The one-page instrument a Technology Operating Partner engagement produces each quarter for the CEO and board, constructed against published mid-market benchmarks.
Read this first
Every number, initiative name, and outcome in this document is constructed as an illustrative composite, not from a real client engagement. Values are derived from published mid-market IT benchmarks applied to a stated firm profile. Framework citations and source publications are real and appear inline. See the Methodology Appendix and the Defensibility Ledger at the end.
The Quarterly Technology View below is the one-page instrument a Technology Operating Partner engagement produces for the CEO and board each quarter: six dimensions of technology performance, sized for five minutes of board time, with a decision surfaced on each row.
This sample exists so a CEO or independent director can see, before engaging Preside, what the format of the artifact looks like and how it holds up under scrutiny. It is not from a real client engagement. It is constructed against published benchmarks and frameworks to demonstrate the format.
Firm profile
Revenue
$180M
Business services
Headcount
1,637
Active FTE, mid-market services
Fiscal year
FY26
Q3 in-flight
Total IT spend
$5.60M
3.11% of revenue (FY forecast)
CEO deliverable
A single-page instrument covering six dimensions of technology performance, sized to be read in five minutes at a board meeting. Each dimension is anchored to a public framework so the format is repeatable quarter-over-quarter and defensible if the board, an incoming CFO, or a diligence buyer asks where the numbers came from.
Sample, synthetic composite. All figures and initiative names are illustrative.
Quarterly business review · Q3 FY26
CEO technology view
| Dimension | This quarter | Trend vs prior | Decision surfaced |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue-enabling technology Initiatives that produced a measurable business outcome this quarter. Classified per TBM v4 Grow / Transform towers. | 3 of 4 shipped | +1 vs Q2 | Project Atlas Phase 2 go-live date for Q4 board. |
| Run-cost trajectory Run-bucket IT spend per active FTE, quarter over quarter. Isolates operational cost from investment cost. Derivation: Run bucket $3.45M ÷ 1,637 active FTEs. Anchored to TBM Run/Change classification and Gartner IT Key Metrics Data 2025 unit-cost benchmarks. | $2,107 / FTE Total IT / FTE: $3,420 | +2.1% QoQ | Approve infrastructure consolidation; $185K annualized net. |
| Initiative ROI tracker Top five active technology investments. Original business case vs track-to-date, with stop / restructure / continue marked per investment. | 3 on plan · 1 at risk · 1 stop | No change | Stop the CPQ rebuild; redirect $640K to data platform. |
| AI delivery Production AI use cases (not pilots), value captured, governance status. Mapped to NIST AI Risk Management Framework functions: Govern, Map, Measure, Manage. | 2 in production · 6 in pilot | +1 promoted | Approve agent governance policy before next pilot launches. |
| Risk in dollars Top three cyber and resilience exposures expressed as Annualized Loss Expectancy with 90 percent calibrated confidence interval. Methodology per Hubbard & Seiersen (Wiley); framework per NIST CSF 2.0 (Govern function). | $2.4M expected P10-P90: $1.5M to $3.8M | −$310K expected QoQ | Review materiality threshold and sign off on SEC Item 106 risk-management governance disclosure. |
| Exit / M&A readiness Diligence-ready score across the five domains buyers test: architecture, data, security, contracts, key-person risk. | 4 of 5 green | +1 vs Q2 | Close key-person dependency on data platform before year-end. |
How to read this
Appendix A
Every figure in the artifact above derives from one of three sources: a published benchmark cited inline, a logical derivation from a published benchmark using the stated firm profile, or an illustrative value marked as such. This appendix documents each derivation so any reviewer can trace the number back to its origin.
M1 · Firm profile grounding
The illustrative firm is a $180M-revenue business services company with 1,637 active FTEs and $5.60M total IT spend (3.11% of revenue). These figures anchor the entire quarterly view: the Run-cost trajectory, initiative-value magnitudes, and decision-scale calibration all derive from this profile. Total IT % of revenue is anchored near the ~3.0% mid-market services benchmark from Avasant IT Spending and Staffing Benchmarks 2025/2026.
M2 · Run-cost trajectory ($2,107 / FTE)
Derived: FY forecast Run-bucket only IT spend ($3.45M, sum of End User Computing + Infrastructure & Cloud + Security, Compliance & DR + IT Management & Delivery + Telecom & Connectivity per the underlying P&L) divided by stated FTE count (1,637) equals $2,107 per FTE. The Run-bucket-only definition isolates operational cost from investment cost (Grow and Transform buckets), which is the appropriate metric for a "Run-cost trajectory" dimension. Total IT cost per FTE at the same profile equals $3,420 ($5.6M / 1,637); shown as a secondary line beneath the headline so a reader comparing to general industry rules-of-thumb sees both metrics.
M3 · Decision magnitudes ($185K, $640K, $112K)
$185K infrastructure consolidation net, $640K CPQ redirect, $112K shadow SaaS annualized: illustrative decision magnitudes sized to be consistent with the underlying $5.60M IT budget and representative of the decision scale typical at $180M mid-market services. Not from a real engagement.
M4 · ALE presentation ($2.4M expected; P10-P90 $1.5M to $3.8M)
The Risk-in-dollars dimension reports Annualized Loss Expectancy as $2.4M expected with a 90 percent calibrated confidence interval of $1.5M to $3.8M (P10 to P90), and a −$310K QoQ change on the expected-value point estimate. The confidence interval reflects the Hubbard & Seiersen calibrated-estimation approach: each of the top three cyber and resilience exposures is decomposed into loss frequency and loss magnitude, each estimated with calibrated 90% ranges, then Monte Carlo aggregated across the exposure register. The single-value ALE column typical of point-estimate cyber dashboards is deliberately replaced with an expected-value plus range so a board director can see the uncertainty behind the headline. Illustrative values are sized to a typical top-three-exposure register at $180M mid-market services scale; the methodology is what generalizes, not the specific numbers.
M5 · AI delivery dimension (NIST AI RMF functions)
The AI delivery row maps active AI initiatives against the four functions of the NIST AI Risk Management Framework: Govern, Map, Measure, Manage. Framework is real; the specific counts ("2 in production, 6 in pilot") are illustrative composites sized to a mid-market services firm actively rolling out AI initiatives. Governance status is reported as an ordinal state (governed / partially governed / ungoverned) per NIST AI RMF profile.
M6 · Exit / M&A readiness (five domains)
The M&A readiness score follows the five domains that appear in most PE and strategic-buyer technical diligence checklists: architecture, data, security, contracts, key-person risk. The specific "4 of 5 green" count is illustrative. The rubric behind each domain is the same one used in Preside's Six-week IT Due Diligence Initiative.
Appendix B
Every non-Preside claim in the artifact, its source, and a confidence flag. VERIFIED means the specific figure or attribution was checked against public excerpts of the cited source. PUBLISHED means the source is real and current but the specific figure requires subscription-tier access to verify. ILLUSTRATIVE means the value is constructed to fit the composite; the framework it sits inside is real but the specific number is not sourced.
| Claim / figure | Source | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| TBM Taxonomy tower classifications | TBM Council, TBM Taxonomy v4.0 (Dec 2020) and v4.1 update (2023). Both are widely-referenced editions; the tower structure used here is compatible with both. | Verified |
| Gartner Run/Grow/Transform framework | Gartner (mid-2000s, widely referenced) | Verified |
| Gartner IT Key Metrics Data 2025 (per-FTE unit-cost view) | Gartner, real published subscription report (document 5970339 for Midsize Enterprises, 5973171 for Professional Services). Specific per-FTE figures require subscription to verify. | Published |
| Run-cost per FTE ($2,107) derivation | Run bucket total ($3.45M) / stated FTE count (1,637) | Illustrative |
| NIST AI Risk Management Framework (Govern, Map, Measure, Manage) | NIST, published Jan 2023 | Verified |
| NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 (Govern function) | NIST, published Feb 2024 | Verified |
| SEC Item 106 of Reg S-K and Item 1.05 of Form 8-K | SEC Final Rule on Cybersecurity Risk Management, 2023 | Verified |
| Annualized Loss Expectancy methodology (calibrated 90% intervals) | Hubbard & Seiersen, How to Measure Anything in Cybersecurity Risk (Wiley, 2nd ed., 2023) | Verified |
| $2.4M expected ALE, $1.5M-$3.8M 90% CI, -$310K QoQ | Illustrative values sized to a top-three-exposure register at this firm scale; presentation follows Hubbard & Seiersen calibrated-range methodology (expected value plus P10-P90 range) rather than a single point estimate | Illustrative |
| Illustrative decision magnitudes ($185K, $640K, $112K) | Sized to be consistent with the underlying $5.60M IT budget and typical of the decision scale at $180M mid-market services | Illustrative |
| AI delivery counts (2 in production, 6 in pilot) | Illustrative composite sized to a mid-market services firm actively rolling out AI initiatives | Illustrative |
| M&A readiness score (4 of 5 green) | Illustrative composite. Rubric follows the five diligence domains standard in PE technology diligence. | Illustrative |
Looking for the financial ledger behind these numbers? View the CFO Technology P&L sample →
To scope how this Quarterly View would land at your company: Get in touch →