What follows is a working draft of how we’d structure the first 90 days of work, written in the same posture as the rest of this site. It can be edited. The pricing is shown plainly. The scope reflects what we heard at Andover. We’ve tried to make it easy to react to.
Prepared for
Nick Iftimia, Julia Dupuis, Bill Kessler
From
Eric Eskey, Daniel Behr, David Potter · Dark Horse Works
Date & version
{{ preparedDate }} · v2
02What we heard, in brief
At Andover we heard the structural case for a commercialization function PSI does not naturally produce internally: the “hundred David Weitzes” without someone pointing the arrow, the gas-leak case as the recurring shape PSI wants to repeat, the bio portfolio as the place to start. We agreed that the work should begin small, on a defined slice, with the option to expand. This proposal is built against that agreement.
03Phase 1 · what we propose to do
Two parallel work streams over 90 days.
3a · Scope
Stream one
Portfolio analysis across PSI’s 14 health-tech-classifiable assets
Four patient-facing (ophthalmology, dermatology, oncology, multi-organ imaging), four pharma and biomanufacturing (in-line cytometry, lyophilization monitoring, vapor hydrogen peroxide measurement, phage contamination detection), four life-science research tools, one dual-use sensor with healthcare adjacency, and one health-adjacent platform from PSI’s broader portfolio.
For each asset: customer fit, revenue potential, capability fit, nearest competitor or adjacent solution, assumptions, and a route default (license / OEM / partner / shelve).
Stream two
Demand-discovery substrate on the patient-facing cluster
Nine senior conversations, three each with ophthalmology, dermatology, and oncology key opinion leaders, drawing on DHW’s prior substrate in these audiences where applicable. The objective is to validate which patient-facing assets have demand that can be named, sized, and pursued, and which do not.
The two streams produce a single portfolio view in the “where to play / how to win” shape, with an assumptions register and the KOL substrate as supporting layers.
3b · Deliverables and rhythm
{{ r.when }}
{{ r.what }}
3c · A working session with Bill, inside the window
Bill’s institutional memory of PSI’s commercialization history, the four prior spin-outs and what was learned, the gas-leak case mechanics, the patterns of outreach that have and have not worked, is a piece of PSI’s substrate we’d like to capture inside the Phase 1 window, before his retirement at the end of June. This is named here so it does not get lost in the work itself.
04What we are not proposing to do
Mark which you want to keep as a boundary, and which you’d rather discuss.
{{ b.text }}
05How we thought about pricing
The work below would, if PSI built it internally, sit inside a senior commercial leadership seat, the kind of role that runs $200–300K per year fully loaded, before recruiting time and before the lag inherent to bringing in someone unfamiliar with PSI’s portfolio. We’ve proposed an external arrangement that gives PSI the function, three partners, portable expertise, the working surface itself, and no internal political bandwidth burned on it, for the first 90 days. The fee for Phase 1 is shown below.
Phase 1 fee
$25,000 / month × 3 months=$75,000
Billed monthly. The engagement is structured as a defined body of work over 90 days, with the decision gates above. The fee covers the three partners’ time, the analysis, the KOL conversations, the working artifact, and the institutional-memory working session with Bill inside the window. It does not include any third-party costs (for example, honoraria for KOLs, if any are required, typically not, given DHW’s substrate).
How does this land?
06After Phase 1 · possible, not bundled
Candidate next-phase workstreams, named here so PSI can see the shape of what could follow. Each is independently decidable and independently scoped, after Phase 1 has produced its read. They are listed at parity, not ranked.
Drag to put them in the order that matters to you. We read the order as a signal.
{{ c.rank }}
drag
{{ c.title }}
{{ c.body }}
The Phase 2 conversation is its own conversation.
07Co-authoring · the next step
This page is intended to be a working draft. If anything reads wrong, or is scoped too tightly or too loosely, the right next step is a thirty-minute conversation (Eric, Daniel, or all three of us) where we adjust the document with you. The proposal is the substance, not the artifact; we’d rather get it right than send a finished thing.