We’re hoping in the next three to 12 months, it will be available to everyone.

Wow, okay. I’ve tried writing a book. I’ve written a book. I know how painful that process is. At least you guys have each other to discuss, pull each other’s hair to get to the best phase, right? But if you’re writing solo, it’s so tough.

I had a sort of a lattice work that I’d been developing over the years. And when I asked Ilana to join me, I was sort of expecting a couple of lines here and there just to not burden her with things, give a CFO perspective. And now she’s gotten excited and she’s giving me a whole lot of other perspective and using this model as sort of the place where you stick things, but then building it beyond giving life to what I had created to make something completely new and refreshing.

Neither one of us has ever done this, certainly not work together like this. But it’s hilarious because she’s very steady and aggressive and I’m up and down like literally a roller coaster. But it’s a nice balance because the biggest challenge for both of us is how fast ideas come to our heads.

I think it’s a testament to how strong the framework is and how useful and valuable it is. We did meet at a conference. We were both presenting separate events. And when I was done with mine, I stayed to watch his. And at the time, I was going through a pretty difficult transformation project.

I was struggling and it’s not my first rodeo, but I was really struggling. And so when I saw Vin’s methodology up on screen, a gigantic light bulb went off in my head and said, I need to steal those slides. And so I engaged Vin in a conversation in the vendor area. And I think we didn’t stop talking for like an hour.

For the audience who don’t know, Ilana is like, if you have been to any of the finance conferences, you must know Ilana. She is everywhere. I don’t know how she does that. She’s everywhere in every conference, every event she’s there. And she’s amazing at networking. She’s amazing at bringing these people together. She comes from being the practitioner. She’s the CFO.

The common thing for three of us, I think we all three have a love and hate relationship towards finance transformation.

I’ve done extensive research on finance transformation for large companies. And it’s quite a drama that happens when a company goes through finance transformation. It usually starts like a small discussion. Something is not working. We need to get more efficiency. And then eventually ends up somehow to come up with a planning tool or revamp your planning tool. Then you also go into AP process, AR process and taking a look at what all your gaps are.

At that point it gets very overwhelming for whoever is doing it. That’s when they bring someone from external to do finance transformation. And that’s when all this drama starts. But this is a cycle that I think every company has to go through. This is like a spring cleanup.

My favorite story is an individual that was running a transformation project at a fairly sizable organization. And he was struggling because they weren’t really appreciating the fact that they were asking essentially upwards of 70 divisional CFOs to do their work differently.

They had an overall centralized corporate motivation or agenda or the why for this project. But as I dug in a little bit and discovered, they didn’t really associate that with the agendas of individual CFOs. So those people were pushing back.

I simply went in and said, you don’t have a technology problem, you have a story problem. And the story problem is a reflection of the fact that you have your story, but you’ve not aligned that story to anybody else. The real problem isn’t technology transformation in your project. The real problem is, whose story are you telling?

The most common thing I see is, we will implement a solution. We’ll go from manual to automated. Let’s say we put in an expense management system. Then we roll it out and do all of the usual change management and our end users end up saying, well, this is more difficult than if we were just using Google Form. Or I like the way it used to be done.

Then everybody gets spun up trying to create independent customized fixes. One thing is we also tend to over customize a solution versus configure something that’s off the shelf. Then we go to all these conferences and see there’s another expense management system with new features. And we keep layering these upgrades and what we call transformations on top of each other without fundamentally asking the why.

We end up with these Frankenstein systems that every three to four years we have to clean house. We shouldn’t have to clean house if we didn’t build Frankenstein systems.

One of the interesting stories for me is I led a finance transformation project. The whole goal is to reach a metric. We spent all the money, we did the project. We didn’t reach the goal of that metric. It was a little short and later it was decided by the leadership it’s not worth doing it because we didn’t even reach it. So all the money is just gone waste by doing it.

Now the big push is AI. Well, we’ll just have AI do it. Well, what are you going to give AI instructions to do? What value is it going to add? So even when you layer AI on top of a broken process or an inefficient process, you get broken and inefficient faster with potential hallucinations and all of the risks that comes with AI.

The basic premise of the book is really understand what is the purpose of the work that you’re doing, how do you want to use the resources of the organization first? And then ask yourself, what is it that we’re trying to fix and why?

People think they’re selling technology. People think they’re buying technology. And that really is at the fundamental root of the biggest problem. Your mindset has to change. What exactly are you delivering value on? The software? No. Change. And so we focus on the change.

People are in love with efficiency. They want to make a process efficient. I want to ignore that concept for the moment because what I’m really after is business outcomes. And so they’re related, but efficiency alone is not a driver.

Peter Drucker says, there’s nothing more crazy than doing efficiently that which should not be done. That which should not be done is defined by the outcomes produced. When someone says I want to be a strategic CFO, there’s only one variable that drives whether or not you are a strategic CFO what your teams do or don’t do with their attention.

I agree with what you said in terms of we need to get the process right and then we can layer AI or any kind of automation on top of it. But last few years, as you know, I work on AI, implementing AI in finance. What I’ve seen is, let’s say if you do 100 different tasks in finance and 60 of them are the real process that you need and 40 of them can be improved or eliminated. It really takes a lot of effort to figure out which 40 you can take out.

But now with AI, if it becomes much easier for you to replicate all these hundred processes in AI, do you really want to spend time and effort to do the process improvements? Or can we just go with this AI transformation and then start cleaning up because now you have much more visibility with AI doing it?

I actually believe AI can work to help you find those pockets of waste for sure. But you want to be careful about using AI too prematurely because at a minimum you want to get an understanding of what my teams do, what they don’t do, and what’s the business impact.

The starting point in my view is that core foundation of what are people doing and how does it impact the organization? And then you start to measure where you’d like to have tweaks. AI can help you actually assess it, and then AI can start to fill in some of the gaps.

I would just create an analogy or a metaphor for people to envision. We keep thinking transformation is going to solve a gaping wound. And we think we have a wound and we’re going to put some massive gauze on top of it. But when we look at the wound and we start investigating, we realize, well, it’s just a little cut, it’s not going to need stitches. And instead of this massive gauze, what you need is a very large bandaid.

AI will do great things. It is doing great things right now. But we need to make sure that what we’re applying is a bandaid on a scratch and not this big elaborate gauze on something that doesn’t need it.

We’re going back and forth with each other on the concept of the title. The title to me in some way has to be something as follows: How ROI broke finance transformation. Why?

If we believe the I equals investment in something, we’re measuring the return on that something, which is universally the technology. The problem with it is at the mindset level, not the math level. I’m saying get rid of the I and call it return on change. Because now what I’m driving is the value of change, not the value of the technology.

Let’s say I’m pre IPO. My accounting process is a colossal mess. So I do an ROI on the process fix. What is the return on that process fix? Well, I gave you some direction. I’m pre IPO. If I don’t fix my process, I’m not going to get the IPO. What is the value of the IPO? Well, the value of the IPO could be $500 million. So my return on change is $500 million. It’s not $125K on fixing the accounting process.

Theoretically I agree with Vin, but do you think your board will agree if you say, this transformation, now the ROI is like $500 million. Will they buy into that vision of ROC?

Using the framework that we lay out in the book, absolutely. And we lay out the framework in the book from A to B to C to D and how to communicate all of this to the board.

Where Vin feels strongly that “How ROI broke business transformation,” I’m looking at it as ROC is the missing metric in ensuring sustainable change and transformation. So we will duke it out and everybody who’s interested in this book can reach out to us and we’ll add you to our pre-sales list.

We do AI implementation at companies. And what we have seen so far, we still haven’t seen any resources that got impacted because of AI, whichever what we have done. Even though we save, let’s say 80 hours a week, or probably more 200 hours a week in the process, that resource actually started doing something else in the same company.

Now if we start doing ROI calculations, how do you even justify that project? So it’s on our side how we are projecting that and it’s also on the company, on the finance people, they say, yeah, we see the change that happened, but we don’t know how to show it to our board, how to show it to our CFO.

We actually deliver a framework that you can use to calculate the return on change so that you can explain. We talk about theoretically, the future of finance is all about upskilling, reskilling and using AI to put people doing more strategic work.

AI is really about the low hanging fruit, doing the tactical, repeated, repetitive work that no human really wants to do as a career. And then people get really scared well, that’s going to replace me. No, that’s going to replace the work you didn’t want to do in the first place.

You still need a human judgment to evaluate the output. You can then shift these valuable resources to doing value-added work that actually moves the strategic dial and enhances the outcomes of the organization.

An important consideration in all of this, which is brilliant to me, is the narrative, the communication and the story. A big element of my history, and now it’s blowing up really nicely with Ilana, one of the biggest elements is what’s the story I’m telling?

The board really going to believe it? No, not in the way it’s presented today. The narrative has to change, and really the model is built to create that narrative. Basically you’re talking now cost of inaction, not cost of not purchasing software. What if I don’t change the way I do things?

How do I connect what the accounting clerk down the hall does as it relates to what the board of directors cares about? My point is everything should be connected and the question becomes how. That’s the question we’re answering.

One of the biggest problems that we see, and I’ve seen this in finance transformation, and now I’m seeing in AI, is the discovery phase of our finance transformation is the painful part of it. Do you have anything in your book which talks about discovery, how to go about it?

What you said about the vendor is very interesting. This is going to require the vendor side to fundamentally change how they sell and how they’re compensated and what their go-to-market is. It does mean that you’re going from seat-based to enterprise-based.

This is going to fundamentally change or require a mindset change from the vendor about how they approach their customers and who their customers are. Part of the return on change, which will be more covered in book two, is it’s going to change comp plans. It’s going to change their sales metric. It’s going to change the way demos are performed and when demos are performed.

So you asked about discovery. And so in a typical software situation, people do is a sales process: prospect, qualified, discovery, demo. And this discovery process is a version of the Spanish Inquisition where a seller comes in and just starts asking all these random questions. What they’re not paying attention to is the person on the other end of those questions has no context for the questions. But even if they did, they don’t really have the answers. So what a vendor can do, and then I’ll shift back to the CFO side, is actually help people do real discovery for themselves.

Right now the vendor says, I need to do discovery so I can do a demo. What actually needs to happen is the vendor needs to take their resources and enable checklists and consultant partners to help people sift through what’s really going on here and what is the bigger picture. The key element for a CFO is very, very simple and based on a very simple concept: the value the CFO delivers is based exclusively on what he or she has a team do with their time or do not do with their time.

Once you understand that metric, you can go into Six Sigma, you can go into Lean, you can go into any of these process methodologies and you have to look beyond the process. You have to look at activity in the shade. We’re going to agree on what we’re going to call it because we’re going to call it something, but there’s disruption that’s happening because of disconnectedness. If you think process first, you’re going to miss a lot of this stuff that’s happening in the shade.

But the point is the reason you start there is because if you’re thinking outcome based, the only thing that matters is what’s either getting done or not getting done. And that’s when you start to really see things holistically. The consideration that I forgot to mention Ilana touches on this quite a bit in her thinking is I want to get away from the word “transformation.” I want to start talking about “evolution.” When you look at the definition of the word evolve, it’s a progression. You don’t finish. Transformation says I’m going to be done.

Make sense? Ilana, from your perspective, in terms of you have gone through multiple finance transformations, how do you discover that process that needs to be changed that needs to be transformed? Is there a mechanism for you to think through, okay, now I’m going to have all these functional heads and I’ll ask them about their problems and I’ll list it out. Do you have a mechanism to do that process?

We do now. And you’ll have to get the book to get the full details, and I’m half joking about that. But yes, there is a process. It is going right to the source of the people who are doing the work. They’re the ones who’re going to tell you, “I don’t understand why we do this.”

You use all those consulting tools like the five whys. When you get to the root cause, you realize we’re doing this because someone started, made a mistake ten years ago and they added this process. Then I was just told that I needed to do this, right? Okay, we prepare this report because someone three and a half years ago said that they needed something for the board and we started doing it.

We just assumed we were going to keep on doing it until they told us to stop. We’ll stop doing it and see if anyone complains. You find a lot of things that are added because the lawyers told us or it’s compliance or I went to a conference and someone said this was a best practice. When you start getting to the root cause analysis you realize that there is a lot of work that’s being done that doesn’t need to be done. It’s important that you eliminate anything that just doesn’t add value, that is not part of the outcome, that can be redeployed in other areas, that can use tools that already exist. Once you get to your baseline, then you decide what is the solution that needs to be applied on top of that.

That makes sense. It’s a great conversation. We can’t wait to get hold of your book. And I want to make you much more responsible for the output when it’s going to come out. So can we expect this summer, 2026, for the book to be released?

I’m going to go out on a limb and say yes, because we’re that close. So yes. The only variable in that is the publishing side of things, which we’re working out, but we’re very close. So I would say, yeah, probably by the summer.

Okay, and if you’re a publisher and you’re hearing this, and your interest is piqued, certainly reach out to us. Both Vincent and I are on LinkedIn and we look forward to connecting with anyone who wants to learn more about Return on Change.

Haha, thank you. Thanks, Ilana. Thanks, Vin.

We’re hoping in the next three to 12 months, it will be available to everyone.

Wow, okay. I’ve tried writing a book. I’ve written a book. I know how painful that process is. At least you guys have each other to discuss, pull each other’s hair to get to the best phase, right? But if you’re writing solo, it’s so tough.

I had a sort of a lattice work that I’d been developing over the years. And when I asked Ilana to join me, I was sort of expecting a couple of lines here and there just to not burden her with things, give a CFO perspective. And now she’s gotten excited and she’s giving me a whole lot of other perspective and using this model as sort of the place where you stick things, but then building it beyond giving life to what I had created to make something completely new and refreshing.

Neither one of us has ever done this, certainly not work together like this. But it’s hilarious because she’s very steady and aggressive and I’m up and down like literally a roller coaster. But it’s a nice balance because the biggest challenge for both of us is how fast ideas come to our heads.

I think it’s a testament to how strong the framework is and how useful and valuable it is. We did meet at a conference. We were both presenting separate events. And when I was done with mine, I stayed to watch his. And at the time, I was going through a pretty difficult transformation project.

I was struggling and it’s not my first rodeo, but I was really struggling. And so when I saw Vin’s methodology up on screen, a gigantic light bulb went off in my head and said, I need to steal those slides. And so I engaged Vin in a conversation in the vendor area. And I think we didn’t stop talking for like an hour.

For the audience who don’t know, Ilana is like, if you have been to any of the finance conferences, you must know Ilana. She is everywhere. I don’t know how she does that. She’s everywhere in every conference, every event she’s there. And she’s amazing at networking. She’s amazing at bringing these people together. She comes from being the practitioner. She’s the CFO.

The common thing for three of us, I think we all three have a love and hate relationship towards finance transformation.

I’ve done extensive research on finance transformation for large companies. And it’s quite a drama that happens when a company goes through finance transformation. It usually starts like a small discussion. Something is not working. We need to get more efficiency. And then eventually ends up somehow to come up with a planning tool or revamp your planning tool. Then you also go into AP process, AR process and taking a look at what all your gaps are.

At that point it gets very overwhelming for whoever is doing it. That’s when they bring someone from external to do finance transformation. And that’s when all this drama starts. But this is a cycle that I think every company has to go through. This is like a spring cleanup.

My favorite story is an individual that was running a transformation project at a fairly sizable organization. And he was struggling because they weren’t really appreciating the fact that they were asking essentially upwards of 70 divisional CFOs to do their work differently.

They had an overall centralized corporate motivation or agenda or the why for this project. But as I dug in a little bit and discovered, they didn’t really associate that with the agendas of individual CFOs. So those people were pushing back.

I simply went in and said, you don’t have a technology problem, you have a story problem. And the story problem is a reflection of the fact that you have your story, but you’ve not aligned that story to anybody else. The real problem isn’t technology transformation in your project. The real problem is, whose story are you telling?

The most common thing I see is, we will implement a solution. We’ll go from manual to automated. Let’s say we put in an expense management system. Then we roll it out and do all of the usual change management and our end users end up saying, well, this is more difficult than if we were just using Google Form. Or I like the way it used to be done.

Then everybody gets spun up trying to create independent customized fixes. One thing is we also tend to over customize a solution versus configure something that’s off the shelf. Then we go to all these conferences and see there’s another expense management system with new features. And we keep layering these upgrades and what we call transformations on top of each other without fundamentally asking the why.

We end up with these Frankenstein systems that every three to four years we have to clean house. We shouldn’t have to clean house if we didn’t build Frankenstein systems.

One of the interesting stories for me is I led a finance transformation project. The whole goal is to reach a metric. We spent all the money, we did the project. We didn’t reach the goal of that metric. It was a little short and later it was decided by the leadership it’s not worth doing it because we didn’t even reach it. So all the money is just gone waste by doing it.

Now the big push is AI. Well, we’ll just have AI do it. Well, what are you going to give AI instructions to do? What value is it going to add? So even when you layer AI on top of a broken process or an inefficient process, you get broken and inefficient faster with potential hallucinations and all of the risks that comes with AI.

The basic premise of the book is really understand what is the purpose of the work that you’re doing, how do you want to use the resources of the organization first? And then ask yourself, what is it that we’re trying to fix and why?

People think they’re selling technology. People think they’re buying technology. And that really is at the fundamental root of the biggest problem. Your mindset has to change. What exactly are you delivering value on? The software? No. Change. And so we focus on the change.

People are in love with efficiency. They want to make a process efficient. I want to ignore that concept for the moment because what I’m really after is business outcomes. And so they’re related, but efficiency alone is not a driver.

Peter Drucker says, there’s nothing more crazy than doing efficiently that which should not be done. That which should not be done is defined by the outcomes produced. When someone says I want to be a strategic CFO, there’s only one variable that drives whether or not you are a strategic CFO what your teams do or don’t do with their attention.

I agree with what you said in terms of we need to get the process right and then we can layer AI or any kind of automation on top of it. But last few years, as you know, I work on AI, implementing AI in finance. What I’ve seen is, let’s say if you do 100 different tasks in finance and 60 of them are the real process that you need and 40 of them can be improved or eliminated. It really takes a lot of effort to figure out which 40 you can take out.

But now with AI, if it becomes much easier for you to replicate all these hundred processes in AI, do you really want to spend time and effort to do the process improvements? Or can we just go with this AI transformation and then start cleaning up because now you have much more visibility with AI doing it?

I actually believe AI can work to help you find those pockets of waste for sure. But you want to be careful about using AI too prematurely because at a minimum you want to get an understanding of what my teams do, what they don’t do, and what’s the business impact.

The starting point in my view is that core foundation of what are people doing and how does it impact the organization? And then you start to measure where you’d like to have tweaks. AI can help you actually assess it, and then AI can start to fill in some of the gaps.

I would just create an analogy or a metaphor for people to envision. We keep thinking transformation is going to solve a gaping wound. And we think we have a wound and we’re going to put some massive gauze on top of it. But when we look at the wound and we start investigating, we realize, well, it’s just a little cut, it’s not going to need stitches. And instead of this massive gauze, what you need is a very large bandaid.

AI will do great things. It is doing great things right now. But we need to make sure that what we’re applying is a bandaid on a scratch and not this big elaborate gauze on something that doesn’t need it.

We’re going back and forth with each other on the concept of the title. The title to me in some way has to be something as follows: How ROI broke finance transformation. Why?

If we believe the I equals investment in something, we’re measuring the return on that something, which is universally the technology. The problem with it is at the mindset level, not the math level. I’m saying get rid of the I and call it return on change. Because now what I’m driving is the value of change, not the value of the technology.

Let’s say I’m pre IPO. My accounting process is a colossal mess. So I do an ROI on the process fix. What is the return on that process fix? Well, I gave you some direction. I’m pre IPO. If I don’t fix my process, I’m not going to get the IPO. What is the value of the IPO? Well, the value of the IPO could be $500 million. So my return on change is $500 million. It’s not $125K on fixing the accounting process.

Theoretically I agree with Vin, but do you think your board will agree if you say, this transformation, now the ROI is like $500 million. Will they buy into that vision of ROC?

Using the framework that we lay out in the book, absolutely. And we lay out the framework in the book from A to B to C to D and how to communicate all of this to the board.

Where Vin feels strongly that “How ROI broke business transformation,” I’m looking at it as ROC is the missing metric in ensuring sustainable change and transformation. So we will duke it out and everybody who’s interested in this book can reach out to us and we’ll add you to our pre-sales list.

We do AI implementation at companies. And what we have seen so far, we still haven’t seen any resources that got impacted because of AI, whichever what we have done. Even though we save, let’s say 80 hours a week, or probably more 200 hours a week in the process, that resource actually started doing something else in the same company.

Now if we start doing ROI calculations, how do you even justify that project? So it’s on our side how we are projecting that and it’s also on the company, on the finance people, they say, yeah, we see the change that happened, but we don’t know how to show it to our board, how to show it to our CFO.

We actually deliver a framework that you can use to calculate the return on change so that you can explain. We talk about theoretically, the future of finance is all about upskilling, reskilling and using AI to put people doing more strategic work.

AI is really about the low hanging fruit, doing the tactical, repeated, repetitive work that no human really wants to do as a career. And then people get really scared well, that’s going to replace me. No, that’s going to replace the work you didn’t want to do in the first place.

You still need a human judgment to evaluate the output. You can then shift these valuable resources to doing value-added work that actually moves the strategic dial and enhances the outcomes of the organization.

An important consideration in all of this, which is brilliant to me, is the narrative, the communication and the story. A big element of my history, and now it’s blowing up really nicely with Ilana, one of the biggest elements is what’s the story I’m telling?

The board really going to believe it? No, not in the way it’s presented today. The narrative has to change, and really the model is built to create that narrative. Basically you’re talking now cost of inaction, not cost of not purchasing software. What if I don’t change the way I do things?

How do I connect what the accounting clerk down the hall does as it relates to what the board of directors cares about? My point is everything should be connected and the question becomes how. That’s the question we’re answering.

One of the biggest problems that we see, and I’ve seen this in finance transformation, and now I’m seeing in AI, is the discovery phase of our finance transformation is the painful part of it. Do you have anything in your book which talks about discovery, how to go about it?

What you said about the vendor is very interesting. This is going to require the vendor side to fundamentally change how they sell and how they’re compensated and what their go-to-market is. It does mean that you’re going from seat-based to enterprise-based.

This is going to fundamentally change or require a mindset change from the vendor about how they approach their customers and who their customers are. Part of the return on change, which will be more covered in book two, is it’s going to change comp plans. It’s going to change their sales metric. It’s going to change the way demos are performed and when demos are performed.

So you asked about discovery. And so in a typical software situation, people do is a sales process: prospect, qualified, discovery, demo. And this discovery process is a version of the Spanish Inquisition where a seller comes in and just starts asking all these random questions. What they’re not paying attention to is the person on the other end of those questions has no context for the questions. But even if they did, they don’t really have the answers. So what a vendor can do, and then I’ll shift back to the CFO side, is actually help people do real discovery for themselves.

Right now the vendor says, I need to do discovery so I can do a demo. What actually needs to happen is the vendor needs to take their resources and enable checklists and consultant partners to help people sift through what’s really going on here and what is the bigger picture. The key element for a CFO is very, very simple and based on a very simple concept: the value the CFO delivers is based exclusively on what he or she has a team do with their time or do not do with their time.

Once you understand that metric, you can go into Six Sigma, you can go into Lean, you can go into any of these process methodologies and you have to look beyond the process. You have to look at activity in the shade. We’re going to agree on what we’re going to call it because we’re going to call it something, but there’s disruption that’s happening because of disconnectedness. If you think process first, you’re going to miss a lot of this stuff that’s happening in the shade.

But the point is the reason you start there is because if you’re thinking outcome based, the only thing that matters is what’s either getting done or not getting done. And that’s when you start to really see things holistically. The consideration that I forgot to mention Ilana touches on this quite a bit in her thinking is I want to get away from the word “transformation.” I want to start talking about “evolution.” When you look at the definition of the word evolve, it’s a progression. You don’t finish. Transformation says I’m going to be done.

Make sense? Ilana, from your perspective, in terms of you have gone through multiple finance transformations, how do you discover that process that needs to be changed that needs to be transformed? Is there a mechanism for you to think through, okay, now I’m going to have all these functional heads and I’ll ask them about their problems and I’ll list it out. Do you have a mechanism to do that process?

We do now. And you’ll have to get the book to get the full details, and I’m half joking about that. But yes, there is a process. It is going right to the source of the people who are doing the work. They’re the ones who’re going to tell you, “I don’t understand why we do this.”

You use all those consulting tools like the five whys. When you get to the root cause, you realize we’re doing this because someone started, made a mistake ten years ago and they added this process. Then I was just told that I needed to do this, right? Okay, we prepare this report because someone three and a half years ago said that they needed something for the board and we started doing it.

We just assumed we were going to keep on doing it until they told us to stop. We’ll stop doing it and see if anyone complains. You find a lot of things that are added because the lawyers told us or it’s compliance or I went to a conference and someone said this was a best practice. When you start getting to the root cause analysis you realize that there is a lot of work that’s being done that doesn’t need to be done. It’s important that you eliminate anything that just doesn’t add value, that is not part of the outcome, that can be redeployed in other areas, that can use tools that already exist. Once you get to your baseline, then you decide what is the solution that needs to be applied on top of that.

That makes sense. It’s a great conversation. We can’t wait to get hold of your book. And I want to make you much more responsible for the output when it’s going to come out. So can we expect this summer, 2026, for the book to be released?

I’m going to go out on a limb and say yes, because we’re that close. So yes. The only variable in that is the publishing side of things, which we’re working out, but we’re very close. So I would say, yeah, probably by the summer.

Okay, and if you’re a publisher and you’re hearing this, and your interest is piqued, certainly reach out to us. Both Vincent and I are on LinkedIn and we look forward to connecting with anyone who wants to learn more about Return on Change.

Haha, thank you. Thanks, Ilana. Thanks, Vin.