The deck for the person who was not on the call
A short overview built for forwarding: the thesis, the model, who does the work, and how an engagement runs, so the person who needs to sign off does not have to reconstruct it from a summary email.
Decisions rarely get made on one call
Somebody who was not in the room usually has to approve this, and a summary email loses most of what made the case persuasive.
Most capability centre decisions involve someone who was not on the first conversation: a CFO, a board member, a co-founder travelling that week. This deck is built for that person specifically, structured so it stands on its own without a narrator.
It covers the same material as a first conversation: why the model exists, what changed to make it viable at smaller scale, who would actually do the work, and what the first six months look like. Nothing in it requires having heard the pitch first.
The sections of the deck
The thesis
Why scale stopped being the precondition for a capability centre, and what specifically changed to make a small owned team viable.
The model
How a Nano GCC differs from a traditional GCC, a staffing arrangement and outsourced development, on the dimensions that actually matter.
Who does the work
Named leadership with what each person is accountable for, not a generic organisation chart.
The launch roadmap
A week by week view of the first six months, from entity formation to a named system transferring on a named date.
The economics
How the cost structure behaves at small scale, and why cost per delivered outcome is the number that matters.
Where we operate
The cities we hire in, and how we choose between them for a given engagement.
Deliberately not a sales deck
The deck states the same caveats we state on a call, including when the model does not fit.
- States plainly when a Nano GCC is not the right structure, and what is
- Includes the failure modes we see most often, not only the success cases
- Names real people and their accountabilities rather than stock photography
- Gives fully loaded cost ranges rather than a headline savings percentage
- Ends with next steps rather than a countdown timer or urgency copy
Why that matters for the internal conversation. A deck that only argues one direction reads as marketing to a CFO who has seen a hundred of them. One that states the caveats reads as something that was actually thought through, which is what gets it forwarded rather than filed.
Built to be sent, not just read
To a co-founder or CFO
Who needs the economics and the risk profile without sitting through the call that produced them.
To a board
Where the ask needs to stand on a page rather than depend on the presenter s memory of the conversation.
To yourself, in three months
Business cases get revisited. A deck with the reasoning in it survives better than a memory of a good call.
Frequently asked questions
Is this the same as the business case template?
No. The business case template is a working cost model you fill in with your own numbers. This deck is a narrative overview of the company and the model, meant to be read or forwarded rather than filled in.
Can I share this with my board?
Yes, that is what it is built for. It is written to stand alone without a presenter, and it states our position on cost, risk and fit honestly rather than only making the positive case.
Does it include pricing?
It includes fully loaded cost ranges and the variables that move them, rather than a fixed rate card, because a rate card without context is the least useful number in this decision.
How current is it?
It is maintained alongside the rest of the site and reflects our current model, team and operating cities. If something material changes, the deck changes with it.
Do we need to talk to you before requesting it?
No. It is a first step for exactly the situation where you have not talked to us yet and need something to hand to someone else.
Related reading
Request the deck
Tell us who needs to see it and we will send a copy along with anything specific to your situation worth adding.