sinapse-ai 1.0.0

package/squad-commercial/checklists/client-onboarding-checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,150 @@
+# Client Onboarding Checklist
+
+## Purpose
+Checklist de onboarding de novo cliente — garante que cada novo cliente tem uma experiência de ativação consistente, profissional e que acelera time-to-value nos primeiros 30 dias.
+
+## Pre-Requisites
+- Contract signed (Closed-Won in CRM)
+- Handoff document from sales received
+- CSM assigned
+
+---
+
+## Phase 1: Pre-Kickoff (Day 0-3)
+
+### Internal Preparation
+- [ ] Review complete discovery notes and proposal
+- [ ] Review signed contract scope and terms
+- [ ] Assign delivery team members
+- [ ] Create account in CRM (CS view)
+- [ ] Initialize Health Score baseline
+- [ ] Set renewal date reminder (90 days before)
+- [ ] Schedule internal onboarding brief with delivery team
+
+### Client Communication
+- [ ] Send welcome email (within 24h of contract)
+- [ ] Introduce CSM and delivery team leads
+- [ ] Share onboarding timeline and next steps
+- [ ] Request access credentials (platforms, accounts, assets)
+- [ ] Send kickoff meeting invitation (within 5 business days)
+- [ ] Share pre-kickoff questionnaire
+
+### Administrative
+- [ ] Create project in project management tool
+- [ ] Set up shared drive/folder for client
+- [ ] Create Slack/Teams channel (if applicable)
+- [ ] Add client contacts to relevant communication lists
+- [ ] Verify billing setup and first invoice scheduled
+
+---
+
+## Phase 2: Kickoff Meeting (Day 3-7)
+
+### Meeting Preparation
+- [ ] Customize kickoff deck with client-specific details
+- [ ] Review pre-kickoff questionnaire responses
+- [ ] Prepare success plan draft
+- [ ] Confirm all stakeholders invited (both sides)
+
+### During Kickoff
+- [ ] Introductions (team members and roles)
+- [ ] Confirm objectives and expected outcomes
+- [ ] Walk through success plan draft
+- [ ] Agree on communication cadence
+- [ ] Define escalation path (both sides)
+- [ ] Review first 30-day milestones
+- [ ] Identify quick-win opportunity
+- [ ] Confirm next meeting date
+
+### Post-Kickoff
+- [ ] Send meeting summary within 24h
+- [ ] Share finalized success plan
+- [ ] Create action items in project management tool
+- [ ] Update CRM with kickoff notes
+- [ ] Begin work on first deliverable
+
+---
+
+## Phase 3: First 30 Days (Day 7-30)
+
+### Week 1-2: Foundation
+- [ ] All access credentials received and verified
+- [ ] Current state audit completed (brand, digital, content, etc.)
+- [ ] Quick-win identified and work started
+- [ ] First weekly sync completed
+- [ ] Client feedback on communication style gathered
+
+### Week 2-3: First Deliverables
+- [ ] Quick-win delivered and celebrated
+- [ ] Primary workstream initiated
+- [ ] First progress report sent
+- [ ] Any issues or blockers escalated and resolved
+- [ ] Client champion relationship deepening
+
+### Week 3-4: Validation
+- [ ] Second weekly sync completed
+- [ ] Client satisfaction check (informal)
+- [ ] Success plan updated with actual progress
+- [ ] Health Score updated with first data points
+- [ ] Stakeholder engagement confirmed (beyond champion)
+
+---
+
+## Phase 4: 30-Day Checkpoint
+
+### Review Meeting
+- [ ] Schedule 30-day review meeting
+- [ ] Prepare progress report vs success plan milestones
+- [ ] Document wins achieved (quantified where possible)
+- [ ] Identify any gaps or concerns
+- [ ] Update Health Score formally
+
+### Assessment
+| Check | Status | Notes |
+|-------|--------|-------|
+| Quick-win delivered | ✅/❌ | |
+| Client satisfaction ≥ 8/10 | ✅/❌ | |
+| Communication cadence established | ✅/❌ | |
+| Health Score ≥ 70 | ✅/❌ | |
+| Success plan milestones on track | ✅/❌ | |
+| No unresolved issues | ✅/❌ | |
+| Champion relationship strong | ✅/❌ | |
+
+### 30-Day Gate Decision
+- [ ] **GREEN** — Onboarding successful, transition to regular cadence
+- [ ] **YELLOW** — Minor gaps, specific action plan for next 30 days
+- [ ] **RED** — Significant issues, escalation required
+
+---
+
+## Handoff Quality Verification
+
+### From Sales (Must Receive)
+- [ ] Discovery notes (SPIN/Gap analysis)
+- [ ] Proposal that was signed (scope definition)
+- [ ] MEDDIC scorecard (stakeholder map, decision process)
+- [ ] Key contacts with roles and preferences
+- [ ] Promises made during sales process (explicit and implied)
+- [ ] Known risks or sensitivities
+- [ ] Client's definition of success (in their words)
+
+### Missing Handoff Information
+If any items above are missing, document here and follow up with sales:
+
+| Missing Item | Impact | Requested From | Date Requested | Date Received |
+|-------------|--------|---------------|---------------|---------------|
+| | | | | |
+
+---
+
+## Completion Sign-Off
+
+**CSM Name:** _________________
+**Account:** _________________
+**Contract Date:** _________________
+**Kickoff Date:** _________________
+**30-Day Review Date:** _________________
+**Health Score at 30 Days:** ___ / 100
+**Onboarding Status:** GREEN / YELLOW / RED
+
+**Sign-Off:** _________________ **Date:** _________

package/squad-commercial/checklists/deal-qualification-checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+# Deal Qualification Checklist
+
+## Purpose
+Gate de qualificação obrigatório antes de investir recursos significativos (proposta, solution design, demo customizada). Baseado em MEDDPICC (8 elementos) com adaptações para contexto de agência.
+
+## Pre-Requisites
+- Discovery call completed
+- CRM record created with basic information
+- Discovery notes documented
+
+---
+
+## MEDDPICC Qualification Gate
+
+### M — Metrics (Quantified Business Impact)
+- [ ] Client articulated specific KPI or goal they want to improve
+- [ ] Baseline metric identified (where they are today)
+- [ ] Target metric defined (where they want to be)
+- [ ] Gap quantified in business terms (R$ or % impact)
+- [ ] Timeline for achieving the metric agreed
+
+**Score:** ___ / 2 (0=Unknown, 1=Identified, 2=Validated with client)
+
+### E — Economic Buyer (Budget Authority)
+- [ ] Economic buyer identified by name and title
+- [ ] Budget authority confirmed (can they sign?)
+- [ ] Budget range discussed or signaled
+- [ ] Economic buyer engaged or meeting scheduled
+- [ ] Budget cycle timing understood
+
+**Score:** ___ / 2
+
+### D — Decision Criteria (How They'll Choose)
+- [ ] Explicit criteria captured (what matters to them)
+- [ ] Criteria ranked by priority
+- [ ] Our solution mapped against their criteria
+- [ ] Potential gaps identified and addressed
+- [ ] Criteria validated with economic buyer (not just champion)
+
+**Score:** ___ / 2
+
+### D — Decision Process (How They'll Decide)
+- [ ] Steps to decision mapped (who, what, when)
+- [ ] All stakeholders identified (names and roles)
+- [ ] Approval process documented (sign-off chain)
+- [ ] Timeline with specific dates (not vague "next quarter")
+- [ ] Procurement/legal requirements known
+
+**Score:** ___ / 2
+
+### P — Paper Process (Procurement)
+- [ ] Contract requirements understood (MSA, SOW, NDA)
+- [ ] Legal review timeline estimated
+- [ ] Procurement team identified (if applicable)
+- [ ] Special requirements (security, compliance, insurance)
+- [ ] Payment terms preferences known
+
+**Score:** ___ / 2
+
+### I — Identify Pain (Compelling Reason to Act)
+- [ ] Pain articulated in client's own words
+- [ ] Pain is current (not hypothetical or future)
+- [ ] Cost of inaction quantified
+- [ ] Pain felt at personal level (not just business)
+- [ ] Urgency to solve confirmed (why now, not next year?)
+
+**Score:** ___ / 2
+
+### C — Champion (Internal Advocate)
+- [ ] Champion identified by name
+- [ ] Champion has access and influence
+- [ ] Champion understands our differentiation
+- [ ] Champion is actively selling internally
+- [ ] Champion relationship tested (will they fight for us?)
+
+**Score:** ___ / 2
+
+### C — Competition (Competitive Landscape)
+- [ ] Alternatives being considered identified
+- [ ] Our position relative to alternatives understood
+- [ ] Client's perception of our differentiation captured
+- [ ] Competitive strategy defined (attack or defend)
+- [ ] Status quo (do nothing) addressed
+
+**Score:** ___ / 2
+
+---
+
+## Qualification Summary
+
+### Total Score
+| Element | Score (0-2) |
+|---------|-------------|
+| Metrics | |
+| Economic Buyer | |
+| Decision Criteria | |
+| Decision Process | |
+| Paper Process | |
+| Identify Pain | |
+| Champion | |
+| Competition | |
+| **TOTAL** | **/16** |
+
+### Decision Matrix
+| Score Range | Qualification | Action |
+|-------------|--------------|--------|
+| 12-16 | **STRONG** | Proceed to proposal — prioritize this deal |
+| 8-11 | **MEDIUM** | Fill gaps before proposal — schedule specific discovery for missing elements |
+| 4-7 | **WEAK** | Re-qualify — return to discovery or move to nurture |
+| 0-3 | **UNQUALIFIED** | Do not invest proposal resources — nurture or disqualify |
+
+### Gate Decision
+- [ ] **GO** — Deal qualifies for proposal/solution design investment
+- [ ] **CONDITIONAL GO** — Proceed, but specific gaps must be filled by [date]
+- [ ] **NO GO** — Return to discovery or move to nurture sequence
+- [ ] **DISQUALIFY** — Remove from active pipeline (document reason)
+
+**Reviewed by:** _________________ **Date:** _________
+**Decision:** _________________

package/squad-commercial/checklists/proposal-quality-checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,161 @@
+# Proposal Quality Checklist
+
+## Purpose
+Gate de qualidade obrigatório antes de enviar qualquer proposta comercial. Garante que cada proposta segue o framework Three-Options, conecta com discovery, e maximiza probabilidade de close.
+
+## Pre-Requisites
+- Deal qualification checklist passed (MEDDPICC ≥ 10/16)
+- Discovery summary completed and reviewed
+- Pricing approved by leadership (if required)
+
+---
+
+## Section A: Discovery Connection (5 points)
+
+- [ ] **(1)** Proposal references specific pains from discovery call
+  - Client's words used, not our jargon
+  - At least 3 specific pain points from discovery mentioned
+
+- [ ] **(1)** Gap analysis included (cost of status quo)
+  - Quantified impact of current state
+  - "If nothing changes, this costs R$X per year"
+
+- [ ] **(1)** Future state description matches client's vision
+  - Uses language the client used in discovery
+  - Measurable outcomes tied to their stated goals
+
+- [ ] **(1)** Decision criteria from MEDDIC addressed
+  - Each stated decision criterion mapped to our approach
+  - No criteria left unaddressed
+
+- [ ] **(1)** Stakeholder concerns pre-addressed
+  - Known concerns from different stakeholders addressed proactively
+  - Technical, business, and personal concerns considered
+
+**Section A Score:** ___ / 5
+
+---
+
+## Section B: Structure & Format (6 points)
+
+- [ ] **(1)** Three-options framework used (Good/Better/Best)
+  - Three distinct options with clear differentiation
+  - Each option solves the core problem (not just more hours)
+
+- [ ] **(1)** Executive summary < 1 page
+  - Compelling, outcome-focused opening
+  - Could stand alone if decision maker only reads this page
+
+- [ ] **(1)** Clear scope per option
+  - "What's INCLUDED" and "What's NOT INCLUDED" explicit
+  - No ambiguity about deliverables
+
+- [ ] **(1)** Timeline with milestones
+  - Phase-by-phase timeline (not just total duration)
+  - Key milestones and check-in points defined
+
+- [ ] **(1)** Team assignment with relevant bios
+  - Specific team members named (not "a senior designer")
+  - Bios highlight relevant experience (not generic resume)
+
+- [ ] **(1)** Professional formatting
+  - No typos, grammar errors, or formatting issues
+  - Brand-consistent design
+  - Client name and details correct throughout
+
+**Section B Score:** ___ / 6
+
+---
+
+## Section C: Value Framing (5 points)
+
+- [ ] **(1)** Investment framed against ROI
+  - "For R$X investment, you can expect R$Y return"
+  - Not just a price list — a business case
+
+- [ ] **(1)** Per-option ROI or value stated
+  - Each option has its own expected outcome and ROI estimate
+  - Higher options show higher ROI (not just higher cost)
+
+- [ ] **(1)** Pricing logic transparent
+  - Value-based (not cost-plus or hourly)
+  - Client understands WHY it costs what it costs
+
+- [ ] **(1)** Comparison to cost of inaction included
+  - "Doing nothing costs you R$X/year in lost [opportunity/revenue]"
+  - Makes the investment feel like a bargain by comparison
+
+- [ ] **(1)** Social proof embedded
+  - At least 1 relevant case study (similar industry/problem/size)
+  - Specific metrics from the case study (not just "they were happy")
+
+**Section C Score:** ___ / 5
+
+---
+
+## Section D: Closing Mechanics (5 points)
+
+- [ ] **(1)** Clear next steps defined
+  - Specific action: "Sign by [date], kickoff by [date]"
+  - Not vague "let us know what you think"
+
+- [ ] **(1)** Urgency element present
+  - Timeline driver (market, capacity, season, budget cycle)
+  - Genuine, not manufactured
+
+- [ ] **(1)** Terms and conditions included
+  - Payment terms clear
+  - Contract duration defined
+  - Cancellation/change terms stated
+
+- [ ] **(1)** Easy to say yes
+  - Signature line or e-sign link
+  - Payment method clear
+  - No barriers to action
+
+- [ ] **(1)** Follow-up cadence planned
+  - When will we follow up after sending
+  - What we'll do if no response by [date]
+  - Not left to chance
+
+**Section D Score:** ___ / 5
+
+---
+
+## Three-Options Audit
+
+### Options Balance
+| Check | ✓/✗ |
+|-------|------|
+| Option 2 (Better) is clearly the recommended choice | |
+| Option 1 (Good) is viable but limited (creates contrast) | |
+| Option 3 (Best) is aspirational but justifiable | |
+| Price gap between options is intentional, not arbitrary | |
+| Each option adds genuine VALUE (not just scope/hours) | |
+| All three options solve the core problem from discovery | |
+| Presentation order: Option 3 → Option 1 → Option 2 (recommended) | |
+
+---
+
+## Quality Gate Decision
+
+### Total Score
+| Section | Score | Max |
+|---------|-------|-----|
+| A: Discovery Connection | | 5 |
+| B: Structure & Format | | 6 |
+| C: Value Framing | | 5 |
+| D: Closing Mechanics | | 5 |
+| **TOTAL** | | **21** |
+
+### Decision
+| Score | Verdict | Action |
+|-------|---------|--------|
+| 18-21 | **Ready to send** | Approve and send |
+| 14-17 | **Minor revisions** | Fix specific items, re-score |
+| 10-13 | **Major revisions** | Significant rework needed |
+| <10 | **Restart** | Proposal needs fundamental restructuring |
+
+**Reviewed by:** _________________ **Date:** _________
+**Score:** ___ / 21
+**Verdict:** _________________

package/squad-commercial/knowledge-base/agency-productization-playbook.md

@@ -0,0 +1,275 @@
+# Agency Productization Playbook
+
+## Why Productize (The Business Case)
+
+### Custom vs Productized Services
+```
+CUSTOM SERVICES:
+  Revenue model: Time & materials (hourly/daily)
+  Pricing: Negotiated per project
+  Scope: Defined per engagement
+  Delivery: Customized each time
+  Margins: 40-55% (variable)
+  Scalability: Linear with headcount
+  Predictability: Low (scope creep, estimate variance)
+
+PRODUCTIZED SERVICES:
+  Revenue model: Fixed price per deliverable
+  Pricing: Published or standardized
+  Scope: Pre-defined (what's IN and OUT)
+  Delivery: Standardized process + templates
+  Margins: 60-75% (improving with scale)
+  Scalability: Sub-linear with headcount (efficiency gains)
+  Predictability: High (known scope, known effort, known outcome)
+
+THE SHIFT:
+  Custom services sell TIME → "We'll work on your project for X hours"
+  Productized services sell OUTCOMES → "We'll deliver X result in Y timeframe"
+```
+
+### Financial Impact
+```
+BEFORE PRODUCTIZATION:
+  Average project: R$50K
+  Utilization: 65% (35% in scoping, proposals, rework)
+  Effective margin: 45%
+  Revenue per employee: R$180K/year
+  Time to proposal: 2-3 weeks
+
+AFTER PRODUCTIZATION:
+  Average productized service: R$25K (but 3x volume)
+  Utilization: 80% (20% in standardized pre-work)
+  Effective margin: 65%
+  Revenue per employee: R$280K/year
+  Time to proposal: 1-2 days (standard pricing)
+
+Key insight: Smaller, standardized engagements with
+higher margins often outperform large, custom projects.
+```
+
+---
+
+## Productization Framework
+
+### Step 1: Identify Candidates
+```
+PRODUCTIZATION READINESS SCORECARD
+
+For each service, score 1-5:
+
+| Factor | Score | Notes |
+|--------|-------|-------|
+| Repetition frequency (how often do we do this?) | | |
+| Process maturity (do we have SOPs?) | | |
+| Outcome predictability (can we guarantee results?) | | |
+| Client demand (is this a common need?) | | |
+| Competitive differentiation (are we notably better?) | | |
+| Pricing simplicity (can we set a fixed price?) | | |
+| Delivery scalability (can junior team deliver?) | | |
+| TOTAL | /35 | |
+
+Threshold:
+  28-35: Excellent candidate — productize immediately
+  21-27: Good candidate — needs some standardization first
+  14-20: Possible — requires significant process work
+  <14: Not ready — keep as custom for now
+```
+
+### Step 2: Define the Package
+```
+PRODUCTIZED SERVICE DEFINITION
+
+Service Name: [Catchy, branded name]
+  Bad: "Website Redesign Services"
+  Good: "Site Sprint — Your New Website in 30 Days"
+
+One-Liner: [What it is in one sentence]
+  "A complete website redesign delivered in exactly 30 days,
+  guaranteed."
+
+Target Client: [Specific ICP for this service]
+  "B2B SaaS companies with 50-500 employees who need to
+  refresh their marketing site to support a new positioning."
+
+The Promise: [Specific, measurable outcome]
+  "A high-converting marketing website, live in 30 days,
+  with a conversion-optimized design based on your ICP."
+
+What's Included:
+  ✓ Discovery workshop (1 day)
+  ✓ Wireframes for 8 pages
+  ✓ Custom design (desktop + mobile)
+  ✓ Development and QA
+  ✓ Content migration assistance
+  ✓ 1 round of revisions per page
+  ✓ Launch support
+
+What's NOT Included (Scope Boundaries):
+  ✗ Content writing (can be added as separate service)
+  ✗ Custom integrations beyond standard (Hubspot, GA, etc.)
+  ✗ More than 8 pages (each additional: R$X)
+  ✗ Ongoing maintenance (separate retainer available)
+
+Fixed Price: R$40,000
+Timeline: 30 calendar days
+Guarantee: "If we don't launch by day 30, the overage is on us."
+```
+
+### Step 3: Standardize Delivery
+```
+DELIVERY SOP — [Service Name]
+
+PHASE 1: KICKOFF (Day 1-3)
+  Inputs: Signed contract, brand guidelines, access credentials
+  Activities:
+    □ Kickoff call (1 hour, standard agenda)
+    □ Discovery questionnaire sent (standard template)
+    □ Content inventory from existing site
+  Outputs: Project brief (standard template), timeline confirmed
+  Owner: Project Manager
+  Template: [link to kickoff deck template]
+
+PHASE 2: DESIGN (Day 4-15)
+  Inputs: Project brief, brand guidelines
+  Activities:
+    □ Wireframes (standard page templates)
+    □ Visual design (using design system components)
+    □ Client review (1 round, standard feedback form)
+  Outputs: Approved designs
+  Owner: Lead Designer
+  Template: [link to design template]
+
+PHASE 3: BUILD (Day 16-25)
+  Inputs: Approved designs
+  Activities:
+    □ Development (using standard components)
+    □ Content migration
+    □ QA testing (standard checklist)
+  Outputs: Staging site ready for review
+  Owner: Lead Developer
+  Template: [link to QA checklist]
+
+PHASE 4: LAUNCH (Day 26-30)
+  Inputs: Staging site approved
+  Activities:
+    □ Client final review (standard sign-off form)
+    □ DNS/hosting configuration
+    □ Launch checklist execution
+    □ Post-launch monitoring (48 hours)
+  Outputs: Live site
+  Owner: Project Manager
+  Template: [link to launch checklist]
+```
+
+### Step 4: Build the Value Ladder
+```
+SERVICE PORTFOLIO — PRODUCTIZED TIER MODEL
+
+TIER 1: DIAGNOSTIC (Entry Point)
+  Purpose: Low-commitment way to demonstrate value
+  Examples:
+    "Brand X-Ray" — Brand audit in 5 days (R$5K)
+    "Funnel Diagnostic" — Full-funnel analysis (R$8K)
+    "SEO Health Check" — Technical + content audit (R$6K)
+  Margin: 70%+ (mostly templates and analysis)
+  Conversion to Tier 2: Target 40%+
+
+TIER 2: PROJECT (Core Delivery)
+  Purpose: Deliver defined outcome with clear scope
+  Examples:
+    "Site Sprint" — Website in 30 days (R$40K)
+    "Content Engine" — 90-day content program (R$25K)
+    "Brand Sprint" — Complete brand strategy (R$30K)
+  Margin: 60-65%
+  Conversion to Tier 3: Target 50%+
+
+TIER 3: PROGRAM (Ongoing Partnership)
+  Purpose: Recurring revenue through continuous value
+  Examples:
+    "Growth Partner" — Monthly full-funnel marketing (R$15K/mo)
+    "Brand Guardian" — Ongoing brand management (R$8K/mo)
+    "Performance Engine" — Ongoing paid media (R$10K/mo)
+  Margin: 55-65%
+  NRR Target: 110%+
+
+ASCENSION PATH:
+  Diagnostic → proves expertise (delivers insight)
+  Project → delivers transformation (delivers result)
+  Program → sustains value (delivers growth)
+```
+
+---
+
+## Naming & Packaging Best Practices
+
+### Naming Rules
+```
+GOOD NAMES:
+  ✓ Evoke the outcome, not the process
+  ✓ Memorable and distinct
+  ✓ Short (2-3 words max)
+  ✓ Action-oriented or result-oriented
+
+EXAMPLES:
+  "Site Sprint" (speed + website)
+  "Brand X-Ray" (diagnostic + brand)
+  "Growth Blueprint" (strategy + growth)
+  "Content Engine" (ongoing + content)
+  "Funnel Forge" (creation + funnel)
+
+ANTI-PATTERNS:
+  ✗ "Website Design Package A" (generic, forgettable)
+  ✗ "Full-Service Digital Marketing" (too broad)
+  ✗ "Premium Social Media Management" (adjective-based)
+  ✗ "Custom Strategy Development" (says nothing specific)
+```
+
+### Packaging Principles
+```
+1. EACH PACKAGE SOLVES ONE SPECIFIC PROBLEM
+   Not "we do everything" — but "we solve THIS"
+
+2. SCOPE IS CRYSTAL CLEAR
+   Client knows exactly what they get (and what they don't)
+
+3. PRICE IS JUSTIFIED BY VALUE, NOT EFFORT
+   "R$40K for a website that increases conversions 50%"
+   Not "R$40K for 200 hours of design and development"
+
+4. DELIVERY IS PREDICTABLE
+   "Delivered in 30 days" — not "estimated 4-8 weeks"
+
+5. GUARANTEE REDUCES RISK
+   "Or we work free until it's done" removes buyer hesitation
+```
+
+---
+
+## Metrics for Productized Services
+
+### Per-Service Metrics
+| Metric | Target | Why It Matters |
+|--------|--------|---------------|
+| Units sold per quarter | Growing | Volume/demand signal |
+| Average delivery time | Stable or decreasing | Efficiency signal |
+| Delivery margin | > 60% | Profitability signal |
+| Client satisfaction (CSAT) | > 4.5/5 | Quality signal |
+| Upsell rate to next tier | > 30% | Ladder effectiveness |
+| Scope change frequency | < 10% | Scope clarity signal |
+| Repeat purchase rate | > 25% | Value confirmation |
+
+### Portfolio Metrics
+| Metric | Target | Why It Matters |
+|--------|--------|---------------|
+| % revenue from productized | > 40% | Transition progress |
+| Revenue per employee (productized) | > R$250K | Efficiency gains |
+| Time from lead to proposal | < 2 days | Speed advantage |
+| Win rate on productized | > 35% | Easier to buy |
+| Average margin (productized vs custom) | > 15pp higher | Margin improvement |
+
+## References
+- McKenzie, P. (patio11) — Productized consulting essays
+- Dunn, B. — *Double Your Freelancing Rate*
+- Rettig, C. — Agency productization methodology
+- Hormozi, A. — *$100M Offers* (offer packaging)
+- Enns, B. — *Pricing Creativity* (value-based packaging)