Deal governance

Running a live deal like a project, before it was one

A complex infrastructure deal with an unclear decision-maker and a moving scope. I ran it out of the same repository structure we use for delivery — risks, decisions, meetings and all.

Tracked before a contract existed, not after
17 risksTracked before a contract existed, not after
Recorded and indexed, so the account has one memory
15 meetingsRecorded and indexed, so the account has one memory
Numbered decisions with owners, from presale onward
Decision logNumbered decisions with owners, from presale onward

The client

A US edge-AI infrastructure startup building distributed capacity across many points of presence, with a large founding leadership team, a general-availability target under a year away, and a vendor decision still open.

The engagement

A presale run as a governed engagement: scope, risk register, decision log, meeting records, statement of work and a portfolio dashboard, all maintained from before the contract existed.

The problem

Complex deals are usually run out of a chat thread and one person's head. The scope moves between calls, nobody can say when a position changed, and the identity of the real decision-maker is a matter of opinion — which becomes an expensive problem when the deal converts and delivery inherits a scope nobody can reconstruct.

What I did

I ran the presale on the same structure we use for delivery, which sounds heavy and is not: scope in one place, a risk register maintained from the first call, a numbered decision log so a change of position has a date and an owner, and an indexed record of every meeting. That does three things at once — it makes the account's memory independent of any individual, it lets sales, presale and delivery hand the deal between them without a briefing, and it means that if the deal converts, delivery starts from a real baseline rather than from a proposal and a hope. Where the decision-maker was genuinely unknown, that was recorded as an open question with candidate hypotheses rather than quietly assumed, because an unnamed approver is a risk with a name.

What was built

The delivery operating model applied to a presale: a repository holding scope, risks, decisions, meeting records and the draft statement of work, plus a dashboard, so the deal could be handed between sales, presale and delivery without a briefing call.

On the table at the end

  • Deal repository: scope, seventeen risks, numbered decision log, fifteen meeting records
  • Draft statement of work
  • Portfolio-style dashboard for the deal

What it changed

Gave a deal with an unnamed decision-maker and a shifting scope the same traceability as a live project — seventeen tracked risks, a numbered decision log and fifteen recorded meetings — so the negotiation ran on a record rather than on recollection.

How it ran

  1. 01

    Open the register before the contract

    Risks tracked from the first call, when they are still cheap — seventeen of them by the time the decision was pending.

  2. 02

    Number the decisions

    Every position change dated and attributed, so the negotiation runs on a record rather than on competing recollections.

  3. 03

    Index the meetings

    Fifteen records held centrally, making the account's memory independent of whoever attended.

  4. 04

    Record the unknown approver

    The unidentified decision-maker logged as an open question with hypotheses, not assumed into the plan.

  5. 05

    Hand over without a call

    Sales, presale and delivery working from one repository, so conversion does not require reconstruction.

Something similar on your plate?

Thirty minutes, no deck. I will tell you whether it is worth doing at all.