Selected deals / Commercial history

The hard part
is rarely the feature.

It’s the incumbent. The budget. The migration risk. The people who need confidence before they can commit.

Selected enterprise work, with client identities anonymized. Dates indicate the role period unless a specific duration is stated.

  1. Learning Management Systems

    Higher Education · EdTech · System access

  2. Regulated assessment

    $10M+ territory · 50+ accounts

  3. Cybersecurity SaaS

    State, Local, and Education pipeline

  4. Independent advisory

    Business systems & automation

01 / The evidence

Different constraints.
Specific decisions.

Open a story for the situation, the approach, and the result. Contract value, annual value, pipeline, and account longevity are labeled separately.

Cybersecurity SaaS / SLED

Build a territory
from a blank map.

$2.5M+PIPELINE

An unmapped Western US territory. A public-sector buying process involving security, risk, legal, and procurement.

Apr 2023–Feb 2024Read the story

The constraint

Develop a new State, Local, and Education (SLED) territory during a period of post-investment restructuring.

The decision

Build national public-sector channel relationships, engage the full buying committee, and co-author business cases around security, total cost of ownership, and legacy displacement.

The outcome

Generated $2.5M+ in pipeline in under 12 months, including $1.2M+ qualified in the first two quarters. Multiple RFPs reached final negotiation before a company-wide reduction in force. These are pipeline figures, not booked revenue.

New territory Channel + direct Qualified pipeline

Regulated assessment / Institutional

Solve the annual budget.
Win the decade.

$2.0MTOTAL CONTRACT VALUE

A constrained institutional budget became the starting point for a ten-year remote-invigilation agreement.

Jul 2017–Jul 2019Read the story

The constraint

A key regulated account needed an annual price it could sustain. A conventional contract structure would not resolve the budget constraint.

The decision

Negotiate an aggressive annual price in return for a ten-year commitment. Align engineering, product, compliance, and institutional stakeholders through hands-on proof-of-concept work.

The outcome

Signed a $2.0M total-contract-value agreement with ten years of contractual longevity and competitive lockout. This sat within a $10M+ western territory spanning 50+ regulated institutions and public-sector accounts.

Budget constraint Restructured terms 10-year agreement

Learning Management Systems / Private university

Replace the platform.
Earn the trust.

$1.5MTCV / $500K ACV

A homegrown Learning Management System, an entrenched incumbent, and a six-month RFP requiring institutional confidence at every level.

2012–Jul 2017Read the story

The constraint

Displace a highly customized system built over decades while managing strong incumbent advantages and close financial scrutiny.

The decision

Lead a six-month evaluation, a full-day demonstration for 50 stakeholders, and direct CEO-to-VP alignment. Connect platform standardization and student-retention visibility to institutional priorities.

The outcome

Closed a three-year agreement at $500K annual contract value and $1.5M total contract value. Displaced the legacy platform and created referral momentum into affiliated institutions.

6-month RFP 50-stakeholder demo 3-year agreement

Learning Management Systems / Public university system

One approval.
A path for every campus.

System-widePROCUREMENT ACCESS

Individual campus opportunities faced the same repeated security, legal, compliance, and pricing reviews.

2012–Jul 2017Read the story

The constraint

Campus-by-campus sales cycles were duplicating the governance work required to make a purchase.

The decision

Move the evaluation to central procurement and system leadership. Make the case for administrative efficiency, pre-vetted terms, and a repeatable purchasing path.

The outcome

Won placement on the approved master procurement vehicle. Downstream campuses could buy without restarting duplicative security, legal, compliance, and custom-pricing reviews.

Central evaluation Master vehicle Campus purchasing

Learning Management Systems / Online university

Make migration
a manageable risk.

$1.0MTOTAL CONTRACT VALUE

A fast-growing private online university needed to replace its homegrown engine without disrupting learning.

2012–Jul 2017Read the story

The constraint

The CIO, security teams, and academic leadership had concerns about sensitive data, course migration, faculty adoption, and delivery continuity.

The decision

Work through security, privacy, architecture, and migration concerns over several months. Demonstrate the content-import engine to establish course consistency and reduce faculty adoption risk.

The outcome

Closed a $1.0M total-contract-value agreement and supported the migration of the academic portfolio without course-delivery disruption.

Security review Migration validation Platform replacement

Learning Management Systems / Global organization

Learning at scale.
A global responsibility.

GlobalTRAINING DELIVERY

An international faith-based organization needed availability, localization, scale, and continuity across its training environment.

2012–Jul 2017Read the story

The constraint

Support a centralized learning environment across a large international footprint, with demanding continuity requirements.

The decision

Use established institutional trust to reach central decision-makers, then coordinate technical validation around resilience, scale, and localization.

The outcome

Won the global enterprise training contract. The delivery architecture was subsequently adopted for additional high-stakes global training programs.

Institutional trust Technical validation Global training

Learning Management Systems / Private university

Win the account.
Build for the long term.

12+ yearsACCOUNT LIFECYCLE

Persistent outbound work became a nine-month evaluation and an account that remained referenceable for more than twelve years.

2012–Jul 2017Read the story

The constraint

Create an opportunity at a major private university, then earn confidence through an extended institutional evaluation.

The decision

Combine persistent cold outreach with on-site alignment at a national higher-education conference. Lead the evaluation and pilot over nine months.

The outcome

The account remained active, referenceable, and revenue-generating more than twelve years after the original pursuit. This describes the resulting account lifecycle, not continuous personal account ownership.

Outbound pursuit 9-month evaluation Durable relationship

Learning Management Systems / Online university

Make governance
the business case.

ComplianceDRIVEN REPLACEMENT

A fragmented homegrown environment was failing to provide the visibility needed for accreditation and academic governance.

LMS portfolioRead the story

The constraint

Replace a learning system during a period of serious accreditation and reporting pressure.

The decision

Work with academic leadership to connect data visibility and workflow consistency to compliance reporting. Reframe the evaluation around governance and risk mitigation.

The outcome

Advanced the homegrown-system replacement and modernized delivery infrastructure during a critical review period. No contract value or exact close date is published for this case.

Reporting pressure Governance case Legacy replacement

ACV = annual contract value. TCV = total contract value. Pipeline is not booked revenue. The $500K ACV and $1.5M TCV figures refer to the same LMS agreement. Role chronology includes a family caregiving break in 2019–2023; see the full resume.

02 / What carries across the work

Find the constraint.
Build the path through it.

01 / Understand the institution

Map the decision.

Work with the buying committee, not just the initial sponsor. Understand who owns risk, budget, adoption, and approval.

02 / Make the technical case

Resolve the real uncertainty.

Bring architecture, security, and migration questions into the evaluation early, with the right engineering and product counterparts.

03 / Make approval defensible

Structure a workable agreement.

Connect the solution to institutional priorities, procurement requirements, and commercial terms the buyer can support.

The work continues

See what I’m building now.

Explore technical work