The one-page report a Technology Operating Partner engagement produces each quarter for the CEO and board, constructed as an illustrative composite.
Read this first
Every number, project name, and outcome in this document is constructed as an illustrative composite. None of it is real company data. Values are assumed for a stated firm profile. Framework citations and source publications are real. See the Methodology Appendix and the Defensibility Ledger at the end.
The Quarterly Technology View below is the one-page report a Technology Operating Partner engagement produces for the CEO and board each quarter: six dimensions of technology performance, with a decision surfaced on each row.
This sample shows a CEO or independent director the format of the report before engaging Preside.
Firm profile
Revenue
$180M
Business services
Headcount
1,637
FTE, mid-market services
Fiscal year
FY26
Through Q3
Total IT spend
$5.60M
3.11% of revenue (FY forecast)
CEO deliverable
A single-page report covering six dimensions of technology performance, read in about five minutes at a board meeting. Four of the six dimensions are anchored to a public framework or standard (TBM, Gartner, NIST AI RMF, NIST CSF 2.0). The other two, investment ROI and exit readiness, follow Preside's own rubrics. The format repeats each quarter so trends are comparable.
Example. All figures are illustrative.
Quarterly business review · Q3 FY26
CEO technology view
| Dimension | This quarter | Trend vs prior | Decision surfaced |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue-enabling technology Projects that produced a measurable business outcome this quarter. Classified as Grow or Transform using the Gartner Run/Grow/Transform framework. | 3 of 4 shipped | +1 vs Q2 | Decide the Project Atlas Phase 2 go-live date at the Q4 board meeting. |
| 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 the Gartner Run/Grow/Transform classification and Gartner IT Key Metrics Data 2025 unit-cost benchmarks. | $2,108 / FTE Total IT / FTE: $3,420 | +2.1% QoQ | Approve infrastructure consolidation; $185K annualized net. |
| Investment 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 AI use cases in production and in pilot. Governance status is tracked per use case in the supporting detail. 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 a calibrated 90 percent range (P10 to P90) around the estimate. 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 the materiality threshold for cyber incidents and approve the board's technology risk reporting. |
| 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 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, project-value magnitudes, and decision-scale calibration all derive from this profile. Total IT as a percent of revenue (3.11%) is an assumption chosen for this example. A live engagement compares it with published benchmarks, such as the Avasant IT Spending and Staffing Benchmarks (subscription).
M2 · Run-cost trajectory ($2,108 / 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 $2,108 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)
$185K infrastructure consolidation net and $640K CPQ redirect: 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 as a range. 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 an assumed 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 use cases 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 rolling out AI use cases. Governance status uses a three-level scale (governed, partially governed, ungoverned) that is Preside's own. It is mapped to the four RMF functions and is not defined by NIST.
M6 · Exit / M&A readiness (five domains)
The M&A readiness score follows five domains that commonly appear in 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 IT Due Diligence Initiative.
Appendix B
Every external claim and framework in this sample, with its source and status. PUBLISHED means the source is a published framework, standard, or report. Preside has not independently checked any specific figure against it. ILLUSTRATIVE means the value is constructed to fit the composite; the framework it sits inside is published but the specific number is not sourced.
| Claim / figure | Source | Status |
|---|---|---|
| TBM Taxonomy tower classifications | TBM Council, TBM Taxonomy v4.0 and v4.1. Tower names are adapted for this sample. | Published |
| Gartner Run/Grow/Transform framework | Gartner, published framework | Published |
| 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 ($2,108) 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 | Published |
| NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 (Govern function) | NIST, published Feb 2024 | Published |
| Annualized Loss Expectancy methodology (calibrated 90% intervals) | Hubbard & Seiersen, How to Measure Anything in Cybersecurity Risk (Wiley, 2nd ed., 2023) | Published |
| $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) | 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 rolling out AI use cases | Illustrative |
| Governance status scale (governed, partially governed, ungoverned) | Preside's own three-level scale, mapped to the NIST AI RMF functions. NIST does not define these states. | Illustrative |
| M&A readiness score (4 of 5 green) | Illustrative composite. Rubric follows five diligence domains commonly used in 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 work at your company: Book a 30-minute call →