The advisory practice covers two engagements: the Strategic Baseline Workshop and the Strategic Breakpoint Analysis. Both are designed for organizations where the strategy is already functioning. The work is diagnostic — the output is clarity about the strategy, not direction for changing it.
The two engagements address different questions. The first: does the leadership team have a shared, explicit account of what the strategy actually is? The second: where in that strategy are the structural assumptions most likely to fail? Either question is sufficient reason for an engagement.
The Strategic Formula System, described in full in Eric's book, is the analytical foundation for both engagement types.
Two questions bring people here. The first: do we actually agree on what our strategy is? The second: we know what it is — but where does it stop working?
Some organizations arrive at the first question because the strategy is real and functioning, but has never been formally articulated. Leadership is heading into a major decision, a transition, or a planning cycle. The question is not whether the strategy works — it does. The question is whether the people responsible for executing it are actually describing it the same way. The need is a shared, explicit account of what the strategy is before consequential decisions are made against it.
Others arrive at the second question because the strategy has a track record, but the logic that produced the results feels harder to defend. Execution effort is increasing without producing proportional leverage. Leadership senses fragility somewhere in the structure but cannot say precisely where. The need is to understand clearly — before deciding what to change.
These questions show up across roles — CEOs, founders, board members, COOs, strategy owners — wherever a strategy that has worked starts to feel less certain under shifting conditions, before anyone can say exactly why.
Either situation describes the right conditions for an engagement here.
These are not restrictions. They are a description of what the work is designed to do. A reader whose situation appears above is better served by leaving than by inquiring.
One engagement builds the baseline. The other examines where that baseline stops holding.
The Strategic Baseline Workshop is for organizations that need a structured, explicit account of what their strategy actually is — formal enough to serve as a shared foundation before consequential decisions are made against it. The Strategic Breakpoint Analysis is for leaders who already know their strategy but need to understand where it is structurally fragile. Either engagement can be initiated independently. The Strategic Baseline Workshop is not a required precursor to the Strategic Breakpoint Analysis, though the baseline it produces is a natural input to it.
The Strategic Baseline Workshop is an in-person, half-day facilitation with a company's senior leadership team. The output is a written strategic baseline: one document, five sections, owned by the team that built it. Every participant receives a copy of The Strategic Formula.
The output is a baseline the team builds together — not a document delivered to them. It is not a plan. It is not a recommendation. It is a structured, explicit account of what the strategy is.
Full scope, process, and session structure are available using the inquiry form.
The Strategic Breakpoint Analysis produces a formal diagnostic brief. The brief makes explicit where the strategy's logic holds and where it depends on assumptions that may not survive changing conditions. It names the primary structural failure mode — the specific way the strategy would stop working — maps the dependencies that feed it, and states a clear conclusion about what that means for the company's exposure.
The brief does not tell you what to do. It makes clear what you cannot afford to misunderstand.
Full scope, process, and sample output →
Both engagements begin with an intake conversation. It is a fit check, not a pitch. Its purpose is to confirm that the engagement is right for the situation — if it is not, I will say so.
Both require direct involvement from whoever owns the outcome. Neither is designed for a team that will brief a decision-maker afterward.
I take a small number of engagements across both types. That is a structural feature of the work.
If the conditions above describe your situation, I'd like to hear about it. Tell me what you're trying to understand and what's prompting the question now.
