For VPs of Product and Engineering at Growth-Stage Companies
The 2-Week Diagnostic That Reveals Why Your Product Team Can't Deliver – And The Blueprint That Fixes It
Product teams fail to deliver for reasons that are invisible from inside the organization.
Missed sprints. Delayed releases. Constant firefighting.
Leadership sees the symptoms. They try the obvious fixes – push harder, hire more people, implement new frameworks.
Nothing works.
Here's why: the problem isn't effort or talent or process. It's that the system preventing delivery can't be diagnosed from inside it.
That's where I come in.
I diagnose why product teams fail to deliver. In two weeks, I'll show you exactly what's broken and what to do next.
Want to understand this approach before we talk? Join my newsletter to learn how I think about diagnosing product team failures.
The Forensic Delivery Diagnostic: How I Find Root Causes No One Inside Your Organization Can See
Most consultants attend a few meetings and make recommendations based on what people tell them.
I don't do that.
I spend two weeks inside your organization combining five investigation methods to understand what's actually happening – not what people think is happening.
The gap between those two things is where delivery problems live.
I've spent 20+ years diagnosing delivery failures across technology, healthcare, manufacturing, and education. Different contexts, same systemic patterns.
That pattern recognition is what lets me see in two weeks what teams can't see in two years.
Week 1: Investigation
Meeting observation reveals invisible patterns
I sit in sprint planning, daily standups, backlog grooming, retrospectives, product reviews, design critiques, and architecture discussions.
I'm not there to participate. I'm there to observe.
At Stride, the team spent 8 hours a day in "productive" Zoom meetings. But when I looked at the data, something else emerged: zero time for actual deep work. That's why their defect rate was 80%.
The meetings felt productive but destroyed the team's ability to do actual work.
So leadership finally understood why the team was mistaking motion for progress – and what was really preventing delivery.
Communication analysis shows where information breaks down
I analyze how teams actually communicate:
Code review comments (Are reviews thorough or rushed? Constructive or defensive?)
Slack or Teams messages in public channels (How do teams coordinate? Where does friction appear?)
Private channels if granted access (What's being said behind closed doors?)
Email threads related to delivery and blockers
At one company, engineers were publicly agreeing to deadlines while privately expressing that the timelines were impossible. Leadership had no idea.
Process investigation uncovers hidden bottlenecks
I dig into work management systems – Jira, Linear, Asana, whatever's being used.
Looking for:
How work actually flows vs. how it's supposed to flow
Where tickets get stuck and why
How long work sits waiting between steps
Where bottlenecks appear in the pipeline
The data shows patterns people can't see when managing individual tickets day to day. One VP thought the biggest bottleneck was engineering capacity. The data showed it was actually unclear requirements from product – tickets sat for days waiting for clarification.
Data analysis proves what's really broken
I analyze delivery metrics:
Cycle time (how long work takes from start to finish)
Value flow duration (how long value sits waiting between steps)
Throughput trends (shipping more or less over time)
Defect rates and rework patterns
Sprint goal achievement rates
Numbers don't lie.
If cycle time is 6 weeks when it should be 5 days, something specific is broken. If 60% of engineering time is spent on rework, the problem isn't effort – it's process.
Team interviews surface what leadership can't see
I talk individually with engineers, designers, product managers, and QA team members.
These conversations are confidential.
The goal is to understand:
What they're experiencing that leadership doesn't see
The gap between their perception and what the data shows
Problems they're not comfortable raising publicly
What they think is broken and why
One engineer told me: "We're coding before we understand what we're building." That single insight unlocked the entire diagnostic.
The combination of what people SAY (in meetings and interviews) with what they actually DO (in code reviews, tickets, and data) reveals root causes others miss.
That's the difference between a consultant who makes surface recommendations and a diagnostic that shows exactly what to fix.
Week 2: Analysis & Blueprint Delivery
I spend the second week analyzing everything I've learned and building the roadmap.
The deliverables:
1. Comprehensive Written Diagnostic Report
The report identifies:
Root causes of delivery failures (not just symptoms)
What's actually broken in team dynamics, processes, leadership, and culture
Specific data showing the patterns (not opinions or guesses)
Step-by-step blueprint for getting back on track with prioritized actions
One client said the report was "the first time someone showed us what was actually wrong instead of telling us to work harder."
2. Live Findings Presentation
We meet (in person or via Zoom) to walk through the findings and answer questions.
This is where we discuss what I found, why it's happening, and what the blueprint will accomplish.
Most teams have an "oh shit" moment during this presentation when they realize how obvious the problem was – and how impossible it was to see from inside.
3. 30 Days of Email Support
After delivery, there will be questions as the findings are reviewed and implementation is planned.
I'm available via email for 30 days to answer them.
Ready to discuss your team? Schedule a conversation
A Real Example: How This Works
A large educational technology company came to me when their "Career as a Platform" product team was in crisis.
They were 5 months behind schedule with nothing shipped. Their defect rate was 80% – only 1 in 5 features actually worked. Engineering efficiency was at 20% of capacity.
The team was spending 8 hours per day in synchronous Zoom meetings, with product defining requirements while design created visuals and engineering wrote code – all simultaneously.
Complete chaos.
Leadership knew something was broken. They'd tried everything: pushed the team harder, extended hours, hired more engineers. Nothing improved.
They couldn't see what I saw in Week 1.
The diagnostic revealed the root cause:
I observed their meetings, analyzed their Slack messages and code reviews, investigated their Jira data, and interviewed the team.
The data told a clear story:
Average cycle time was 4-6 weeks per ticket when it should have been 3-5 days
60% of engineering capacity was spent on rework from unclear requirements
The team had no space for deep work or quality thinking
Everyone was confusing motion with progress
The problem wasn't effort or talent.
It was that synchronous chaos prevented anyone from actually thinking or producing quality work.
Product couldn't plan ahead because they were defining requirements in real-time. Design couldn't iterate because they were creating visuals in 30-minute windows. Engineering couldn't focus because they were coding without clear specifications.
The 8 hours of daily meetings felt productive but destroyed their ability to do actual work.
The blueprint I delivered:
Restructure work into sequential phases (product → design → engineering) so each discipline had space to think. (Not waterfall, but agile loops with teams working in parallel once the system was up and running.)
Reduce meeting time from 8 hours/day to ~20% of time.
Create clear definition of done at each phase.
Implement async communication for coordination.
Set up metrics to measure cycle time and rework.
Results within 90 days:
3x productivity increase.
Cycle time: 6 weeks → 5 days (8x improvement).
Defect rate: 80% → 30% (continuing to improve).
Team actually shipping quality features on schedule.
The team went from exhausted and demoralized to energized and confident.
That's what happens when you can finally see what's actually broken.
Want to see if this approach fits your situation? Schedule a conversation
Another Example: When Trust Breaks Down
CoinDesk, a cryptocurrency media company, came to me when the relationship between Product, Engineering, and the rest of the company had completely broken down.
There was no trust left.
Engineering would commit to work, and then nothing would ship. It was taking nine months to do work that should have taken a few weeks.
From leadership's perspective, Engineering was the problem.
From Engineering's perspective, they were constantly getting blamed for things that weren't their fault. They were working incredibly hard, working very long hours, and trying to deliver without much support.
Leadership had made some mistakes. They'd hired a Chief Product Officer who mandated a disastrous platform migration. This led to all of Product and several key engineers quitting.
Then, after firing the CPO, they brought in consultants as product managers who didn't really know what they were doing.
Then a product leader who made things worse by breaking the group into pods – the same play from their previous company.
All this did was slow down the team and make it impossible for engineers to take time off, for teams to collaborate, or for value to get delivered.
The diagnostic revealed the root causes:
On day one, I walked straight into sprint planning and watched the disaster unfold.
Product had failed – in what turned out to be a repeated pattern – to deliver clear requirements. Engineering tried to figure out requirements themselves, but that wasn't their discipline or skill set.
The problems were everywhere:
Jira tickets lacked clear requirements and acceptance criteria
Code reviews were inadequate because pods didn't have the right skills
The false boundaries created by pods prevented collaboration
Perfunctory standing meetings wasted time when real work could have been done
Key decisions weren't getting made – they kept getting tabled "until the next meeting"
No automated testing (unit tests or front-end tests) causing constant quality issues
But really, the linchpin was this: lack of a clear strategy, vision, and mission, and the lack of good leadership who could make a decision, own the consequences, and then learn and iterate from both success and failure.
The blueprint addressed all of it:
Clear strategy and mission definition. Restructured decision-making authority. Removed pod boundaries that prevented collaboration. Established clear requirements and acceptance criteria standards. Implemented automated testing. Created space for real work instead of perfunctory meetings.
Results within 90 days:
3x productivity increase. People going home by 5pm on Friday instead of working weekends. Increased employee morale and retention. Fewer fires to put out. Engineering and Product relationship rebuilt on trust and clear communication.
Most importantly: the team could finally build new and better things because they were no longer wasting time on solvable problems that had plagued them for months.
Same diagnostic process. Different context. Predictable results.
What Leadership Discovers
By the end of the diagnostic, leadership knows things no one inside the organization could see:
The invisible systemic pattern that makes every fix fail
Not surface symptoms like "we need better communication" but the actual systemic issues. Maybe meetings prevent deep work. Maybe the process creates unnecessary handoffs. Maybe decision-making authority is unclear.
At Stride, everyone thought the problem was that they needed to "move faster." The real problem was that they had no space to think. Speed was impossible without clarity first.
At the crypto media company, everyone thought the problem was pod structure. The real problem was lack of clear strategy and leadership decision-making. The pods were just a symptom.
Why "best practices" might actually be destroying productivity
Frameworks have been implemented that should work. Scrum, SAFe, Kanban, pods. They're not working.
Here's why: frameworks don't fix broken systems. They often make them worse by adding overhead to an already dysfunctional process.
The diagnostic reveals which practices are helping and which are hurting – backed by data.
The gap between what teams say publicly and what they believe privately
Teams tell leadership one thing and believe something else. That gap costs weeks of wasted effort on the wrong priorities.
At one company, the public stance was "We can hit this deadline." The private Slack channels told a different story: "This timeline is impossible but no one wants to say it." Leadership was blindsided when the deadline was missed.
Why previous fixes didn't work – and what actually needs to change
Hiring a new PM didn't work because the PM inherited the same broken system. Pushing harder didn't work because effort wasn't the constraint. Implementing a new framework didn't work because the framework couldn't see what was actually broken.
The diagnostic shows exactly what needs to change and why.
What to fix first and why – prioritized by impact and feasibility
Not everything is equally important. The blueprint prioritizes based on what will have the biggest impact fastest.
Exactly what to tackle first, second, and third – with clear rationale for why that sequence matters.
How to measure if it's working – within weeks, not months
The same data used to diagnose the problem becomes the measurement system.
Clear metrics showing improvement or revealing what needs adjustment. No guessing. No "let's give it a few months and see."
Not ready to commit to a diagnostic yet? Get my newsletter to see how I think about these problems.
Is This Right For Your Situation?
This diagnostic is designed for:
Organizations where product teams consistently miss delivery commitments despite strong talent and adequate resources. Leadership knows something is fundamentally broken but can't pinpoint what. Previous attempts to fix it haven't worked.
This probably isn't right if:
The team is hitting goals consistently – just looking for incremental improvement. Looking for someone to implement solutions (that's implementation support, not diagnostic). Need help tomorrow (diagnostic takes 2-4 weeks to complete).
The right time is when:
Multiple delivery commitments have been missed and stakeholder trust is eroding. Hiring, firing, and process changes have been tried without improvement. There's willingness to look at systemic issues instead of blaming individuals.
If this sounds like the situation, let's talk.
What This Requires
Access during Week 1:
Calendar invites to team meetings. Read access to communication tools (Slack, Teams, email if relevant). Read access to work management system (Jira, Linear, etc.). Read access to code repository for review comments. Access to any metrics dashboards already tracked.
The more access provided, the more accurate the diagnosis.
But work is possible with whatever is comfortable to share.
Minimum requirement: meetings, work management system, and team interviews.
Time from the team:
30-60 minute individual interviews with key team members. Leadership availability for findings presentation. Willingness to share actual data (even if it's embarrassing).
Confidentiality commitment:
Individual conversations remain confidential. The report focuses on patterns and systems – never naming individuals or sharing private conversations. If private channel access is granted, that's never disclosed in the final report.
Total disruption to the team:
Minimal. Most investigation happens without interrupting anyone's work.
What Happens When You Start
Day 1: We meet (Zoom or in-person) for 60-90 minutes. Discussion of delivery challenges, what's been tried, and what access can be provided. A diagnostic plan customized to the situation.
Day 2-3: Access is granted and calendar invites are sent. Meeting observation and data analysis begins. The team continues normal work – most won't even notice.
Week 1, Days 4-10: Deep investigation across all five methods. Clarifying questions via Slack or email as needed. Confidential interviews conducted toward the end of the week.
Week 2: Analysis of findings and blueprint building. The written diagnostic report is delivered 24-48 hours before the live presentation.
Presentation Day: Meeting to review findings. This is where most teams have their "now we see it" moment. Discussion of next steps based on what the diagnostic revealed.
Simple. Structured. Low disruption to the team.
The Investment
Imagine cutting delivery time from 6 weeks to 5 days.
Tripling team output.
Finally shipping features on schedule instead of making excuses to stakeholders.
Bringing in McKinsey would cost $50K-$200K and take 6 months. They'd interview people, write a report, and leave. You'd still be guessing at what to do.
Hiring a new VP of Product costs $200K+ in salary alone – and they'll inherit the same broken system. The same conversation will be happening in six months.
Continuing as-is costs a quarter of missed revenue. Burned trust with investors and customers. A demoralized team that's close to burnout.
The complete 2-week Forensic Delivery Diagnostic: $14,997
For less than what a single missed quarter costs in lost revenue and burned trust:
Comprehensive written diagnostic revealing root causes (not symptoms) with specific data proving the patterns.
Live findings presentation with leadership Q&A to understand not just what's broken but why it's happening and what it means.
Step-by-step implementation blueprint prioritized by impact showing exactly what to fix first, second, and third.
30 days of email support as findings are reviewed and implementation is planned.
Complete data analysis showing exactly what's broken and how to measure improvement – so there's clarity on whether changes are working within weeks.
Guarantee: If I don't identify at least three fixable root causes backed by your own data, full refund. No questions asked.
More than that: if the diagnostic doesn't provide more clarity on what's broken than any previous attempt to solve this, I don't want your money.
This only works if the reaction is "now I finally understand what's actually wrong."
I believe in this process enough to bear all the risk.
Important: I only take 8 diagnostics per quarter. Current availability: 3 remaining spots for Q1 2026.
Results like Stride's and CoinDesk's are why I'm booked 8 weeks out. If your team needs this now, we should talk before Q1 fills up.
Lock in your diagnostic spot for Q1 2026 Schedule your conversation now
What Happens After the Diagnostic
Once you have the diagnostic report and blueprint, there are three options:
Option 1: Implement it yourself
Some organizations have the internal capability to execute the blueprint. Take the roadmap and run with it using your own team.
Option 2: Delegate it internally
Assign someone on the team (or hire someone) to lead implementation based on the blueprint.
Option 3: Engage me for implementation support
Most clients choose this option.
The diagnostic usually reveals problems that require outside expertise to fix – not because the team isn't capable, but because the same system that created the problems can't easily rebuild itself.
Implementation typically takes 3-6 months and involves designing new processes, running workshops with teams, coaching leaders through changes, and measuring results against the baseline data from the diagnostic.
We can discuss these options during the findings presentation. No pressure to decide immediately.
Common Questions
"Will you be reading our private Slack messages?"
Only if access is granted, and only to identify patterns – not to judge individual conversations.
The focus is on systemic issues: Are teams blocked and not saying so publicly? Are there communication breakdowns between departments? Is information flowing where it needs to?
Everything seen remains confidential. The report focuses on patterns and systems, never naming individuals or sharing private conversations.
"Do we have to give you access to everything?"
No.
The more access provided, the more accurate the diagnosis. But work is possible with whatever is comfortable to share.
Minimum requirement: meetings, work management system, and team interviews.
Ideal: plus communication tools and any metrics already tracked.
If there are areas that can't be shared due to confidentiality, we'll work around them.
"What if the data is embarrassing?"
Good. That means we'll find the real problems.
I've seen every dysfunction imaginable. The goal isn't to judge – it's to diagnose and fix.
The more honest the data, the more valuable the diagnostic becomes.
"How is this different from hiring another PM or bringing in a consultant?"
A new PM inherits the same broken system and sees the same surface problems everyone else sees. They'll implement fixes that don't address root causes.
I've watched this happen. Companies hire a strong PM thinking that will solve everything. Six months later, the PM is frustrated because nothing improved. The problem wasn't the PM – it was the system.
Generic consultants attend a few meetings and make surface recommendations. They don't dig into Slack, analyze Jira data, or understand the gap between what people say and what they do.
This diagnostic is forensic.
I combine behavioral observation with data analysis to find root causes – not symptoms. And I bring 20+ years of pattern recognition across multiple industries and team types.
I've seen this pattern at technology companies, healthcare organizations, manufacturing operations, and educational institutions. The contexts are different but the systemic failures follow predictable patterns.
"Why can't we figure this out ourselves?"
It's impossible to see your own dysfunction from inside.
Being too close to the problem. Not having access to the patterns I've seen across dozens of teams. Not being able to objectively analyze your own Slack messages, meeting dynamics, and work patterns.
It's like trying to read the label from inside the bottle.
Your team is smart. Your leadership is capable. But you're operating inside a system that has invisible constraints. You need someone who can see the whole system from outside.
That's what this diagnostic does.
Two Paths From Here
Path 1: Keep Trying What Hasn't Worked
The team stays months behind schedule. Excuses keep getting made to stakeholders. Budget gets burned on fixes that don't address root causes. Best people get frustrated and leave. In six months, you're having this same conversation – or worse.
The system won't fix itself.
Path 2: Finally See What's Actually Broken
In two weeks, you have data-backed clarity on what's actually wrong. You have a blueprint showing exactly what to fix first. You can measure improvement within weeks. The team sees that leadership finally understands the real problem. In 90 days, you're shipping on schedule.
This isn't just about faster delivery.
This is about becoming the leader who can see what others miss. Who can diagnose root causes instead of guessing at symptoms. Who can fix what's actually broken instead of applying band-aids to surface problems.
The leader the team trusts to make changes that actually work – because you understand what's happening at a systems level, not just what's visible on the surface.
The team wants to deliver. They're not failing because they don't care or don't know how.
They're failing because the system prevents them from doing good work.
Fix the system, and everything changes.
Ready to diagnose what's broken? Let's start a conversation
Want to learn more first? Join my newsletter to see how I think about product team delivery problems.
Learn How to Fix Failing Teams
Learn to recognize what's actually breaking your team's delivery before it costs you months of missed deadlines. See patterns invisible from inside your organization.
Find Your Way Forward
Find Your Way Forward
© 2025 Fieldway - All Rights Reserved
Springfield, Missouri, USA
Springfield, Missouri, USA
© 2025 Fieldway - All Rights Reserved