Operational Design & Revenue Architecture
Revenue systems that actually survive contact with reality. Designed by an operator who has lived with the consequences in production environments.
The Problem with Theoretical Design
Most revenue process design is done on a whiteboard by consultants who never have to execute it.
They build complex flowcharts that look great in a slide deck.
Six-stage approval chains. Elegant Swimlane diagrams. Colour-coded ownership matrices.
Then a sales rep tries to use it.
The process breaks on day one.
Because the person who designed it never sat in a revenue team standup. Never watched a deal stall because the handoff logic didn't account for how Finance actually works. Never had to explain to a CRO why the forecasting model they signed off on is producing numbers nobody trusts.
Theoretical design creates operational debt.
It looks like progress. It feels like structure. But underneath, it's a system designed for a presentation, not for production.
The gap between the whiteboard and reality is where most revenue architecture fails.
Architecture for Operating Leverage
I design revenue systems informed by having built, owned, and lived with them in production environments.
That changes everything about the design.
When you've been the person responsible for a broken forecast, a failed handoff, or a billing workflow that doesn't reconcile, you design differently. You anticipate the failure modes. You build governance into the structure, not as an afterthought.
My focus is architecture, data governance, and strict rules of engagement.
Not best practice frameworks copied from a playbook. Not theoretical process maps that assume perfect inputs. Real operating systems that account for how people actually behave under pressure.
The goal is long-term operating leverage.
Systems that compound in value over time, rather than creating maintenance overhead that drags your RevOps team into permanent firefighting mode.
I apply execution only where it accelerates progress or prevents costly mistakes. Not as a substitute for internal ownership.
The structural decisions and architecture come from Nicholas. Day-to-day implementation is owned by your internal team, with validation at each stage to prevent costly missteps. The goal is capability transfer, not dependency.
Systems Designed for Production, Not Presentations
Every engagement is shaped by what your business actually requires. But the core deliverables typically fall into four areas:
- GTM process architecture — End-to-end revenue workflow design from lead through to cash. Clear ownership at every stage. Rules of engagement that Sales, Marketing, CS, and Finance can all operate within.
- CPQ & billing workflows — Quote-to-cash system design that eliminates manual handoffs and creates a single source of truth between your CRM and billing engine. Built around your commercial model, not a vendor's assumptions.
- Cross-functional handoffs — The points where deals die and data breaks. Handoff design between SDR and AE, Sales and CS, Sales and Finance — with explicit criteria, automated triggers, and clear accountability.
- Forecast governance models — Stage definitions with observable exit criteria. Pipeline hygiene frameworks. Commit methodology that leadership can actually trust. Not a dashboard overlay — a governance layer.
The output is an operating model your team can own and evolve.
Not a slide deck that collects dust.
Stop Building for the Whiteboard.
Let's design an operating model that your team can actually use.
Book Intro Call