Our deck, read through the Clarity Central framework

Why did you pick AI readiness for a GTM capstone?

Angle: It's the one change every PortCo is making at the same time, and nobody has a shared playbook for it yet. The survey let the portfolio tell us where to focus instead of guessing.

Appspace is 65 of the 168 responses. Isn't this really Appspace's survey?

Angle: Claim: the conclusion holds without them. Proof: the top value levers rank the same at every one of the six companies, and results are published by company so each PortCo can read its own slice. Hand to Megan if they push further.

Is a self-reported survey strong enough to build a program on?

Angle: It's a baseline, not a verdict. The value is that it's one instrument across six companies, so the comparisons are fair. The Engine uses the same survey as its recurring diagnostic, so the baseline improves every time we run it.

Who actually answered? Leaders or the front line?

Angle: Mostly the front line: 114 of 168 are individual contributors. That's deliberate, because they're the people running AI in the workflow every day.

What does the Pichai quote have to do with a sales team?

Angle: It sets the scale. The Cisco point makes it concrete: agents already use about 450% more bandwidth than people doing the same work. The rest of the talk is what that means for GTM teams.

If 74% use AI daily, isn't adoption already a success?

Angle: Usage is a success. Consistency isn't. Only 16% of teams use standardized approaches, and the top friction is inconsistent output at 42%. Busy isn't the same as effective.

People can learn AI on their own. Why does formal training matter?

Angle: They are learning on their own, and that's the problem: 69% can't easily find what their peers built, so the same prompt gets rebuilt in every team. Use the ESO RevOps quote as your example.

How do you know 3.51 out of 5 is low? Compared to what?

Angle: Don't defend the number on its own. Pair it: people rate their understanding at 3.5 but use AI daily. They're confident enough to use it and not confident enough to trust it, which is why 61% name quality and accuracy as their top concern.

Isn't security the bigger risk?

Angle: The respondents ranked it second. 95 people named quality and accuracy, 49 named security. Governance is built into the Exchange either way.

How did you place each company on the maturity stages?

Angle: From each company's survey results: how standardized their teams are, how clear governance is, and how discoverable shared work is. It's directional, and the placement updates each time the survey is rerun.

Isn't this just AKKR's maturity model with new labels?

Angle: Built independently from the survey data (the group's Sept 3 call was to keep it separate). If they see the overlap, that's a good sign. Two views arrived at the same place.

Training ranked last. So are you telling us not to invest in training?

Angle: No. Training is how you deliver the shared assets, not the headline. That's why Process A exists: every module is built on an approved play. People asked for playbooks, and the Engine is how they learn to use them.

Why is no one Standardized? Is that a failure?

Angle: It's the opportunity. It means the portfolio can move together, and the first PortCo across the line becomes the model for the rest.

Does 49% average top-three selection really count as strong demand?

Angle: The strength is how consistent it is, not how big. The same four levers hold the same order at all six companies, across very different business models. That rarely happens in a survey.

How much time does this ask of people?

Angle: It fits the budget people gave us: most said 1 to 4 hours a month. Modules are 20 minutes, one a week, reinforced in manager 1:1s. Time was the number one barrier (84 of 159), so we designed around it.

We've all rolled out training nobody finished. What makes this different?

Angle: Three things: it's embedded in onboarding and SKO rather than added on top, every module runs a real workflow on a live deal, and graduating means publishing a play, which gives people a reason to finish. Then tell the Abrigo task force story.

Who owns this? Enablement, RevOps, or IT?

Angle: The respondents were split: cross-functional team 57, sales enablement 53, IT 22. Recommend enablement as the owner, with a cross-functional group vetting the plays.

What do the badges actually get someone?

Angle: Recognition, and they create pull. Managers reinforce them in 1:1s, and the badge is what qualifies someone to contribute to the Exchange.

How do you prove it's working in 90 days?

Angle: Path completion by role, badges issued, plays contributed by graduates, and the change in confidence and consistency scores on the next survey.

Isn't this just a SharePoint folder or a Notion page?

Angle: The tool matters less than the process. It's tool-agnostic on purpose. What makes it work is screen, score, and approve before anything is published, so people trust what they find. A folder without vetting is how you get 69% who can't find anything.

Who vets the submissions, and doesn't that turn into a bottleneck?

Angle: Name an owner per function and keep scoring light. Governance is the first pillar because trust is the whole point. Keep the lane fast, or people go back to building in private.

Why would busy reps contribute anything?

Angle: Contributing is the graduation step in the Engine, managers reinforce it, and contributors get recognized. Tell the VisiQuate story as proof that it's already happening.

What about data security and prompts with customer data?

Angle: Approval includes a governance check. 79% of respondents already say they understand their company's AI policy, so the Exchange builds on rules they know.

How is this different from each vendor's own prompt library?

Angle: Those libraries are generic. Ours holds our plays, on our systems, already proven on our deals. The survey asked for team-specific playbooks (65%), not generic prompts.

Where do these ROI numbers come from? They look high.

Angle: Say it before they do: only the time-reclaimed lever uses Kantata's real inputs. The other three use shared illustrative defaults. The calculator exists so each PortCo can plug in its own numbers, and nobody has to take ours.

8.5x ROI and a 3.3-month payback. What's the catch?

Angle: Adoption. The model assumes people use it, which is exactly what the two processes are designed to drive. Offer to walk through the inputs live.

Why are VisiQuate and ESO not run yet?

Angle: (Fix before Monday, or remove the row.) If it's still open: the inputs are pending, and we'll send updated numbers after the session.

Time saved doesn't pay the bills. Where does revenue show up?

Angle: Time reclaimed is the floor, and it pays for the program on its own. Revenue upside comes from win rate and ramp: getting new hires productive four weeks sooner is real pipeline.

What should a PortCo do first, Monday morning?

Angle: Run the survey. It tells you your stage, and your stage tells you whether to start with the Engine or the Exchange.

If we could fund only one of the two, which would it be?

Angle: Follow the sequencing rule: where training gaps are wide and governance clarity is low, start with the Engine; everywhere else, start with the Exchange. They compound, so the second one gets cheaper once the first is running.