterprise-Grade
|
||||
|
|
||||
Quadrant 2| Quadrant 1
|
||||
Niche | Market Leaders
|
||||
Enterprise|
|
||||
Narrow ──────────────┼────────────── Broad
|
||||
Solution | Platform
|
||||
Quadrant 3| Quadrant 4
|
||||
Point | Mass-Market
|
||||
Solutions | Platforms
|
||||
|
|
||||
SMB-Focused
|
||||
|
||||
Example — Project Management SaaS (2025):
|
||||
|
||||
Quadrant 1 (Leaders): Asana, Monday.com, Smartsheet
|
||||
Quadrant 2 (Niche): Targetprocess (SAFe), Planview (PPM), Kantata (services)
|
||||
Quadrant 3 (Point): Todoist, Basecamp, Trello
|
||||
Quadrant 4 (Platforms): Notion, ClickUp, Microsoft Planner
|
||||
|
||||
Your Position: [X]
|
||||
Desired Position: [→ direction of strategic movement]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Building a Landscape Map:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Select two dimensions that represent the most important strategic trade-offs in the market
|
||||
2. Commonly used axes:
|
||||
- Price / Complexity
|
||||
- Breadth of platform / Depth of solution
|
||||
- Enterprise / SMB focus
|
||||
- Horizontal / Vertical specialization
|
||||
- Self-serve / High-touch
|
||||
3. Plot all known competitors (minimum 8-10 for useful map)
|
||||
4. Identify white space — under-served quadrant combinations
|
||||
5. Draw your strategic vector — where are you moving and why?
|
||||
|
||||
### Technology Adoption Lifecycle Positioning
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
THE ADOPTION CURVE:
|
||||
|
||||
Innovators Early Early Late Laggards
|
||||
(2.5%) Adopters Majority Majority (16%)
|
||||
(13.5%) (34%) (34%)
|
||||
___
|
||||
/ \
|
||||
/ \____
|
||||
/ \________
|
||||
/ \_________
|
||||
/ \___
|
||||
|
||||
↑ ↑
|
||||
THE CHASM MAINSTREAM
|
||||
(biggest (revenue
|
||||
risk point) acceleration)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Positioning by Stage:**
|
||||
|
||||
| Stage | Customer Profile | Sales Approach | Pricing Strategy | Key Risk |
|
||||
|-------|-----------------|----------------|------------------|----------|
|
||||
| Innovators | Tech enthusiasts; will tolerate bugs | Community; direct outreach | Free/very low; usage-based | Building for wrong use case |
|
||||
| Early Adopters | Visionaries; want competitive advantage | Consultative selling; pilots | Value-based; ROI-justified | Chasm — can't cross to mainstream |
|
||||
| Early Majority | Pragmatists; want proven solutions | References; case studies; demos | Competitive; published pricing | Scaling sales and support |
|
||||
| Late Majority | Conservatives; want complete solutions | Standard procurement; RFPs | Bundled; enterprise agreements | Margin compression |
|
||||
| Laggards | Skeptics; forced by circumstance | Compliance-driven; mandates | Legacy pricing; long contracts | Market is commoditizing |
|
||||
|
||||
**Chasm-Crossing Checklist:**
|
||||
```
|
||||
□ Whole product: Does the product solve the complete use case without workarounds?
|
||||
□ References: Do you have 3-5 referenceable customers in the target segment?
|
||||
□ Repeatability: Can you sell and implement without founder involvement?
|
||||
□ Support: Can you support customers at scale (not just white-glove)?
|
||||
□ Positioning: Is the messaging pragmatist-friendly (ROI, risk reduction) not visionary?
|
||||
□ Competition: Have you defined the competitive set for pragmatist comparison?
|
||||
□ Pricing: Is pricing simple, transparent, and aligned with buyer expectations?
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Value Chain Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
Decompose industry activities to find competitive advantage:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
VALUE CHAIN: [Industry]
|
||||
|
||||
PRIMARY ACTIVITIES:
|
||||
┌─────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┐
|
||||
│ Inbound │ Operations │ Outbound │ Marketing │ Service │
|
||||
│ Logistics │ │ Logistics │ & Sales │ │
|
||||
├─────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┤
|
||||
│ Sourcing │ Production │ Distribution │ Branding │ Support │
|
||||
│ Inventory │ Quality │ Delivery │ Pricing │ Maintenance │
|
||||
│ Supplier │ Assembly │ Warehousing │ Channel mgmt │ Returns │
|
||||
│ management │ Testing │ Order mgmt │ Positioning │ Training │
|
||||
└─────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┘
|
||||
|
||||
SUPPORT ACTIVITIES:
|
||||
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
|
||||
│ Infrastructure: Finance, Legal, Management, Planning │
|
||||
│ Human Resources: Recruiting, Training, Compensation, Culture │
|
||||
│ Technology: R&D, IT systems, Automation, Data analytics │
|
||||
│ Procurement: Vendor selection, Negotiation, Contract management │
|
||||
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Analysis Process:**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
For each activity:
|
||||
1. Cost: What % of total cost does this activity represent?
|
||||
2. Value: How much does this activity contribute to customer willingness-to-pay?
|
||||
3. Capability: Rate your performance vs competitors (1-5)
|
||||
4. Strategic importance: Is this a source of differentiation? (Yes/No)
|
||||
|
||||
Activity | Cost % | Value Contribution | Capability | Differentiator?
|
||||
---------------------|--------|-------------------|------------|----------------
|
||||
Inbound logistics | 15% | Low | 3/5 | No
|
||||
Operations | 25% | High | 4/5 | Yes
|
||||
Outbound logistics | 10% | Medium | 3/5 | No
|
||||
Marketing & Sales | 30% | High | 2/5 | Needs improvement
|
||||
Service | 20% | High | 5/5 | Yes
|
||||
|
||||
Strategic Implications:
|
||||
- Invest: Operations (current strength + high value) and Service (strength to protect)
|
||||
- Improve: Marketing & Sales (high cost + low capability = drag on growth)
|
||||
- Optimize: Logistics (non-differentiating — minimize cost)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**SaaS-Specific Value Chain:**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
┌────────────┬───────────────┬──────────────┬────────────────┬─────────────┐
|
||||
│ Product │ Customer │ Customer │ Customer │ Expansion │
|
||||
│ Development│ Acquisition │ Onboarding │ Success │ & Retention │
|
||||
├────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼────────────────┼─────────────┤
|
||||
│ R&D │ Marketing │ Implementation│ Support │ Upsell │
|
||||
│ Design │ Sales │ Training │ Account mgmt │ Cross-sell │
|
||||
│ QA │ Partnerships │ Migration │ Health scoring │ Renewals │
|
||||
│ Platform │ Growth/PLG │ Integration │ Community │ Advocacy │
|
||||
└────────────┴───────────────┴──────────────┴────────────────┴─────────────┘
|
||||
|
||||
Key insight for SaaS: The majority of LTV is created AFTER the initial sale.
|
||||
Disproportionate investment should go to Onboarding → Success → Expansion.
|
||||
```
|
||||
Reference in new issue
Block a user