Skip to content
FirstDomino Sym
QUICK TOUR · IMPROVE PROFITABILITY

Find the
safer $15M.

See the ripple before you commit.
What happens to the business when cost comes out?

Scroll to unfold the storyScroll down to advance. Scroll up to revisit.
Pressure-test the saving.

Removing cost is one decision. What does it do to the business?

01Your decision

The board wants more profit.
Where do you find $15 million?

Your plan spreads the reductions across four budgets. The objective: $15M of direct annual savings by Month 24.

$250MRevenue / year$195MCost base / year

The simple estimate: $15M saved = $15M more profit.

Will it work?
THE ORIGINAL PLAN · ANNUAL REDUCTIONS
Cloud & vendors$8M
17.1% of its $46.7M budget
Commercial$3M
3.7% of its $80.8M budget
Delivery$2M
16.7% of its $12.0M budget
Customer service$2M
22.7% of its $8.8M budget

Equal dollars are not equal cuts. Customer service gives up almost a quarter of its budget.

A growing company, already under pressure. Without cuts: $250M → $401M annualized revenue in 24 months (~26.7% annual growth). Service backlog crosses the 810-unit health-pressure line in Month 7. Synthetic company and work units.

02Before you commit

What if we could test the cuts
before customers feel them?

Follow the saving. Then follow the capacity.Can FirstDomino uncover
what the plan has missed?

Same company. Same 24 months. First run the original plan, then compare the alternatives.

Scroll to begin Month 1.

03The dominoes fall

Month 1.
Costs arrive. Capacity falls.

01of 24 months

Scroll down to move the dominoes. Scroll up to replay.

Month 1 · What happens

The first reductions deliver $7M of annual savings. A $1.81M one-time transition charge arrives now; it is not an annual cost.

Recurring EBITDA improvement · $M / yearvs. no action
$0M$5M$10M$15MTodayM6M12M18M24
Direct savingRecurring EBITDA
$1.81MOne-time charges to date
Actual dollars · not annualized
03 / after 24 monthsThe consequence

The saving lands.
Only part reaches recurring profit.

Delivered direct savings$15.00MAnnual run rate at Month 24 · objective met
Recurring EBITDA improvement$7.26MAnnual run rate at Month 24 · vs. no action
+$15.00MDirect savings−$9.28MRevenue impact+$1.54MOther expense relief=$7.26MRecurring EBITDA

Other expenses fall as revenue falls; that relief does not count toward the $15M savings objective. The $1.81M of one-time charges remains in actual results: $18.69M cumulative EBITDA improvement and $18.16M cumulative cash improvement over 24 months.

04The hidden dominoes, identified

Less cost. More profit.
Where does it leak?

FirstDomino connects the saving to the operating consequences. Turn over each domino to see the timing, constraints and measured effects.

Constraint or consequenceTiming limitMeasured outcome
2 of 5 open · Original-plan model results
THE NEXT DOLLAR IS DIFFERENT

Cut less service. Keep more profit.

Reducing the service cut from $2M to $1M lifts recurring EBITDA from $7.26M to $8.73M a year. But direct savings fall to $14M: there is still $1M to find elsewhere.

04 / connect the pictureThe causal canvas

The plan counts the savings.
FirstDomino connects the consequences.

Reveal the operating paths, then select a node to inspect its mechanism. This is the same 14-node story view used in the working experience.

Reduce costs→
Direct savings→
More profit?
Connected picture

Scroll or move the slider to reveal the connected picture. Coral marks service pressure. On small screens, slide the canvas sideways to inspect all nodes.

Synthetic work units and capacity assumptions. One-time costs show this month’s actual charge; cash is cumulative; recurring EBITDA is annualized. No probability estimates are implied.

THE CONVERSATION WITH YOUR BOARD

Make the risks visible.
Show a better set of choices.

You bring the board more than a cost target: the capacity at risk, the revenue consequences and the investment required to protect the business.

05Run it again, constraints addressed

What if you pushed
a different set of dominoes?

Same company. Same $15M saving objective.
Scroll through four choices. Then bring them together.

OPTION 1 / 4No direct savings
DO NOTHING

Keep the cost base

No reductions. Growth still puts pressure on service.

$0.00Mrecurring EBITDA / year
at Month 24
Recurring EBITDA improvement · $M / yearvs. no action
$0M$5M$10M$15MTodayM6M12M18M241234
This option · same scale for every choice
$0.00M24-month cash improvement
$0.00MOne-time charges, total
Service backlog at Month 241,779 work units

No savings. Growth still creates service pressure.

Keep scrolling to reveal the next choice ↓
01–04One view of the trade-offs

More profit is only
half the decision.

Recurring EBITDA improvement · $M / yearvs. no action
$0M$5M$10M$15MTodayM6M12M18M241234
1 · No action2 · Original plan3 · +1 recommendation4 · +2 recommendations

The chart shows recurring annual EBITDA improvement. One-time charges and delayed savings still affect the cash you keep.

1

Keep the cost base

$0.00Mrecurring EBITDA / year at Month 24
Direct annual savings
$0.00M
24-month cash improvement
$0.00M
One-time charges, total
$0.00M
2

Spread the cuts

+$7.26Mrecurring EBITDA / year at Month 24
Direct annual savings
$15.00M
24-month cash improvement
+$18.16M
One-time charges, total
$1.81M
3

Protect the front line

+$9.72Mrecurring EBITDA / year at Month 24
Direct annual savings
$15.00M
24-month cash improvement
+$19.80M
One-time charges, total
$1.63M
4

Redesign, then reduce

+$11.63Mrecurring EBITDA / year at Month 24
Direct annual savings
$15.00M
24-month cash improvement
+$14.18M
One-time charges, total
$2.83M

A better result. A different cash trade-off.

Redesign first gives the highest recurring profit uplift and clears the service backlog. Protecting the front line without waiting produces more cash within 24 months. The choice depends on your horizon and capacity risk.

All outcomes are differences versus the same no-action company. Direct savings exclude expense declines caused by lost revenue. Only recurring results are annualized. Redesign assumes up to a 25% productivity lift, costs $1.2M at launch plus $50K per month, and requires company evidence.

05 / pressure-test the alternativesWhat could change the answer?

Test the delivery.
Then test the order.

EFFICIENCY IS AN ASSUMPTION

What if only 70% arrives?

Cloud/vendor savings carry more of options 3 and 4. Change their delivery, and the $15M objective is no longer met.

2 · Spread the cuts$15.00Mdirect saving / year+$7.26Mrecurring EBITDA / yearObjective met
3 · Protect the front line$15.00Mdirect saving / year+$9.72Mrecurring EBITDA / yearObjective met
4 · Redesign, then reduce$15.00Mdirect saving / year+$11.63Mrecurring EBITDA / yearObjective met
Delivery stress, not a probability forecast. An independent service-quality effect from vendor changes is not modeled.
THE SAME LEVERS · ANOTHER ORDER

Build capacity before removing it?

Use the option 4 allocation. Compare redesign in Month 1 and cuts in Month 7 with the reverse sequence.

Month 1Redesign
→
Month 7Reduce costs
+$11.63Mrecurring EBITDA / year at Month 24
+$14.18M24-month cash improvement

0 unfinished service work units at Month 24.

Delayed savings and upfront investment trade early cash for more operating capacity. These are decision scenarios, not an execution plan.
06Your next decision

Now push
your first domino.

Change the assumptions. Inspect the full canvas. Test what reaches profit—and what happens to the business.

IMPROVE PROFITABILITYFind the safer $15M.Open the working experience ↗THE OTHER QUICK TOURMore reps. More revenue?Follow the hiring decision ↗
Bring your decision ↗
Model, evidence & assumptions

Each strategy runs the existing company kernel and balanced ledger against a matched no-action company, with the same seed. Only delivered direct reductions count toward the $15M objective. Ongoing EBITDA is annualized; one-time charges, cumulative EBITDA and cumulative cash are shown in actual dollars.

Synthetic growth company, not a validated forecast. Even without cuts, growth creates service pressure. Cloud/vendor efficiencies assume no quality degradation; a 70% realization stress tests delivery risk, not quality risk. Budget/capacity elasticities and productivity need company evidence. Revenue-linked expense declines are excluded from the savings objective.

These are fixed reference results from the same pinned model as the profitability experience. Charts use actual monthly outputs. The narrative is authored explanatory content, not a separate causal inference engine or a probability forecast.

Model: cost-story-3.0 · Original plan run: 8fbb72cfca3730141bc2d1d485f8dd14b9cf3dd942c7504ee6cf52924e88d5a8