Null Hypothesis Framework

Enterprise Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis (NO or NULL) represents the assumption that a proposed change, initiative, or innovation has no measurable value in your situation. Enterprises deliberately start with this skeptical baseline to avoid overly optimistic claims and confirmation bias. It’s also a natural response to too many vendors chasing them for business with claims, which, if true, should be very compelling for a customer to act on. Look at the Martech Landscape of over 23K vendors to understand the magnitude of this problem.

For example, instead of approaching every vendor claim as true and then having to prove that it isn’t, a customer starts with the perspective that every vendor claim isn’t true in their situation, and the onus is on the vendor to prove that it isn’t.

Magnolia Earnings After QoE
NULL: Project Magnolia’s adjusted EBITDA will not hold at or above $10.5M after quality-of-earnings review (seller figure: $11.5M on $95M revenue).
Diligence / Financial
Key-Employee Retention
NULL: Initech Capital will not retain at least 90% of the platform’s key employees at month 12 after close (top 12 managers under retention agreements).
Integration / Talent
Plan EBITDA at the Gate
NULL: The new platform will not reach 95% or more of plan EBITDA at the month-12 gate (Jun 30, 2028), so A5 performs no better than adding capital to Initrode Hydraulics (A1).
Portfolio / Governance

Enterprise H₀ Generator

Define your own enterprise null hypothesis for structured testing

Your Null Hypothesis (H₀)
Alternative Hypothesis (H₁)
Recommended Testing Approach:

Key Enterprise Metrics

Clear metrics prevent post-hoc rationalization. Define these before experimentation.

Adjusted EBITDA vs. Plan Key-Employee Retention Customer Retention Pre-Gate Spend vs. Cap Net Leverage Integration Milestones On Time
Pre-registration principle: Define your success metrics and significance thresholds before running experiments. This is critical to avoid bias and post-hoc rationalization in enterprise decisions.

Enterprise Experimentation Frameworks

Organizations design experiments to test whether they can reject the null hypothesis

compare_arrows A/B Testing

Two versions of a product, feature, or experience are tested simultaneously.

  • Version A: Existing process (Control)
  • Version B: New capability (Treatment)
  • If B significantly outperforms A, reject H₀

science Controlled Experiments

Used in product management and operations with isolated groups.

  • Pilot program in one business unit
  • Compare results with control group
  • Minimize contamination between groups

A/B Test Simulator

Simulate an enterprise A/B test to understand statistical outcomes

Significance Thresholds Reference

Enterprise standard thresholds for evaluating experiment outcomes

Threshold Meaning Typical Use Action
p < 0.01 Very strong evidence Clinical trials, safety-critical High confidence to reject H₀
p < 0.05 Strong evidence Product A/B tests, most business Reject H₀
p < 0.10 Moderate evidence Exploratory, early-stage Consider further testing
p ≥ 0.10 Insufficient evidence All contexts Fail to reject H₀

Statistical Null Hypothesis Test

Compare two groups to determine if a difference is statistically significant

Remember: Keep Opportunity and Null Hypothesis discussions separate. This tab evaluates statistical evidence only. Use the Claim Evaluator for broader decision-making about whether a claim meets your required burden of proof.

Decision Framework After Testing

After running experiments, organizations decide among three outcomes

● Reject the Null Hypothesis

Evidence shows the initiative has a meaningful, statistically significant effect.

Scale implementation Allocate budget Integrate into roadmap

● Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis

Results do not show statistically meaningful improvement. The data is inconclusive.

Iterate the hypothesis Modify the solution Run additional experiments

● Accept the Null Hypothesis Operationally

Evidence strongly suggests the change has no value. Continued investment is not justified.

Stop the initiative Reallocate resources Document learnings

Decision Evaluator

Enter your experiment results to get a recommended enterprise decision

Enterprise Hypothesis Cycle

The workflow for testing the A5 platform thesis before the month-12 gate

1 Identify assumption
→
2 Define H₀
→
3 Design experiment
→
4 Collect data
→
5 Statistical analysis
→
6 Reject or fail to reject
→
7 Scale, iterate, or stop

Claim Evaluator

Default position: critical disbelief. Does this claim meet the appropriate burden of proof?

💬

Level 1 — Anecdotal

Testimonials, case studies, vendor demos. Low cost, low reliability.

📊

Level 2 — Observational Data

Internal metrics, historical data, surveys. Moderate cost, correlational evidence.

🔬

Level 3 — Controlled Test

A/B test, pilot program, proof of concept. Higher cost, causal evidence.

🏛

Level 4 — Rigorous Validation

Multi-site trial, independent audit, peer review. Highest cost, strongest evidence.

Opportunity ≠ Evidence. The attractiveness of an opportunity does not change the burden of proof. Evaluate the evidence for a claim independently of how good the outcome would be if the claim were true.

Enterprise Governance for Hypothesis Testing

Large organizations institutionalize hypothesis testing through governance structures

inventory_2 Product Management

  • Lean experimentation cycles
  • Product discovery sprints
  • Feature flagging and gradual rollout
  • Outcome-driven roadmap decisions

lightbulb Innovation Labs

  • Proof of Concept (PoC)
  • Minimum Viable Product (MVP)
  • Rapid prototyping and validation
  • Kill criteria before scaling

insights Data Science Teams

  • Statistical validation pipelines
  • ML experiment tracking (MLflow)
  • Automated significance testing
  • Reproducibility and documentation

account_balance Strategy Offices

  • Scenario modeling
  • Risk validation frameworks
  • Investment thesis testing
  • Portfolio-level experiment governance

Risk Management & Portfolio Strategy

Enterprises use hypothesis testing for portfolio decisions — test many, scale few, kill early

Enterprise Tools Ecosystem

Common platforms supporting hypothesis testing and experimentation

tune A/B Testing & Feature Flags
analytics Deal Pipeline CRM
query_stats Quality-of-Earnings Data Room
trending_up KPI Baseline Tracker
bug_report Integration PMO Tracker
model_training Monthly Close & Reporting Package
flag Team Member & Customer Surveys
hub Prioriti AI
Experimentation culture: This process underpins modern experimentation cultures used by companies like Amazon, Netflix, and Google. Structured governance ensures decisions are driven by evidence rather than assumptions.

Economics of Proof

Every proof effort has costs and benefits. Estimate the ROI of gathering more evidence.

Quick Reference: Proof Cost Guidelines

Typical relative costs by proof level and domain

Proof Level IT Clinical Business Time
Anecdotal$$$Days
Observational$$$$$$Weeks
Controlled Test$$$$$$$$$$Months
Rigorous Validation$$$$$$$$$$$$$Quarters+

Build Your Proof Roadmap

Develop a strategy to build proof points over time

Originally from IT and Clinical, now applied everywhere. The discipline of requiring proof before accepting claims started in IT (where untested changes crash systems) and clinical practice (where lives depend on evidence). This framework generalizes that rigor to any domain.

Critical Line-by-Line Analysis

Initech Capital 09.28.2026

The A5 case for Initech Capital’s next $200M, tested with the Null Hypothesis method. Each claim is presumed unproven until evidence supports it.

Review Methodology: Each claim is reviewed four ways: the sponsor’s optimistic reading, the null hypothesis challenge, what must be true, and a sharper, testable restatement.

Context

Initech Capital is the permanent-capital acquisitions team of Initech, Inc. (Austin, Texas). Its public mandate: long-term control investments in privately held middle-market companies with $8M–$25M EBITDA. Platforms include Initrode Hydraulics (acquired 2019), with Initrode Canada added in 2022, and Initech Electric Supply. The live decision (DEC-ICAP-2026-01): How should Initech Capital deploy its next $200M of permanent capital over 24 months? Recommended: A5 — a staged value-add distribution platform (Project Magnolia) with a month-12 integration gate and a $110M pre-gate cap. IC decision date: Dec 15, 2026.

7 Key Dimensions Under Review

Where the case must hold up before approval:

Quality of Earnings Entry Multiple Key-Employee Retention Integration Capacity Pre-Gate Spend Cap Customer Retention Leverage
13
Claims Analyzed
7
Weaknesses Found
4
Validated Strengths
4
Open Evidence Gaps

Statement 1: Magnolia Earnings After QoE

Original Claim
“Project Magnolia’s adjusted EBITDA of $11.5M will hold at or above $10.5M after quality-of-earnings review.”
Section 03: Conditions

● Sponsor Optimistic Reaction

At $95M revenue and a 9.1x multiple, Magnolia fits the $8M–$15M EBITDA target for a new platform. A $1.0M cushion under the seller figure still clears the floor.

● Null Hypothesis UNPROVEN

The $11.5M is a seller-prepared figure. Add-backs, owner compensation and working-capital swings are untested. QoE is not due until May 28, 2027, after the LOI is signed.

● What Must Be True

A third-party QoE on trailing 24 months, a working-capital peg, and an add-back schedule reviewed by Corporate Finance before exclusivity ends.

● Suggested Improvement

State it as a test: “H₁: QoE-confirmed adjusted EBITDA is at least $10.5M by May 28, 2027. H₀: it is not. Below $10M reopens the decision.”

Statement 2: Key-Employee Retention

Original Claim
“The platform will retain at least 90% of key employees at month 12 after close.”
Section 10: Gate Rules

● Sponsor Optimistic Reaction

Permanent capital and family ownership are a seller-friendly story. No forced exit means managers are not preparing for the next sale.

● Null Hypothesis RED FLAG

No retention agreements exist yet. Founder-owned distributors often depend on a few branch and sales leaders, and rival PE bidders may offer equity. Retention below 80% is a hold trigger.

● What Must Be True

Retention agreements for the top 12 managers by Jun 30, 2027, culture diligence against Initech values, and a rollover equity offer for the founder.

● Suggested Improvement

“Key-employee retention is measured monthly against the named list of 12. Below 90% at the gate blocks scale; below 80% triggers hold.”

Note: Name the 12 managers before signing, not after close.

Statement 3: The Robust Choice

Original Claim
“A5 ranks first with a weighted score of 76.2, ahead of A1 at 74.2.”
Section 07: Scores

● Null Hypothesis VALIDATED

Holds inside the model. A5 76.2, A1 74.2, A2 67.1, A3 62.2, A4 59.2, A6 41.8. A5 leads because it adds a new platform inside deal-team capacity with a reversible gate.

● Suggested Enhancement

Say it plainly in the IC brief: “A5 leads A1 by only two points. A2 scores higher on return and strategic fit but fails the capacity and diligence tests.”

Note: Robust inside the model is not the same as right.

Statement 4: Founder Succession Wave

Original Claim
“A founder succession wave in the Southeast middle market will produce proprietary value-add distribution deals.”
Section 15: SWOT

● Sponsor Optimistic Reaction

Fragmented distribution and aging owners create a steady flow of sellers who want a permanent home.

● Null Hypothesis UNTESTED

This is a thesis, not a finding. PE sponsors and national distributors target the same owners, and most deals still run through auctions.

● What Must Be True

Deal-team CRM data showing first-meeting rate and LOI conversion on proprietary vs. banked deals over the last 24 months.

● Suggested Improvement

Test it on the current pipeline: how many of the six code-named targets came in without a banker?

Statement 5: Permanent Capital Advantage

Original Claim
“Initech Capital is permanent capital with a record of platform and add-on acquisitions.”
Section 01: Public Facts

● Null Hypothesis VALIDATED

Public and verifiable: Initech Capital describes itself as permanent capital; it acquired Initrode Hydraulics in 2019 and added Initrode Canada to Initrode in 2022.

● Suggested Enhancement

Add evidence that sellers value it: win rate against PE bidders at similar or higher prices.

Statement 6: Entry Multiple

Original Claim
“Project Magnolia at $105M EV (9.1x EBITDA) is a fair price for a new platform.”
Section 05: Pipeline

● Sponsor Optimistic Reaction

Platform-quality distributors trade above add-ons; 9.1x is in line with the Southeast middle market.

● Null Hypothesis RED FLAG

PE competition is inflating multiples. Overpaying on entry multiple is the top-rated risk (likelihood 4, impact 5). If QoE lands at $10.5M, the same price is 10.0x.

block Hold Until Walk-Away Price Is Set

● What Must Be True

An IC-approved walk-away price, an earn-out tied to post-close EBITDA, and a downside case at 85% of plan.

● Suggested Improvement

“The IC sets a walk-away EV before the LOI. Any bid above it returns to the IC.”

Statement 7: Customer Retention

Original Claim
“Customer retention will stay at or above 95% through the ownership change.”
Section 11: KPIs

● Sponsor Optimistic Reaction

Contractors and MRO buyers value fill rate and delivery; a patient owner can invest in both.

● Null Hypothesis RED FLAG

The baseline is 94%, below the target. Customer concentration is unknown, and top-10 customer calls have not happened. Ownership changes often cause service drops.

● Suggested Improvement

Complete top-10 customer calls and a contract review in diligence. Track retention monthly; below 95% at the gate blocks scale.

Statement 8: Pre-Gate Spend Cap

Original Claim
“Pre-gate spend is capped at $110M inside the $200M, 24-month envelope.”
Section 03: Decision Record

● Sponsor Optimistic Reaction

A bounded commitment that leaves $90M free for add-ons and the Initrode program.

● Null Hypothesis RISK

Magnolia’s $105M EV leaves only $5M for fees, the working-capital true-up and the ERP migration. Integration costs can push spend past the cap.

● Suggested Improvement

“The $110M cap includes fees and integration capex. The CFIO reviews spend monthly; above 105% of the cap blocks a scale decision.”

Statement 9: Staging Preserves Options

Original Claim
“Staging exposes less capital at comparable expected value, and the gate stops or revises it if the evidence fails.”
Section 10: Gate Rules

● Null Hypothesis VALIDATED

Sound logic. The gate offers four paths (scale, revise, partner, hold), and A5 reversibility is high. Avoided exposure before the gate is up to $90M of the $200M envelope.

● Suggested Enhancement

Show the arithmetic in the IC brief with the case: $200M invested, $325M value, NPV @12% ≈ $39.5M, IRR ≈ 22.7%.

Note: Avoided exposure is not a cash saving. Do not present it as one.

Statement 10: One Large Platform

Original Claim
“Acquiring one large platform with the full envelope (A2) offers the highest upside.”
Section 06: Alternatives

● Sponsor Optimistic Reaction

Project Tombigbee ($13.0M EBITDA, $120M EV) would add scale fast, and A2 scores highest on return (80) and strategic fit (82).

● Null Hypothesis RED FLAG

A2 commits $150M–$200M with low reversibility. It scores 60 on diligence confidence and 45 on capacity, and Tombigbee is on hold.

● Suggested Improvement

“A2 is not decision-ready until Tombigbee re-enters diligence and the deal team has capacity for it.”

Note: A second platform before the gate needs an explicit IC trade-off.

Statement 11: Integration Capacity

Original Claim
“Operating partners can run the Magnolia 100-day plan alongside Initrode add-ons.”
Section 09: Resource Capacity

● Null Hypothesis MAJOR RED FLAG

Operating Partners & Integration have 4 of 5 FTE committed, with the Initrode–Initrode Canada integration tail running through Q1 2027. The deal team is at 83%.

If A1 add-ons close alongside Magnolia, concurrent integrations can exceed the limit of three.

● What Must Be True

A sequenced integration calendar, a named operating partner for Magnolia, and IT & ERP capacity for two add-on migrations.

● Suggested Improvement

“No more than three concurrent integrations. A fourth reopens the decision (Operating Partner trigger).”

Statement 13: Leverage at Close

Original Claim
“Net leverage will be at or below 3.0x debt/EBITDA at close.”
Section 03: Boundaries

● Sponsor Optimistic Reaction

Baseline leverage of 2.8x leaves headroom, and permanent capital can fund more equity.

● Null Hypothesis RED FLAG

A QoE miss raises leverage at the same debt. Rates up 100 bps reopen the decision, and leverage above 3.5x is a hold trigger.

● Suggested Improvement

“Size debt to QoE-confirmed EBITDA, not the seller figure. The CFIO confirms leverage at or below 3.0x before funds flow.”

Warning: Do not let a higher price be financed with extra leverage.

Statement 12: Fit With the Mandate

Original Claim
“Magnolia fits Initech Capital’s $8M–$25M EBITDA mandate and its value-add distribution theme.”
Section 01: Public Mandate

● Sponsor Optimistic Reaction

Clear alignment with the public mandate and with Initech values: profitable growth, discipline, and people.

● Null Hypothesis RED FLAG

Mandate fit is not a decision rule. A1, A2 and A3 also fit the mandate. It says which deals qualify, not which one wins.

Fit also leaves the stakeholder split open: the CFIO weights return at 38% and the Operating Partner at 12% (a 26-point gap); the Chief Legal Officer weights governance at 30% and the Initrode Platform CEO at 2% (28 points).

● What Must Be True

Every criterion where stakeholder weights differ by more than 15 points is reconciled or recorded as dissent by role, with an owner and a date.

● Suggested Improvement

“A5 is recommended on capacity and reversibility. A1 — accelerate Initrode Hydraulics add-ons — is the runner-up, with a Project Cumberland term sheet by Mar 31, 2027.”

Strengths

Validated elements that support the case

✓A clear mandate: $8M–$25M EBITDA, value-add distribution among stated themes
✓Permanent capital with a platform and add-on record (Initrode Hydraulics, Initrode Canada)
✓A5 leads the weighted scores (76.2) and fits deal-team capacity
✓A staged path with written gate rules and a dated month-12 gate

Critical Weaknesses

Unresolved issues to close before the Dec 15, 2026 IC decision

✗Magnolia EBITDA is a seller figure until QoE (due May 28, 2027)
✗No walk-away price set against a 9.1x entry multiple
✗No retention agreements for the top 12 managers yet
✗Customer retention baseline (94%) below the 95% gate target
✗Operating partners at 80% utilization through Q1 2027
✗Only $5M of headroom under the $110M pre-gate cap
✗Two wide weight gaps unresolved (governance 28 points, return 26 points)

Decision Risk Scorecard

Summary assessment across the dimensions the Investment Committee will test

warning Price & Diligence

  • QoE pending
  • Walk-away price not set
  • Legal and environmental diligence open
  • Risk Level: Critical

account_balance People & Culture

  • No retention agreements yet
  • Culture diligence not started
  • Founder transition plan open
  • Risk Level: Critical

psychology Capacity & Execution

  • Initrode–Initrode Canada tail through Q1 2027
  • Max three concurrent integrations
  • Deal team at 83% utilization
  • Risk Level: High

public Financial Rigor

  • Pre-gate spend capped at $110M
  • Leverage ≤3.0x at close
  • Risk Level: High

Recommendations Before the Dec 15, 2026 Decision

Prioritized actions that turn the case into a governed, testable decision

1

Commission a Third-Party QoE

Confirm ≥$10.5M adjusted EBITDA and set the working-capital peg by May 28, 2027. Owner: Finance.

2

Set the Walk-Away Price

IC-approved maximum EV and earn-out terms for Project Magnolia before the LOI. Owner: Managing Director, Initech Capital.

3

Lock In Key Managers

Retention agreements and rollover equity for the top 12 managers by Jun 30, 2027. Owner: HR & Talent.

4

Call the Top 10 Customers

Test concentration and continuity risk in diligence. Owner: Platform CEO.

5

Complete Legal and Culture Diligence

Clean legal and environmental findings and culture fit with Initech values by May 28, 2027. Owner: Chief Legal Officer.

6

Sequence the Integrations

Keep concurrent integrations at three or fewer; stage A1 add-ons around Magnolia. Owner: Operating Partner, Integration.

7

Resolve or Record the Two Wide Gaps

Governance (28 points) and return (26 points): reconcile them, or attach them to the approval as dissent by role.

Bottom Line: The case for A5 is sound but not yet proven. Its strength is capacity fit and reversibility, not the highest upside. Set the price, confirm earnings and lock in key managers now, so the Jun 30, 2028 gate is a real scale, revise, partner, or hold decision.

Innovation + Execution

A business strategy and design firm helping clients maximize customer value and capture greater share of that value.

Company Description

Innovation + Execution is a business strategy and design firm that helps clients maximize the value they create for customers and capture a greater share of that value. We are a customer-first company, supported extensively by AI.

What They Do

  • Acquire clarity on customer value drivers
  • Redesign offerings from customer perspective
  • Develop business models with creative pricing
  • Measure value created as institutional competency
  • Design/implement/rollout strategies using software-driven processes

Why Enterprise Clients Hire Them

Execution at Scale
Unfulfilled Promises of CPQ & CLM
Ecosystem Pricing & Channel Conflict
Real-time Sense & Respond Models
AI/Big Data/Segmentation/Personalization

Why Investor/Startup Clients Hire Them

Due Diligence
Valuation Assessment
Path to Proof & PMF
Growth Strategy & Execution
Growth Constraints & Opportunities

How They Work

  • Meet you where you are — tailored to your situation
  • Complement not replace — work with your existing teams
  • Understand/Elaborate/Execute — your strategies come first
  • Deep expertise — 2-10x technology disruptions
  • Outcome driven and systems enabled — measurable results
  • Do it with you not to you — collaborative approach

I+E vs Traditional Consulting

Dimension Traditional Consulting Innovation + Execution
Assumptions Deterministic Learning Centric
Flow Linear Iterative
Ambiguity Unexpected costs Built to surface
Launch Mode Dive First Sweep First
Engagement Model Large pyramid teams Small 2-3 cross-functional leaders (25+ yrs exp)
Offering Design Limited expertise Deep understanding
Value Pricing Limited expertise Deep understanding & immediate application
Results Old solutions, tech-centric Innovative, measured by DX/CX/EX/SQLs/margins

Value Pricing Framework

How to prove value and price based on customer outcomes

The Null Hypothesis Connection

We take two opposing perspectives:

  • Outside-in customer perspective: Includes the Null Hypothesis — the customer's default is not to believe your value hypothesis unless proven.
  • Value realization: The potential investment has substantial unrealized value with customers, which if explicitly proven, can be used for customer success, increased sales, and premium pricing.

Critical Insight

"Just because you have a value model doesn't mean your customers will believe it. Doesn't mean your customers will pay for it if it's not provable/proven in their situation. It needs to support all customer lifecycle phases (LAER). A customer's perception of risk will always crush any premium you attempt to support through your value model."

Value Pricing Results (Real Case Studies)

The multiplier effect when value is proven

Drilling Fluid
$100K/Run
$650K/Run
6.5X increase
Online Service
$10/Member
$800/Member
8X increase
Fluid Additive
$10/Sack
$50/Sack
5X increase
Imaging Service
$700K/Sampling
$2.5M/Sampling
3.6X increase
Sampling Service
$800/M³
$6,000/M³
7.5X increase
Healthcare SW
$35/Report
$125/Report
3.6X increase
Key Insight: Managers routinely, often grossly, under price valuable new offerings. Value pricing unlocks the true economic potential.

Additional Results

  • Imaging process launched at 6.5X value-based pricing
  • Field service achieved 50% rate increase in 3 years
  • Healthcare software launched at 8X original pricing
  • Professional services captured 17% rate increase in revenue
  • $85M in new pricing opportunities identified
  • $2B software company achieved 170% revenue increase
  • $2B+ professional services org realized 7%+ revenue increase in one year

Pricing Model Comparison

Model Net Income Margin Approach
Cost-Plus 11% Cost + markup
Market-Based 17% Strategic pricing
Value-Based 35% Outcome & customer value

Dynamic Pricing by Value Proof

Value Unproven → Most price-sensitive, least pricing power

Value Proven → Less price-sensitive, increasing pricing power

Pricing power increases dramatically once performance and outcomes are demonstrated to the customer.

LAER: Customer Lifecycle Framework

Land • Adopt • Expand • Renew — Dynamic pricing at each lifecycle stage

What is LAER?

LAER (Land, Adopt, Expand, Renew) is TSIA's customer engagement model for XaaS (everything-as-a-Service) environments. While XaaS has dominated growth, profitable business models are more exception than norm.

LAER demands dynamic pricing at each stage, where overall revenue and margin are optimized through proof of value rather than feature war or maximizing services rates.

Key Principles

  • Goes beyond traditional firmographic/market segmentation
  • Recognizes willingness to pay changes across lifecycle based on value drivers
  • Accounts for interaction types, product lifecycle, and quantification of customer success
  • LAER Pricing is system-enabled and dynamic
  • Employs consumption analytics and predictive modeling

Offering Design Framework

BASIC
Scope: Limited Functions
Price: Low
Value: Reduced Functions / Reliable Product
CORE
Scope: Common Features
Price: Fair
Value: Implementation & Maintenance Service / Tailored Product
PREMIUM
Scope: Value Maximizer
Price: Premium
Value: Adoption Services / Platform Solution / Connected Product
OPTIMIZED
Scope: Optimal Value
Price: Outcome-based
Value: Outcome as a Service

Value-Based Selling

Value-Based Selling must be positioned, sold, implemented, adopted, expanded, and renewed differently. It requires proof for each LAER stage.

The heart is using value models to effectively sell and deliver.

Implementation approach:

  • Modify existing sales methodology
  • Train teams on value-based approach
  • Apply to first several months on highest-potential deals

Offering Design & Pricing Strategy

Phase 1: Conceptualize Value

  • Identify value drivers
  • Customer segmentation strategy
  • Strategic differentiation

Phase 2: Design Offering & Price

  • Configuration options
  • Price menu development
  • Segment-specific strategies
  • Price metric selection

Phase 3: Decide Price Levels

  • Price range determination
  • Sensitivity analysis
  • Level decisions
  • Value monetization strategy
  • Proof of value planning

Healthcare Client Experience

I+E's deep expertise in healthcare strategy and value pricing

Healthcare Clients & Partners

I+E has worked extensively across the healthcare ecosystem

Allscripts Anthem Apollo Endosurgery Athena Health Bayer Radiology Bayer Consumer Bio-Rad Blue Shield CA Cardinal Health Cigna Cisco CVS Caremark Element Science GE Healthcare HexagonPPM Humana Intuitive Surgical Medtronic Merck Micromedex Microsoft NaNotics Pfizer ServiceNow St. Jude Medical TriZetto VHA Welltok

Case Study: Bayer Radiology

How value engineering led to premium pricing and market success

Objectives

  • Optimize overall customer spend across HDW/SW solutions
  • Move from CAPEX to OPEX usage/outcomes-based models
  • Align pricing/offer/value messages from customer perspective
  • Define channel strategy for maximum market penetration
  • Grow revenues to fund SaaS transition

The Problem & Solution

Imaging interpretation is one of the most subjective and variable aspects of clinical care. I+E's value engineering showed that Certegra imaging could save hospitals and insurers more than $XXK per patient compared to next-best alternatives.

Once hospitals and insurers were presented with a proven value model demonstrating these savings, they readily paid a premium for the superior solution.

Key Lesson: Even when hospitals and insurers knew superiority and savings, they did not voluntarily offer Bayer more. Bayer had to prove better outcomes and understand economic implications. Then they could value price. "What is your Path to Proof?"

Investment & Advisory Results

Biotech Fund
$200M
Targeting, selection & governance
Digital Wellness SaaS
$300M
Fundraised ($100M run-rate portfolio)
VC Fund Web3 Advisory
$100M AUM
Strategic direction
PE Firm CPQ SaaS
Optimization
Pricing & configuration optimization