Review the 4 themes below. Confirm this is the right structure for Q3. Walk each initiative: right ones? right owners? A fifth section — Emerging Gaps — surfaces signals from everyone's SWOT input that aren't fully captured in the 19 confirmed initiatives. Decide as a team whether each gets folded in, stays a watch item, or gets dropped. Leave with a finalized Q3 plan and everything in Asana by end of day.
SWOT Synthesis
Erik, Ben, Greg, Mike, and Jeremy each submitted their own Strengths / Weaknesses / Opportunities / Threats. This is where the four Q3 themes come from — and where the Emerging Gaps tab comes from too.
- Estimate/proposal turnaround — Weaknesses, 3 of 5 voices
- Not enough work — Weaknesses + Threats, 2 of 5 each
- Lead qualification — Opportunities, 2 of 5
- Not selling enough — Threats, 3 of 5
- Job scheduling as a strength — 3 of 5
- Budget overages and clarity — Weaknesses, 2 of 5
- Greg's Goldberg threat connects directly to the handoff binder gap
- Sub/trade relationships — Opportunities, 4 of 5 — only partially addressed here
- Meeting dysfunction — redundant, missing — Weaknesses, 2 of 5
- Time blocking — Weaknesses, 2 of 5
- Inefficiency — Threats, 4 of 5
- Ben's entire Threats section addresses this directly
- Billing cadence — Weaknesses, 2 of 5
- Billing not keeping up — Threats, 2 of 5
- Billing frequency / shorter intervals — Opportunities, 2 of 5
Speed to Lead
"The pipeline doesn't wait for perfect information. Speed earns the right to refine."
Every new lead gets contact or a ballpark range within 72 hours. No exceptions. Tracked in Asana with an auto-due date at intake.
Q2's biggest gap was speed. 24 hours was aspirational; 72 hours is attainable — but only if it's enforced. This is the fail-safe that prevents leads from going cold.
- Asana task auto-created on every new lead intake with 72-hr due date
- Ben reviews pipeline daily; overdue = immediate flag to team
- Offshore support available for reminder calls if team is in field
- Tracking dashboard: # of leads hit vs. missed per week
Zero leads older than 72 hours without a documented contact attempt in Asana for 4 consecutive weeks.
Carried from: Q2 Initiative #13 — 24-Hour First Response SLA (AT RISK at close). Jun 26 reset the target to 72 hours — more realistic, still enforced. This is #13's direct successor.
A 20-minute cost-bucket review before any number leaves the building. Break the project into demo, concrete/steel, finishes, preservation, oversight — then give a range.
Ballparking from experience isn't repeatable and can't be delegated. The diagnostic converts knowledge into a defensible, transferable range — one that can pass to whoever takes the call next quarter.
- Define the 5–6 standard cost buckets used in every diagnostic (demo, concrete, steel, preservation, oversight, finishes)
- Build a one-page internal diagnostic worksheet — not client-facing
- Train Greg and Ben to run diagnostics without Erik in the room
- First live test: next incoming lead $150K+ — document the process
Greg runs two diagnostics independently and produces ranges that Erik validates within 10% without revisions to the methodology.
Decided: Q3 Workshop — June 26, 2026
Budget alignment confirmed before any formal estimate begins. No qualification = no estimate. Not gatekeeping — it's protecting the team's time and the client's.
One unqualified lead cost 5+ hours in Q2. Qualification done right also builds trust — it shows clients the team takes their project seriously before spending their money on analysis.
- Lead scoring card active: Project Fit, Referral Warmth, Partnership Orientation, Ownership Potential
- Intake script (complete from Q2) gates every new lead before estimate discussion
- Estimate stage requires signed intent or PDA discussion first — no exceptions
- Greg empowered to qualify without Erik; escalates only on scoring edge cases
No estimate is started without a completed lead score on file in JobTread and a documented qualification conversation.
Carried from: Q2 Initiative #7 — Three-Tier Pricing Framework (In Progress). Jun 26 added mandatory qualification enforcement.
Contact leads who went cold in the past 12 months. Five calls. Two re-engagements. This was Q2's most delinquent item — it needs execution, not more planning.
AT RISK entering June 26 workshop. Zero outreach calls made in Q2 despite a completed script. Erik confirmed: paused due to workload from architect outreach. The plan exists. Execution didn't happen. Q3 has no tolerance for a repeat.
- Erik: 8–10 past client calls. Target: first 2 by July 11. Script exists.
- Ben + Greg: lost leads from last 12 months. Target: 5 calls, 2 re-engagements by Aug 1
- Erik: photograph competitor trucks at former project sites (intel on who's winning and why)
- Document every call: what did we lose to, at what price, and what they said about us
5 documented outreach calls in Asana with outcomes recorded. 2 re-engagements in pipeline by Sep 30.
Carried from: Q2 Initiative #3 — AT RISK at close. Zero calls made. Immediate action required in Week 1 of Q3.
TBDA and Elements deepened. One new architecture firm added by Q3 end. The outreach is already in motion — close the loop and build the pipeline that feeds itself.
Architect-referred leads are pre-qualified, higher-value, and more aligned with Bosi's work. TBDA is a proven channel with real projects. Building two more firm relationships this quarter converts momentum into pipeline.
- Confirm cadence with TBDA (one touch-point this quarter, project or meeting)
- Follow up with Kim (Oak Park permit specialist) and Field Guide Architecture contact
- Architect brochure finalized and in Erik's hands for outreach calls
- Behringer Group formally off the list (confirmed Denver-based)
- Log every architect conversation in JobTread — no more scattered email threads
TBDA relationship confirmed active. One new architecture firm has had a meaningful conversation and is on Erik's follow-up list by Sep 30.
Carried from: Q2 Initiative #4 — In Progress. Good momentum from architect networking events in Q2.
Q2 decided to adopt a trade referral program. Q3 executes it. Define the fee structure, activate Mike Hedges and other referral sources, and make it a real lead-gen channel — not just a policy that exists on paper.
Q2 #20 was marked Complete because the team formally adopted the program. But adoption isn't activation — the fee structure was never defined and no referral source has been formally enrolled. Erik already has a live example: Mike Hedges referred a potential $200K job. This quarter, that handshake becomes a documented program.
- Define the finder's fee structure — percentage or flat fee, project size thresholds, payment timing
- Erik: formally enroll Mike Hedges as first documented referral source, agree terms
- Ben: draft a one-page referral partner agreement for legal review or at minimum internal use
- Identify 2–3 additional trade partners to enroll this quarter (plumbers, HVAC, painters)
- Track all referral activity in JobTread — source, project, status, any fee owed
Fee structure documented. At least one referral partner formally enrolled with agreed terms. All referral sources logged in JobTread by Sep 30.
Q2 Initiative #20 — Complete (program adopted). Q3 action: execution. Surfaced as missing by cross-check against Erik's Q3 planning notes, July 13, 2026.
Operational Systems
"The systems are built. Q3 is about adoption, enforcement, and removing the last manual dependencies."
Hub is deployed. Q3 is about adoption. JobTread as the enforced source of truth. PMs logging daily. No decision lives only in an email or a text.
The Hub was built through v4 in Q2. The architecture is right. The gap is consistent use. Without daily logs and JobTread compliance, the dashboards are noise and the PM reports can't run.
- Hub stable on bosi-construction.com (Netlify) — PIN-protected financial tab active
- Daily log required for every site touched — enforced by Ben at Monday meetings
- Mike and Jeremy onboarded: can access Hub and know what to log where
- All project decisions logged in JobTread — phone calls summarized, not just emailed
- Daily log friction reduced: explore voice-to-text or simplified capture templates so field logging takes under 5 minutes
- Weekly compliance check: if logs aren't happening, Monday meeting addresses it directly
Daily logs present on every active job for 6 consecutive weeks. Zero "I sent that in an email" as an answer to where a key decision is documented.
Carried from: Q2 Initiative #12 — In Progress. Hub built and deployed. Adoption is the Q3 deliverable.
PDA information approved and published on bosi-construction.com. Clients and architects understand how Bosi works before they call. Two months overdue.
Pre-qualifying clients before they call is leverage. When the website explains the PDA, the first conversation starts at a higher floor. "I saw on your site how you work" changes the whole dynamic.
- Erik approves PDA language for public site — this is the gate that needs to move
- Ben publishes within 5 business days of Erik's approval
- "How We Work / The PDA Process" page added to website Knowledge Center
- PDA carry-around card finalized (in production per Jun 26)
- Approved content does NOT need to be comprehensive — clear and honest is enough
PDA page live on website. Erik has reviewed and approved the language. Carry-around card printed and in team hands.
Carried from: Q2 Initiative #9 — In Progress. Content drafted. Approval and publication are the remaining gap. Jun 26 decision formally approved the website addition.
AI-generated job reports split by PM, delivered before Monday meetings. The report sets the agenda — the meeting focuses on what needs action, not status delivery.
Status meetings are expensive. When the report arrives before the meeting, the meeting becomes a decision session. The AI agent already ran a test version in Q2. Q3 is about standardizing it as the Monday pre-memo.
- Email agent configured to split active job reports by PM (Mike vs. Jeremy separately)
- Delivery: every Sunday night or Monday AM before 3:45 PM meeting
- Report includes: overdue tasks, upcoming milestones, hours vs. budget flags
- Pricing follow-up tracker: show which leads received a range, when, and whether the 72-hr window was met — closes the loop on Theme 1
- Completed items in report only — not discussed in meeting unless flagged
Automated report delivered to Ben and Erik for 4 consecutive Mondays. Meeting time decreases from 90 to 60 minutes as a result.
Decided: Q3 Workshop — June 26, 2026. Tested in Q2; formalizing as standard process in Q3.
No construction hand-off without a completed binder. Hard gate. The field shouldn't have to ask the office what the plan is — it should be documented before the first nail goes in.
Informal hand-offs mean PMs inherit projects without the full picture. That gap shows up as change orders, delays, and client frustration. The binder is not a formality — it's the transfer of knowledge.
- Binder minimum sections defined: scope, allowances, open TBDs, client contacts, sub list, schedule
- Binder creation is a pre-construction milestone in JobTread — required before hand-off meeting is scheduled
- No hand-off meeting scheduled until binder is complete — Ben holds this gate
- Ben reviews first 3 binders under new standard for quality check
Three projects handed off using the completed binder as the gate document. Zero "I didn't know about that" moments from PMs in first 30 days of a project.
Carried from: Q2 Initiative #11 — In Progress. Format drafted. Enforcement is the Q3 gap.
HVAC confirmed. Backup demo contractor sourced. Formal quotes before any open commitment. No more "we'll figure it out" on specialty work that's on a live job.
- HVAC: confirm new sub from plumber referral — test on one job this quarter
- Demo: source alternative crew — no more single-source dependency on a job that ran into issues
- Roofing: identify specialist for slate or tile (not generalist) — have one name on file
- All trade partners: formal quote on file before any work begins on a project
- Carpenter Norbert: evaluate for interior finishing, trim, and cabinetry on complex jobs
HVAC sub tested on one job with satisfactory result. Backup demo crew identified. All active trade commitments have a formal quote on file in JobTread.
Carried from: Q2 Initiative #21 — Added mid-Q2 (renumbered from #20 conflict). Live gaps existed on active jobs.
Closeout checklist required on every project. Warranty packet delivered to every client. The last impression should match the first — and right now it doesn't always.
- Closeout checklist finalized — all PMs trained on it before end of July
- Warranty packet: care instructions, restrictions (no rock salt on concrete/decks), contacts
- Closeout milestone in JobTread — required before job is marked complete in system
- One completed closeout under new standard per PM this quarter
Two projects closed using the checklist as the gate. Warranty packet delivered to client at closeout and logged in JobTread.
Carried from: Q2 Initiative #19 — In Progress. Checklist drafted. PM training and enforcement are the Q3 gap. Moved to Operational Systems per July 13 team decision — closeout is a quality/ops function, not a financial one.
Meeting Rhythm
"Meetings cost money. Status updates aren't meetings. Make every session earn its time or cancel it."
Single weekly PM meeting. Mondays, 3:45 PM. 90 minutes max. Ben facilitates. Jeremy drives accountability. "Refocus" is the reset word — no judgment, just direction.
Redundant meetings were the #1 time drain in Q2. Multiple meeting sessions across the week — each with partial attendance — cost more than they delivered. One session with full team and a clear agenda is faster, cheaper, and more accountable.
- Pre-memo distributed by Ben before each meeting — completed items in the memo, not on the agenda
- Agenda follows 4-theme structure: 10 min each, escalate only what's actually stuck
- Jeremy tracks every commitment made in the room — follows up by Wednesday
- "Refocus" used by anyone — no sidebar runs more than 2 minutes unchecked
- Meeting ends when agenda is done, not when the clock hits 90 minutes
Four consecutive Mondays with meetings held on time, under 90 minutes, and with zero open items from the prior week's commitments going undocumented.
Decided: Q3 Workshop — June 26, 2026. First meeting: Monday July 7, 3:45 PM.
Four strategic themes replace sixteen line items. The pre-memo handles what's done. The meeting covers what isn't. This document is the first version of the format in use.
Walking through 16 items in Q2 meant every meeting ran long and still didn't finish. Themes group related work, focus the discussion on what's actually at risk, and let the meeting end in 45 minutes when things are on track.
- 4 themes on screen: Speed to Lead / Operational Systems / Meeting Rhythm / Financial
- Per theme: what's green (pre-memo only), what's amber (quick note), what's red (time needed)
- New initiatives only come to meeting when they need input — not for announcements
- Ben sends 3-line summary within 24 hours of each meeting — one paragraph, not a document
First Monday meeting runs under 60 minutes using the 4-theme structure with all team members following the format.
Decided: Q3 Workshop — June 26, 2026. The Q3 Initiative Plan you're reading is the first artifact of this format.
90-minute planning blocks before 10 AM, locked into the calendar. The reactive "drop everything" habit gets structure — not rigidity, but a fighting chance for important work against urgent work.
Erik estimated 3–5 hours of recovered time per week from structure alone, scaling toward 20 hours as habits solidify. The blocks don't prevent urgency from surfacing — they make sure the important work gets done before the day starts consuming itself.
- Ben: 60–90 min block before 10 AM on at least 3 weekdays — locked in calendar
- Erik: similar AM block for proposals and architect outreach
- Google Calendar + JobTread availability synced — scheduling tool respects blocks and travel time
- Start with 2 protected blocks/week; build to 4 by Q3 end
- Block purpose rotates: Monday = Hub/reporting, Wed = proposals, Fri = pipeline review
Ben and Erik each hold their protected AM blocks for 6 consecutive weeks without canceling for non-emergency reasons.
Decided: Q3 Workshop — June 26, 2026
Green: own it. Yellow: check in first. Red: escalate to Erik. Published, practiced, and enforced — so the team knows exactly what they can move on without stopping the clock.
Every decision that escalates to Erik unnecessarily makes him a bottleneck and slows the whole operation. The traffic light system gives the team clear guardrails — move on green, check in on yellow, reserve red for decisions that actually need the owner's voice.
- Ben and Erik draft the matrix together — 30-minute session before end of July
- Published in the Hub and reviewed at first Monday meeting
- Examples per role: what Mike/Jeremy can green-light vs. what needs to escalate
- Q3 measure: Erik approves fewer than 10 decisions per week that could have been green-lit
Matrix published in Hub. Ben, Mike, and Jeremy can each name 3 decisions they own (green) without asking Erik, from memory.
Decided: Q3 Workshop — June 26, 2026
Financial Discipline
"Billing on time isn't administrative work. It's the financial foundation that makes everything else possible."
All vendor payments and client billings processed on Thursdays. Fixed. Every week. This is the calendar event that doesn't move — for anyone.
Irregular billing creates cash flow uncertainty and makes clients feel like invoicing is reactive. A fixed Thursday standard makes Bosi predictable — to vendors, clients, and internally. Predictability is a form of professionalism.
- Thursday billing block locked in Google Calendar — recurring, no-conflict week over week
- All vendor payments reviewed and queued by Thursday AM
- Client invoices sent Thursday — avoids Monday inbox congestion for clients
- All subs and workers: hourly tallies due by Wednesday EOD to feed Thursday processing
- If Thursday is a holiday: bill Wednesday. It moves once, not into the following week.
All billing processed on Thursday for 6 consecutive weeks. Zero invoices sent on ad-hoc days without a documented reason.
Decided: Q3 Workshop — June 26, 2026
All Cost Plus and hourly work billed weekly. Monthly billing on open-ended scopes is over. If the scope is open, the invoice is weekly. No exceptions.
Monthly billing on open-ended work means large invoices that surprise clients and expose the company to late payment risk. Weekly billing keeps amounts smaller, conversations current, and clients aligned on what they're spending — before it becomes a conversation.
- All active Cost Plus jobs: shift to weekly billing cadence immediately this quarter
- All workers and subs: hourly tallies required weekly — not at final invoice
- Handyman-style small projects: bill bi-weekly at minimum
- PMs flag when hours approach a budget threshold — no surprises for clients
- Inform existing clients of the new cadence at the next biweekly check-in
All active Cost Plus projects on weekly billing. Zero projects that have gone more than 10 business days without an invoice being generated.
Decided: Q3 Workshop — June 26, 2026
Office team owns all pricing and estimating. Erik enters at the construction-ready phase only. The desk builds the number — the owner validates it. Not the other way around.
Every estimate that waits for Erik is a bottleneck in the pipeline. Moving pricing leadership to the office scales the operation and removes Erik as the single point of failure on estimates. He becomes the quality check — not the starting point.
- Greg leads all new estimates with Ben in support role
- 395-item cost catalog in JobTread: use it on every job — don't work around it
- Erik reviews at construction-ready milestone only — not at early ballpark stage
- First 3 Greg-led estimates: Ben reviews alongside for quality baseline
- Proposal templates finalized in JobTread (CF #8 — folded into this initiative)
Greg completes 3 estimates independently that go to clients without Erik's prior input at the draft stage. Erik reviews at the end, not the beginning.
Decided: Q3 Workshop — June 26, 2026. Folds in Q2 Initiative #8 (Proposal Templates — In Progress).
Every team member can explain the PDA — what it is, what it costs, and why it exists. Not just Erik. The carry-around card is in everyone's hands by end of July.
- Carry-around card finalized and printed — confirmed in progress as of Jun 26
- 10-minute team training session: what the PDA is, how to describe it, when to hand off to Erik
- Greg and Ben can both deliver the PDA pitch on a call without reading from a script
- PDA narrative on website live (linked with Initiative 2.2 above)
Every team member can answer "What's a PDA and how much does it cost?" without looking anything up. Card printed and distributed.
Carried from: Q2 Initiative #10 — In Progress. Training content drafted. Card in production.
The Change Order SOP exists (Q2 #17, Complete). The Q3 action is enforcement: every change order requires documented email sign-off from the client, and every open change order appears in the weekly client report. No quiet scope changes.
The SOP was written. The process was documented. The gap is that the team still has informal scope conversations that never get logged. Every undocumented change is an uncollectable dollar or an unwinnable dispute. The Goldberg situation is the cautionary tale — this closes that door.
- All change orders: written email confirmation from client required before work begins
- Any open or pending change order appears by name in the weekly client report — no exceptions
- Ben reviews first 5 COs under the new standard for compliance before delegating review to Jeremy
- JobTread: change orders logged as line items, not buried in notes
- Verbal agreements about scope changes are followed within 24 hours by a written summary to the client
Five consecutive change orders that each have a documented email trail and appear in the weekly report with no exceptions. Zero instances of a client saying "I didn't know that was extra" in Q3.
Q2 Initiative #17 — Complete (SOP written). Q3 action: enforce the process, not just reference it. Confirmed as explicit Q3 deliverable in Erik's planning notes, July 13, 2026.
A documented policy and contract clause for projects where the client sources their own materials. Flagged as overdue since June 15. Erik's Q3 plan explicitly names drafting this as a confirmed Q3 action — it's time to close it.
Without a written clause, the company absorbs liability for materials it didn't source, quality it can't guarantee, and delays it didn't cause. Every client-furnished materials project is an open-checkbook risk until this is documented. The Jacob project is the current live example.
- Erik defines the policy — what scenarios apply, what the company accepts vs. rejects
- Ben drafts the contract clause language and the sales talking points for client conversations
- Target draft complete by Aug 1 — this has been deferred since mid-Q2
- Clause added to proposal template and PDA as a standard section
- Greg and Ben trained to bring it up proactively when a client mentions owner-provided materials in intake
Clause drafted, Erik-approved, and added to the proposal template. Used on at least one active project before Sep 30.
Flagged overdue since June 15 check-in. Listed as confirmed NEW Q3 action in Erik's planning notes. Promoted from Emerging Gaps to confirmed initiative, July 13, 2026.
Emerging Gaps
"Four came from the team SWOT. Three more came from Erik's cross-check against the Q2 booklet. Two more surfaced from the BOSI_Q_1 planning notes. Each one needs a clean yes/no, fold in, or drop."
The strongest signal in the entire SWOT. Four of five voices named trade partnerships as a primary growth lever — currently it's one line item under Theme 2, not a standalone priority.
Ben, Greg, Erik, and Jeremy each independently named sub or trade relationship development in their Opportunities. That's the broadest alignment of any single item across all four SWOT quadrants — and it currently lives as one sub-bullet inside "Subcontractor Network Build" (Theme 2, carried from Q2 #21), which was scoped narrowly around HVAC and demo gaps on active jobs.
- Does this deserve to be its own named Q3 priority, separate from the existing subcontractor network initiative?
- If elevated: who owns relationship-building broadly, vs. who owns filling specific active-job gaps?
- Should there be a formal vetting standard and a 60-day performance check for any new trade partner added this quarter?
Surfaced: Team SWOT input, June 26, 2026. Not currently a standalone Q3 initiative.
A live, recoverable client relationship named independently by two people — with no current Q3 initiative owning it.
Erik named restoring trust with Hess/Powell as an Opportunity. Jeremy independently framed it as "High Performance at Hess can correct past mistakes." Two people flagging the same specific relationship, unprompted, is a signal worth a real conversation rather than letting it stay implicit.
- What does "quality performance" look like on this project, specifically?
- Erik owns the relationship — does Jeremy own field execution, or someone else?
- Is there a trust checkpoint date worth setting this quarter?
Surfaced: Team SWOT input, June 26, 2026. No current owner or initiative.
A specific, actionable staffing decision — not aspirational. Norbert was already discussed June 26. This just needs a deadline.
Both Erik and Jeremy named hiring a carpenter independently in Opportunities. This isn't a vague growth idea — it's a real candidate (Norbert) and a real decision sitting unresolved since the June 26 meeting.
- Decision on Norbert or an alternative — target a hard date, not "soon." Suggest by Aug 1.
- Erik owns the decision. If yes: what scope of work does this person handle — trim, cabinetry, both?
- If the answer is no for now — say so explicitly and close the open loop.
Surfaced: Team SWOT input, June 26, 2026. Discussed in meeting; decision still pending.
One voice, but a structural idea that would directly support both Speed to Lead and Financial Discipline if it works.
Ben named a standard remodel path as an Opportunity. A repeatable scope structure for common kitchen, bath, and addition work would let estimates move faster and make pricing more consistent — directly reinforcing the Diagnostic Session initiative under Theme 1 and the bidding-ownership shift under Theme 4.
- Can Greg build a remodel template covering the most common 80% of kitchen/bath/addition scopes?
- If yes — target one working template by Sep 30, tested on a live estimate.
- If this overlaps too much with the Diagnostic Session initiative, fold it in there instead of standing alone.
Surfaced: Team SWOT input, June 26, 2026. Single-voice signal — worth a quick gut check from the room.
These three were Opportunity or Threat candidates in the Q3 planning booklet that didn't make it into the confirmed initiatives. Each needs a quick yes/no. Note: Owner-Provided Materials Clause was here but has been promoted to a confirmed Theme 4 initiative.
A defined ideal client profile sharpens every part of the pipeline — who gets qualified in, how the PDA is pitched, which leads to spend time on. Without it, qualification is still instinct-based.
Listed in the Q3 booklet as an Opportunity candidate. The current qualification standard (Theme 1) tells the team how to qualify — but not explicitly who to qualify for. An ideal client avatar gives the lead scoring rubric a target to measure against, and makes architect outreach more targeted.
- Fold into the Mandatory Qualification Standard initiative (Theme 1) — add a one-page ICA to the lead scoring card?
- Or stand alone as a separate artifact Ben drafts with Erik by Aug 1?
- Or drop for this quarter — is the lead scoring card sufficient without it?
Flagged: Q3 booklet Opportunity candidate. Not adopted in 19 confirmed initiatives. Quick fold-in or drop — doesn't need a standalone initiative.
Getting Bosi in front of clients before the competitive bid stage — working alongside architects earlier. Raised in the context of TBDA coming in as a high bidder on a project Bosi could have shaped.
Raised in the Q3 booklet as an Opportunity and discussed re: TBDA pricing a job too high because Bosi wasn't in the room early. This is a different play than the Architect Relationship Deepening initiative — it's about when and how Bosi enters a project, not just whether architects know the name.
- Is this quarter the right time to define and pitch a design-build model, or is it too early given current pipeline volume?
- If yes: what's the pitch? Erik defines the engagement model, Ben drafts the language for the website and architect outreach.
- If no for Q3: park it as a Q4 candidate and don't let it float.
Flagged: Q3 booklet Opportunity candidate. Not adopted in 19 confirmed initiatives. Higher-effort item — needs a clear yes or explicit Q4 park.
Implicitly addressed by the billing and bidding initiatives — but not explicitly named as a threat to track. The question is whether implicit coverage is enough, or whether a named KPI is needed.
The Q3 booklet named margin erosion and competitive bid position as Threat candidates. The June 26 meeting discussed underbidding vs. competitors and pricing premiums (Arlington Heights example), but the current plan addresses it indirectly through billing frequency, weekly Cost Plus billing, and bidding-to-office — without a named metric to track.
- Is implicit coverage via the billing initiatives enough, or does this need a named metric (e.g., target margin % by project type) to track against?
- If named metric: Greg and Ben define a margin floor per job category by Aug 1. Tracked in JobTread dashboard.
- If implicit is enough: confirm it's covered and close the booklet item — don't let it drift into Q4 unnamed.
Flagged: Q3 booklet Threat candidate. Not explicitly adopted. Likely implicit in Financial Discipline theme — but worth 2 minutes to confirm or name.
Two items raised at June 26 that didn't get a yes or no. Both need 60 seconds in the room to close the loop.
Raised at the June 26 workshop. No decision made. The question is whether this quarter — while the team is building structure and accountability — is the right time to run personality assessments for better role alignment and communication.
- Is Q3 the right time, or does it compete with more urgent operational priorities?
- If yes: who facilitates, what's the cost, and do all five team members participate?
- If no for Q3: park it explicitly for Q4 — don't let it float undecided again.
Raised: June 26 workshop. No decision made. Surfaced by cross-check against BOSI_Q_1 planning notes, July 13, 2026.
Already exists as an open Asana task assigned to Erik from a prior quarter. The June 26 session didn't make a new Q3 decision on it — but with the Monday meeting consolidation and Hub build-out happening, it's worth a quick yes or explicit deferral.
- Is Slack the right tool now that the Hub and JobTread are the communication standard?
- If yes: who sets it up, what channels, and does it replace or supplement current text/email threads?
- If no: close the Asana task formally so it stops showing as open.
Open Asana task (Erik) from prior quarter. No new Q3 decision at June 26. Surfaced by cross-check against BOSI_Q_1 planning notes, July 13, 2026.