Research-first PM who builds from scratch

The constraint

FlairX had just launched Ziva, an AI interviewer avatar. No GTM function existed. No ICP defined, no value proposition documented, no conversion path on the website. I was the first PMM.

The ICP insight

FlairX was already targeting small startups — but nobody had articulated precisely why. I dug into it. The answer: early-stage founders need to hire technical talent but do not have the domain expertise to evaluate it. A CEO interviewing a software engineer does not know what good looks like. That is not a recruiting problem — it is a knowledge gap disguised as one.

ICP defined: seed to Series D startups without dedicated HR, where founders do the interviewing themselves.

The infrastructure gap

The website had a contact form — but only for the Human Interviewer product. We were about to launch an AI Interviewer with no way for prospects to request a demo of it. I flagged this early, worked with the CEO and design team to add an AI demo request flow and product showcase.

Three campaign tracks

• Product Launch (LinkedIn): A 7-day coordinated sequence built around LinkedIn's algorithm. Goal was to trigger high-engagement ranking within the first hour. What I learned: the launch post did not hit the threshold because I had not briefed the team in advance. Coordination is a product problem too.
• ICP Email Sequences: 14-day, 4-email founder-led sequence. Awareness to curiosity to trust to demo booking. Warm tone, never pushy.
• TechCrunch LinkedIn Outreach: Multi-touch campaign targeting TA leaders and C-suite attendees. Day 0 through Day 15 with non-happy path logic built for every scenario.

Before I left

I built a sequenced GTM roadmap for whoever came after me — organized by product maturity. FlairX Blog first, Hiring Pain Calculator second, HR content creator partnerships third, ATS integrations fourth. This was not a wishlist. It was a prioritized handoff.

The constraint

A scientist team had prototyped a medical tube-securing device and published the design. My team had no access to the authors — only the paper, and a pile of medical terminology to decode.

The problem

Two gaps in critical care. ICU patients on tubes often have burns, infections, or fragile skin — adhesives cause additional injury and no real alternative exists. Tube dislodgement drives readmissions, liability, and in the worst cases, airway emergencies. The stat that anchored everything: 22% total intubation error rate.

The research

52 interviews across three phases. Phase one was fully open-ended — no product mentioned, just pain. Phase two introduced the concept to test whether the premise held up. Phase three pressure-tested specific design choices with returning clinicians and patients.

Three insights that became the product

• Adhesives are the default by absence of fit. Clinicians used tape even when it caused harm — because nothing better existed.
• Tube mobility matters more than anyone had quantified. Oral care for intubated patients requires repositioning every few hours. Most devices fight that workflow.
• Dental damage from bite blocks is real, known, and completely unaddressed. Traditional bite blocks load the incisors — the weakest teeth.

The design decisions

No face contact, no adhesive — because adhesives injure compromised skin. Bite anchored on molars — because incisors are the wrong load point. Saw-tooth lateral track — because oral care requires tube repositioning.

Prioritization

Three lenses: clinician trust, patient tolerance, hospital adoption. What we cut: digital tube-position sensors. It would have turned a 30-second bedside tool into a regulated electronic product. The constraint that shaped everything: a nurse has to trust it in 30 seconds with zero training.

The brief

Company B had built an ePCR system for large EMS agencies and wanted to expand into smaller and mid-market agencies. The question: where to launch, who to target, and how to price it.

The analysis

Used SQL and Excel to analyze regional adoption data across 4 U.S. states and national EMS datasets covering 87,000+ vehicles. Mapped agency size, vehicle density, willingness to pay, and geographic concentration.

Three findings that shaped the strategy

• Who to target: Agencies with 3–6 vehicles and 15+ vehicles. Together they represent 62.8% of total market value.
• Where to launch: Urban areas first. Urban agencies represent 71.23% of total vehicles — higher density means more efficient marketing and faster penetration.
• How to price: Tiered purchasing price by agency size ($3,499 for 1–2 vehicles, $2,999 for 3–6, $1,999 for 7+). Flat subscription at $99 per vehicle per month.

Three problems worth knowing about.