Meeting Notes

Timed Dress Rehearsal: Cutting Words, Moving One Slide

Our first timed, slides-up run of the full talk, a few days before the run-through with Mike Foley. Every section ran long. Janine came in near 2:30, Aaron at 3:25, Megan over her mark, and Mark on target at 2:10. The message holds, so the work now is to cut words, not ideas. The biggest structural change: the value-levers slide moves from Aaron to Megan and becomes the bridge from the maturity model into the two processes. Word from other groups is that Mike's main note is too many words on slides, so wordy slides move to the appendix and slimmer versions go on stage.

Who was there

Aaron joined about ten minutes in after trouble getting into the meeting, and his audio and video dropped a few times. He was in a public space. Susan's section came after the recording ended.

The approach we agreed on

• Janine: hide the quote slide (6) and move it to the appendix. Slide 7, the three focus areas, is the frame for the whole talk and her strongest slide.
• Janine: trim the Jensen Huang line to "AI is infrastructure" and drop the second half, which merged two quotes. Skip survey detail in the opening, since Aaron covers it.
• Keep hidden slide 8 (survey overview) as Aaron's backdrop for the transition into the paradox, pared down to the essentials.
• Paradox slide: drop the 79% governance stat because it works against our message. Keep three stats on the slide.
• Fragmentation slide (white, slide 10): rebuild the three boxes around the three points from Aaron's script, which are inconsistent execution, duplicated effort and fragmented investment, and increased commercial risk. The script was stronger than what is on the slide.
• Maturity slide: talk to the bolded Standardized box instead of walking all four stages.
• On the levers slide, say it simply: people need to know where to go, what to use, and how to use it (Aaron's suggestion).
• Mark's talk track works as is. His slides need fewer words.

Working Session: First Live Run-Through & the ROI Calculator

Melissa put the team on the spot and ran the whole deck cold, start to finish, with no scripts and no warning. It worked: the story holds together, but the running order does not. Out came the agenda slide, the two processes swapped places, the flywheel moved to the close, and Melissa unveiled a new third deliverable, an ROI calculator each PortCo can run with its own numbers.

Who was there

Megan was out; Melissa is sending her the recording and the transcript, and several open questions are parked for her. Janine joined a few minutes in. Aaron dialled in from an airport with no Google Drive access after an IT laptop swap, and Mark still cannot upload to Drive from his work device.

The approach we agreed on

• Cut the agenda slide. Janine sets the agenda verbally with energy instead, on the “presentation hammock” principle that attention is highest at the open and the close.
• Reorder the deck: one slide naming both processes, then Process B (enablement engine), then Process A (knowledge exchange).
• Move the flywheel to the end of Mark’s section as the handoff into ROI, and show it stripped of its layered infographic when it first appears.
• Everyone drops their script into the new “Presentation Script” doc in the shared folder, then the combined doc gets run through AI to find duplicate or overlapping content.
• Rule of three per slide: make one point land with a story, let the rest of the slide speak for itself, and push the detail into the appendix.
• Janine opens on facts and thought leadership, Melissa closes on ROI, and the middle three sections carry the stories.
• Melissa prepares both a long-form and a one-minute close so a squeezed ending still lands.
• Use real PortCo proof points on stage: Abrigo’s new AI task force, badges and certifications for the enablement engine; VisiQuate’s work for the knowledge exchange.

Working Session — Draft Framework & Section Ownership

Megan brought a full first-draft presentation framework — built by feeding all our survey data, AI results, peer-group examples and the capstone guidelines into Claude, then broken into timed, per-speaker sections. The team validated the structure, divided up the speaking parts, and set the deck up as a shared working document to refine over the next few weeks.

Who was there

Melissa and Ken were absent; the 30-minute recording goes to Melissa to review and confirm her section. Mark joined remotely from Yellowstone. Opened with quick team check-ins.

The approach we agreed on

• Use Megan’s Claude-built framework as the spine — it already breaks the 15-minute talk into timed, per-speaker sections with slides mapped to each.
• Each person owns and builds their own section; word-smithing and graphics come later — lock the topics and flow now.
• Keep it to ~2–3 minutes per speaker (15 minutes total) to leave room for rapid Q&A.
• Company recommendations: AppSpace, Salesforce and VisiQuate start with enablement (Process B); the rest already have governance in hand and are ready for the knowledge exchange (Process A) first.
• Ground the findings section in the survey data — AI adopted faster than the org can absorb, everyone building in private, and shared assets top the wish list — and keep the per-company AKKR data in the appendix.

Working Session — Approach & Direction

Reviewed the AI Readiness Survey results and locked our capstone direction: build a GTM-specific AI maturity model, then deep-dive the knowledge-sharing and enablement levers that move a team up a stage.

Who was there

Mark and Janine joined for the first half. Opened with team check-ins and congratulations to Mark on his promotion to General Manager, Strategic Accounts.

The approach we agreed on

• Anchor everything on the four-stage maturity model and reuse AKKR’s stage language so our work reads as an additive AI layer, not a competing model.
• The flagship deep-dive is knowledge sharing and enablement — the biggest gap in the data (69% can’t discover or reuse others’ work; 43% had no training).
• Keep it tool-agnostic and grounded in our own survey data so it stays defensible and not commoditized.
• Frame value as strategic alignment (Stage 3 = AI tied to business goals), not raw efficiency — we’re in the messy middle and still burning tokens on learning.
• Ship a self-assessment toolkit in the appendix so any PortCo can place itself on the matrix.