I work with software company CEOs whose product-market fit isn’t coming together - whether they built something that worked and the ground shifted, or they’re trying to get to fit for the first time. I’ve navigated five technology shifts across 30 years. GenAI is the sixth, not the first.
Engineering, product, executive - three genuinely different disciplines, each in its full depth. Chief architect. VP Product. CPO. CPTO: both at once. CEO. Four exits. Multiple turnarounds. Across companies from scrappy early-stage to acquisition-ready.
Most advisors see one slice - technical, product, or business. Three disciplines in full depth makes it possible to hold all of them simultaneously, without losing resolution when the conversation moves between them.
Sometimes that’s as a thinking partner - privately, on your side of the table, no stake in the answer. Sometimes the situation calls for stepping inside and leading product or engineering directly. The common thread is product-market fit: finding it, losing it, re-finding it.
Every company wants a paradigm shift. What’s getting funded is better tools.
The change everyone is asking for sits at one level - what gets valued, what counts as progress, what the organization is optimized for. These tools intervene at another - how work gets coordinated, how fast it ships, how aligned the team stays. And when that gap holds, the tools get adopted and the old model stays put. You get faster throughput of the same mediocre decisions.
What if the gap between shipping AI and seeing it move your business has nothing to do with how fast you’re moving?
Your board, your investors, the conference you just attended - they’re right about the urgency. They’re wrong about the prescription.
What if the PMF that shaped you is what’s keeping you from finding the next one?
Your company was built around a set of answers, how do you gain the perspective to find the new when you’re consumed running the old?