Our clients, two major nonprofits, were the co-owners of a technology product that addressed a previously unmet need in its community. However, neither nonprofit had a strategic focus on technology or were fully staffed to run a technology product. Given these realities, they needed to assess what the most feasible plan for the future could look like for the product, including a cost-benefit scenario, to determine next steps.
Wachs Strategies was brought in to:
Wachs Strategies outlined a project plan that would allow for a full assessment of the product, including an outside technical review, interviews with key stakeholders internally and externally, revenue review, and potential feasibility for acquisition or merger. Over multiple months, Wachs Strategies led the two nonprofit clients through this full assessment to determine the best path forward for the product.
Through a six month process, Wachs Strategies engaged with multiple internal and external stakeholders, including potential philanthropic funders, impact investors, and perceived potential acquisition targets, to help the nonprofit clients determine the best path forward for the product. Our project helped them align on a plan for the product and set them on a path for the product’s eventual acquisition.
The best way to solve a problem is to talk it out. Reach out to set up a time to talk. We’d love to hear from you.
This client came to Wachs Strategies requesting support in running a strategic planning process for the organization. Their previous strategic planning process had been an onerous task, and the executive team was clear they needed a new approach this time.
Wachs Strategies was retained by a volunteer board that had founded a new organization and recognized that they would be limited in what they could achieve with their reliance on volunteers.
Our client, a major corporation with multiple entities and significant name recognition, had consolidated its grantmaking into one corporate foundation several years ago. The foundation was donating significant funds annually, but the organization’s leadership felt that there was a larger impact that could be made
