The Quick Read · Expected Outcomes

Service Operations

How disciplined is your firm’s time-entry practice? Consider both the consistency of capture (techs entering time as work happens, not at week’s end) and the quality of what’s captured (notes ready for client display, accurate work-type coding, billable-vs-non-billable classification correct).

Established: Real-time entry by default; client-ready notes; reliable work-type coding. Time entered in real time across the team. Notes are client-ready as written. Work-type coding is reliable enough that finance pulls reports without manual correction. The practice runs by default; new techs learn it as part of onboarding and adopt it without leadership intervention. Operating: Same-day discipline; notes mostly client-ready; coding usually reliable. Time entered consistently within the same business day; same-day discipline is the standard. Notes are usually client-ready with occasional editing. Work-type coding is reliable for most tickets. Leadership reinforces the practice during weekly meetings but doesn’t have to chase compliance daily. Building: Standards defined; consistency uneven; leadership shepherding adoption. Time-entry standards are defined and most techs are practicing them, but consistency is uneven. Notes vary in quality. Work-type coding has known accuracy gaps. Leadership is actively shepherding adoption: checking compliance, coaching individuals, refining the standards. Considering: Standards documented or under discussion; capture timing varies. Time-entry standards are documented or under discussion, but execution is informal. Most time gets entered, but capture timing varies (some same-day, some end-of-week catch-ups). Note quality and work-type coding accuracy are not yet measured. Not Yet: No defined standard; entries happen when techs remember. No defined standard for time entry. Time gets entered when techs remember; some doesn’t get entered at all. Notes are written for the firm’s own records, not for client display. Not Applicable

Service Operations

How well does your firm’s dispatch and escalation practice protect senior-tech capacity for senior-level work? Consider whether tickets reach the right tier on first assignment, whether escalation paths are documented and followed, and whether the dispatch role (centralized or otherwise) actively governs work routing.

Established: Documented dispatch model; first-assignment routing reliable; escalation paths followed; Average Tier Level tracked. Dispatch model is documented and consistently applied. Tickets land at the right tier on first assignment most of the time. Escalation paths are clear; senior techs work senior-level tickets, junior techs work junior-level tickets. The Service Triangle’s intended tier shape is preserved by the dispatch discipline. Average Tier Level is tracked and managed. Operating: Dispatch working most of the time; tier mismatches recognized and corrected when they happen. Dispatch model is in place and working most of the time. Some tickets bypass the right tier (senior techs picking up tickets they shouldn’t, or juniors getting handed work above their level), but the pattern is recognized and corrected when it happens. Escalation paths exist and are mostly followed. Building: Model chosen and applying; tier mismatch common but not yet systematically addressed. Dispatch model has been chosen (centralized or priority-based) and is being applied, but consistency varies. Tier mismatch is common: senior techs frequently work tickets that should have routed lower, and the pattern hasn’t yet been systematically addressed. Escalation paths are documented but not yet uniformly enforced. Considering: Dispatch matters but no committed model; informal routing by who’s available. The firm recognizes that dispatch matters but hasn’t yet committed to a specific model. Tickets are routed informally: by who’s available, by who knows the client, by ad-hoc judgment. Escalation happens when problems arise, not as a structured practice. Not Yet: No dispatch discipline; tickets picked up ad hoc. No dispatch discipline. Tickets are picked up by whoever sees them first or assigned by the owner ad hoc. No tier discipline; no documented escalation path. Not Applicable

Service Operations

How structured is your firm’s account-management practice with existing clients? Consider whether business reviews happen on a defined cadence (quarterly or otherwise), whether review meetings produce documented next steps, and whether each client has an identified account owner accountable for the relationship.

Established: Every client has a named AM; documented review cadence; client-quality data (which clients are highest-value, which are at risk, which are growing) actively informs how AMs prioritize their attention. Every client has an assigned account manager. Business reviews happen on a documented cadence (typically quarterly for top-tier clients, semi-annually or annually for smaller). Reviews produce written summaries and next steps. AM team is actively driving expansion conversations and renewal preparation. Client-quality data (which clients are highest-value, which are at risk, which are growing) is tracked and actively informs how AMs prioritize their attention. Operating: AM ownership clear for most clients; reviews regular for larger clients; AM produces identifiable expansion revenue. Account ownership is clear for most clients. Business reviews happen regularly with the firm’s larger clients; smaller clients get less structured contact. Review outcomes are mostly documented. The AM function is producing identifiable expansion revenue. Building: AM ownership formalizing; top clients have named AMs; reviews irregular cadence; AM recognized as priority. Account ownership is being formalized: top clients have named AMs, smaller clients are still distributed informally. Business reviews happen for the largest clients but on irregular cadence. The firm recognizes that AM matters and is investing in the practice. Considering: AM identified as needed; informal owners; no defined review structure. The firm has identified AM as a function it should develop. Some clients have informal account owners (often the owner or a senior tech), but no defined cadence or review structure. AM-driven expansion happens occasionally but not systematically. Not Yet: No AM function; reactive servicing when clients call; no business reviews. No defined AM function. The firm services clients reactively when they call. No business reviews. No accountable account ownership beyond the original sale. Not Applicable

Sales & Marketing

How disciplined is your firm’s sales pipeline practice? Consider whether opportunities are documented in a CRM (or equivalent) when they’re created, whether stages are defined and pipelines are reviewed on a recurring cadence, and whether activity (calls, meetings, proposals) is tracked alongside revenue outcomes.

Established: Every opportunity in the CRM at creation; weekly pipeline reviews; activity tied to outcomes; pipeline coverage and forecast accuracy known. Every opportunity is documented in the CRM at creation. Pipeline stages are clearly defined and consistently applied. Pipeline is reviewed weekly with the sales team. Activity tracking (calls, meetings, proposals) is tied to outcomes. The team knows their pipeline coverage ratio and forecast accuracy. Operating: Most opportunities tracked; stage discipline mostly applied; pipeline reviews regular. Most opportunities are documented in the CRM. Stages are defined and applied with occasional irregularity (an opportunity advancing without a stage update, or staying in a stage too long). Pipeline reviews happen on a regular cadence. Activity is tracked but not always tied back to outcome analysis. Building: CRM in place; building the discipline of using it; reviews irregular; activity tracking partial. A CRM is in place and the firm is building the discipline of using it. Stages are defined but inconsistently applied. Pipeline reviews happen but the cadence is irregular. Activity tracking is partial. Considering: Recognize the need but not yet committed; opportunities live in head, spreadsheets, or email. The firm has decided it needs sales pipeline discipline but hasn’t yet committed to the practice. A CRM may exist but isn’t yet the system of record; opportunities live in the owner’s head, in spreadsheets, or in email. Pipeline reviews happen ad hoc. Not Yet: No documented pipeline practice; ad hoc opportunity tracking; forecasting impossible. No documented pipeline practice. Opportunities are tracked in the owner’s head or in scattered notes. No defined stages, no recurring reviews, no activity tracking. Forecasting is impossible because the data doesn’t exist. Not Applicable

Sales & Marketing

How structured is your firm’s sales close discipline? Consider whether sales staff have defined activity expectations or quotas, whether sales meetings happen on a recurring cadence with documented agenda, and whether close rates are tracked and analyzed (close-rate trends, win/loss patterns, cycle-time discipline).

Mark Not Applicable if the firm has no dedicated sales hunters and sales activity is owner-led entirely. (A firm marking N/A here is signaling exactly the structural-risk pattern this pillar is built to surface.)

Established: Documented quotas; weekly sales meetings with consistent agenda; close rates analyzed; rep coaching from the data. Sales staff have documented activity expectations or quotas, and the firm tracks performance against them. Sales meetings happen on a documented cadence (typically weekly) with consistent agenda. Close rates are tracked, win/loss patterns are reviewed, and cycle time is managed. Sales leadership coaches individual reps based on the data. Operating: Activity expectations defined; sales meetings regular; close rates reported but not deeply analyzed. Activity expectations are defined for the sales team. Sales meetings happen regularly. Close rates are reported but not deeply analyzed. The team understands its general close rate but doesn’t manage to it actively. Building: Activity expectations being defined; sales meetings happen but agenda varies; close-rate tracking partial. Activity expectations are being defined or have just been defined. Sales meetings happen but agenda varies. Close-rate tracking is partial: some opportunities tracked, others not. Considering: Recognize the need but no committed structure; ad hoc sales meetings; vague close-rate awareness. The firm recognizes it should have sales-activity discipline but hasn’t yet committed. Sales meetings happen ad hoc. No quota structure. Close rates are vaguely understood but not tracked. Not Yet: No expectations, no recurring meetings, no close-rate tracking. No activity expectations. No recurring sales meetings. No close-rate tracking. The firm sells when opportunities arise, doesn’t measure how often opportunities convert. Not Applicable

Sales & Marketing

How developed is your firm’s marketing engine? Consider whether the firm runs intentional demand-generation activities (content, email campaigns, events, paid acquisition, channel marketing), whether those activities are reviewed on a recurring cadence with attribution to outcomes, and whether marketing activity has any defined connection to the sales pipeline.

Mark Not Applicable only if the firm has consciously chosen to build no marketing function (e.g., a referral-only practice). The Quick Read interpretation flags this case as a structural-risk signal.

Established: Documented demand-gen activities running across multiple channels; monthly reviews with attribution; identifiable marketing-sourced lead share; CAC by channel known. The firm runs a documented set of demand-generation activities: likely some combination of content, email, events, paid acquisition, channel marketing. Activities are reviewed monthly with attribution to lead volume and pipeline contribution. Marketing produces an identifiable share of new opportunities; the firm knows its marketing-sourced lead percentage and CAC by channel. Operating: A few channels running; regular reviews; partial attribution; marketing produces meaningful new-business share. The firm runs marketing activity in a few defined channels. Reviews happen on a regular cadence. Some attribution is in place (the firm knows roughly which channels produce leads), but the connection to pipeline outcomes is partial. Marketing produces a meaningful share of new business. Building: Investment underway; one or two channels active; reviews irregular; informal attribution. The firm has decided to invest in marketing and is building the practice. One or two channels are running (e.g., a website refresh + email campaigns). Reviews happen irregularly. Attribution is informal. Considering: Marketing matters but no committed engine; sporadic activity; basic web presence only. The firm recognizes marketing matters but hasn’t yet committed to a specific engine. Activities are sporadic: a website that exists but isn’t producing leads, occasional content, no defined cadence. No attribution. Not Yet: No marketing engine; new business from referrals, word-of-mouth, owner’s network only. No marketing engine. New business comes from referrals, organic word-of-mouth, and the owner’s network. No demand-generation investment beyond keeping a basic web presence. Not Applicable

Instrumentation

How deeply is your firm’s PSA configured to support service work? Consider whether service boards are structured intentionally (not just default), whether ticket statuses, types, assignment rules, and templates are deliberately built, and whether techs and dispatchers can rely on the PSA to do its job without workarounds.

Established: Service boards structured for the firm; statuses, types, assignment rules, templates intentional and maintained; rare workarounds. Service boards are structured for the firm’s specific workflow. Ticket statuses, types, assignment rules, scheduling logic, and templates are intentionally configured and maintained. Dispatchers and techs use the PSA as designed; workarounds are rare and quickly addressed when they appear. The configuration evolves as the firm grows. Operating: Core configuration in place and working; some areas stronger than others; PSA carries most of the weight asked of it. Core PSA configuration is in place and working. Service boards are structured. Ticket statuses, types, and templates are mostly built out. Some areas are stronger than others (assignment rules might be solid while scheduling templates are still maturing), but the PSA carries most of the weight the firm asks of it. Building: Investment underway; some areas configured, others still default; workarounds being documented and converted. The firm has invested in PSA configuration and is in the middle of the build. Some areas are well-configured; others are still default or partially built. Workarounds exist but the team is documenting them and converting them into configuration changes. Considering: Recognize that PSA configuration matters; planning the work; mostly default configuration; common workarounds. The firm has identified that PSA configuration matters and is planning the work, but most of the PSA is still running on default or near-default configuration. Workarounds are common. Not Yet: PSA installed but barely configured; default boards and statuses; techs work mostly outside the PSA’s structured features. PSA is installed but barely configured. Default boards, default statuses, no templates. Techs do most of their work outside the PSA’s structured features (in notes, in email, in side-channel tools). Not Applicable

Instrumentation

How well do your firm’s time-tracking and agreement-billing systems work together? Consider whether time entries flow cleanly into billing without manual reconciliation, whether agreement structures (recurring revenue, project work, T&M, Hours-vs-Dollars logic) are configured to match how the firm actually sells, and whether reconciliation between PSA and accounting happens reliably.

Established: Clean time-to-billing flow; agreement structures match how the firm sells; reliable PSA-accounting reconciliation. Time-to-billing flow is clean. Agreement types, billable codes, and reconciliation rules are configured to match the firm’s sales structure. Invoicing happens on schedule with minimal manual correction. PSA-accounting reconciliation is reliable. Operating: Works for most agreements; some manual correction at edge cases; reconciliation reliable. Time-to-billing flow works for most agreements. Some manual correction happens (a few invoice templates need review, a few agreements have edge-case configurations). Reconciliation is reliable but slower than ideal. Building: Integration in place but incomplete; some workarounds; manual reconciliation common. The integration between time and billing is in place but incomplete. Some agreement types work cleanly; others require workarounds. Manual reconciliation is common. Considering: Time tracking and billing as separate systems with limited connection; planning integration. Time tracking and billing exist as separate systems with limited connection. The firm is planning to integrate them but hasn’t yet. Each invoice cycle requires manual rebuilding. Not Yet: Time and billing don’t talk; invoices built from scratch each cycle; no agreement-template structure. Time tracking and billing don’t talk to each other. Time is tracked in one system (or in spreadsheets); invoices are built from scratch each cycle. No agreement-template structure. Not Applicable

Instrumentation

How well-structured is your firm’s Chart of Accounts and accounting-to-PSA integration? Consider whether your CoA is designed for service-business reporting (departmental spend visibility, revenue stream separation, COGS classification) or whether it’s a generic small-business CoA, and whether your accounting platform integrates with your PSA at the GL-account level.

Established: CoA structured for service-business reporting; PSA-accounting integration at the GL level; reliable monthly close without spreadsheet rework. Chart of Accounts is structured for service-business reporting. Departmental spend, revenue streams (recurring / project / T&M / hardware), and COGS categories (service labor / hardware passthrough / cloud passthrough) are clearly separated. Accounting-PSA integration is configured at the GL level so PSA-driven entries land in the right CoA buckets automatically. Monthly close is reliable; the P&L is trustworthy without spreadsheet rework. Operating: CoA service-business-aware; integration mostly working with known minor gaps; monthly close reliable. CoA is service-business-aware. Revenue streams and COGS categories are mostly separated. Accounting-PSA integration is in place but has known gaps (a few categories require manual reclassification each month). Monthly close is reliable. Building: CoA being redesigned; integration partial; monthly close requires meaningful manual work. CoA has been redesigned or is being redesigned for service-business reporting. Some categories are clean; others are still legacy. Accounting-PSA integration is partial. Monthly close requires meaningful manual work. Considering: Recognize the need; not yet committed to the rebuild; generic small-business CoA; minimal PSA-accounting integration. The firm recognizes its CoA and accounting integration need work but hasn’t yet committed to the project. Generic small-business CoA with limited service-business categories. PSA-accounting integration is minimal or absent. Not Yet: Generic small-business CoA; no service-business categorization; PSA and accounting entirely separate. Generic small-business CoA. No service-business categorization. PSA and accounting are entirely separate systems. P&L requires significant manual work or doesn’t represent operating reality. Not Applicable

Financials

What is your firm’s Service Gross Margin %? Service revenue minus all service-direct costs (service labor + service-direct passthrough), divided by service revenue. (BMK frameworks call this metric Service Gross Profit %; same calculation, different name.)

Best-in-Class (BIC) is the average of the top quartile of firms in Service Leadership Index (SLI)’s benchmark network, an empirical reading, not a theoretical target. Anchors below pull from the SLI Profitability Report 2025 BIC Metrics for Infrastructure Managed Services.

At or above BIC: Service Gross Margin 49% or higher; at or above the SLI BIC empirical anchor (49.4%). At or above 49% Service Gross Margin, at or above the SLI BIC empirical anchor for Infrastructure Managed Services. Median to BIC: Service Gross Margin 42–49%; between SLI median (~42%) and BIC. Between roughly 42% and 49% Service Gross Margin, between SLI median and BIC. Bottom-Q to median: Service Gross Margin 33–42%; between bottom quartile and median. Between roughly 33% and 42% Service Gross Margin, between bottom quartile and median. Below bottom-Q: Service Gross Margin below 33%; bottom quartile or worse. Below 33% Service Gross Margin, bottom quartile or worse. Doesn’t track: Firm doesn’t measure Service Gross Margin distinctly. The firm doesn’t measure Service Gross Margin distinctly.

Financials

How does your firm’s service-labor economics read against benchmark? Multiple of Wages (SLI vocabulary): service revenue ÷ service-labor compensation; higher is better. Equivalently, Service Salaries as % of Service Revenue (BMK vocabulary): service-labor compensation ÷ service revenue; lower is better. The two are reciprocal expressions of the same relationship. Read in whichever vocabulary matches your books.

SLI BIC empirical anchor is 2.8× Multiple of Wages, equivalently ≤ 39.5% Service Direct Labor Compensation as % of Service Revenue (SLI Profitability Report 2025, ER2 / SR5).

At or above BIC: Multiple of Wages 2.8× or higher (≤ 39.5% Service Salaries / Service Revenue); at or above SLI BIC. 2.8× Multiple of Wages or higher, equivalently, Service Salaries 39.5% of Service Revenue or below. At or above the SLI BIC empirical anchor. Median to BIC: Multiple of Wages 2.2–2.8× (39.5–45% Service Salaries); between SLI median (~45%) and BIC. 2.2× to 2.8× Multiple of Wages, equivalently, Service Salaries 39.5–45% of Service Revenue. Between SLI median and BIC. Bottom-Q to median: Multiple of Wages 1.8–2.2× (45–55% Service Salaries); between bottom quartile and median. 1.8× to 2.2× Multiple of Wages, equivalently, Service Salaries 45–55% of Service Revenue. Below median, above bottom quartile. Below bottom-Q: Multiple of Wages below 1.8× (above 55% Service Salaries); bottom quartile or worse. Below 1.8× Multiple of Wages, equivalently, Service Salaries above 55% of Service Revenue. Bottom quartile or worse. Doesn’t track: Firm doesn’t measure this in either form. The firm doesn’t measure Multiple of Wages or Service Salaries % of Service Revenue distinctly.

Financials

What is your firm’s bottom-line margin? Three lenses on the same outcome: EBITDA (SLI), Adjusted EBITDA (SLI), or Net Profit (BMK). EBITDA runs meaningfully higher than Net Profit because it excludes interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. Read in whichever vocabulary matches what your books actually compute.

SLI BIC empirical anchors (Profitability Report 2025, IS5 / IS5a): EBITDA 20%, Adjusted EBITDA 17.2%. Net Profit BIC ~17.6% derived from Combined Gross Margin minus expected SG&A.

BIC or above: EBITDA ≥ 20% OR Adjusted EBITDA ≥ 17.2% OR Net Profit ≥ 17.6%; at or above SLI BIC. EBITDA at or above 20%, Adjusted EBITDA at or above 17.2%, or Net Profit at or above 17.6%, at or above the SLI BIC empirical anchor in any of the three lenses. Median to BIC: EBITDA 10.3–20% OR Adjusted EBITDA 9.8–17.2% OR Net Profit 8–17.6%; between median and BIC. EBITDA between 10.3% and 20%, Adjusted EBITDA between 9.8% and 17.2%, or Net Profit between 8% and 17.6%, between SLI median and BIC. Bottom-Q to median: EBITDA 4–10.3% OR Net Profit 2–8%; below median, above bottom quartile. EBITDA between 4% and 10.3%, or Net Profit between 2% and 8%, below median, above bottom quartile. Below bottom-Q: EBITDA below 4% OR Net Profit below 2% (or negative); bottom quartile or worse. EBITDA below 4%, or Net Profit below 2% (or negative), bottom quartile or worse. Doesn’t track: Firm doesn’t measure bottom-line margin in any of these forms distinctly. The firm doesn’t measure EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA, or Net Profit distinctly.

The Quick Read.

How disciplined is your firm’s time-entry practice? Consider both the consistency of capture (techs entering time as work happens, not at week’s end) and the quality of what’s captured (notes ready for client display, accurate work-type coding, billable-vs-non-billable classification correct).

What is your firm’s Service Gross Margin %? Service revenue minus all service-direct costs (service labor + service-direct passthrough), divided by service revenue. (BMK frameworks call this metric Service Gross Profit %; same calculation, different name.)

Your Quick Read

Per-pillar scores, your strongest and weakest pillars, tier-specific interpretation, any structural flags, and your recommended next phase.

Per-pillar reading

What this tier means

Recommended next phase