Objection Response: “Need Board and CFO Approval”

Context: VP Engineering at 300-employee healthcare tech company, $200K annual cloud infrastructure monitoring deal

---

Response Framework 1: Facilitate the Internal Champion Process (RECOMMENDED)

Core Approach: Transform the objection into a partnership opportunity by helping them build the business case

Scripted Response:
“That makes complete sense - $200K is a material investment for a 300-person organization, and getting board and CFO buy-in is exactly the right process. I actually view this as a positive signal that you’re taking this seriously.

Here’s what I’d like to propose: Most VPs of Engineering we work with in healthcare tech need to build a business case for board approval. What if I helped you build that case?

I can provide you with:

• A one-page ROI summary showing 6-12 month payback based on what we’ve seen with similar healthcare tech companies
• Industry benchmarks on infrastructure downtime costs in healthcare (average $5,600/minute for patient-facing systems)
• A risk analysis showing what a major outage costs vs. our annual fee
• Reference conversations with two healthcare tech CTOs whose boards approved similar investments

What matters most to your CFO and board when they evaluate infrastructure investments - is it risk mitigation, operational efficiency, or competitive positioning?”

Why This Works for VP Engineering:

• Positions you as a partner helping them succeed internally, not just a vendor pushing for a deal
• VP Engineering is signaling they’re a champion but need ammunition for internal selling
• Demonstrates understanding of their approval process and organizational dynamics
• Offers concrete deliverables that make their job easier
• Gets you involved in shaping the business case rather than waiting passively

Follow-Up Questions:

1. “What questions do you anticipate the CFO will have about this investment?”
2. “Has your board approved similar infrastructure investments recently? What made those successful?”
3. “Would it be helpful for me to join the conversation with your CFO to answer technical ROI questions directly?”
4. “What timeline are you working with for board meetings - when’s your next opportunity to present?”

---

Response Framework 2: Uncover the Real Decision Dynamic

Core Approach: Determine if this is genuine process or a polite deflection

Scripted Response:
“Absolutely - that’s a smart process for an investment this size. Can I ask you a direct question?

When you say you need to run this past the board and CFO, is that because you’re genuinely interested and need their sign-off? Or is this not the right fit and you’re being diplomatic?

I ask because if you’re not convinced this solves a critical problem for your engineering org, no amount of board approval will matter. But if you see the value and just need internal alignment, I can help make that process smoother.

Where are you honestly on this?”

Why This Works:

• VP Engineering personas appreciate directness and lack of sales BS
• Surfaces whether they’re a genuine champion who needs help or aren’t sold yet
• Shows confidence without being aggressive
• Saves everyone time if this isn’t the right fit
• Technical leaders respect vendors who don’t waste time

Follow-Up Questions:

1. “If you had unilateral decision authority, would you move forward with this?”
2. “What’s your biggest concern about bringing this to the board - the price, the timing, or the solution fit?”
3. “What would need to be true for you to champion this internally?”

---

Response Framework 3: Pilot/Proof-of-Concept Path

Core Approach: Offer a lower-risk path that builds internal confidence before board approval

Scripted Response:
“I completely understand - asking the board to approve $200K for a vendor you haven’t worked with yet is a big ask. Here’s an alternative approach:

What if we structured this as a 60-day pilot at $10K to monitor one critical production environment? That gives your team hands-on experience, generates real data on what we catch, and gives you proof points to take to the board.

Here’s what typically happens: Healthcare tech VPs run a 60-day pilot, we identify 3-5 incidents that would have caused downtime, they calculate the cost avoidance (usually 5-10x our annual fee), and suddenly the board conversation shifts from ‘Should we spend $200K?’ to ‘Why wouldn’t we roll this out everywhere?’

The $10K pilot fee applies to the annual contract if you proceed. Would proving value first make the board approval easier?”

Why This Works:

• Lowers risk and commitment level dramatically
• Gives VP Engineering data and internal success story to present to board
• Demonstrates confidence in your product (you’re willing to be judged on results)
• Healthcare industry is risk-averse - pilot reduces perceived risk
• Converts abstract ROI claims into concrete evidence

Follow-Up Questions:

1. “What’s the highest-risk production environment you’d want to monitor first?”
2. “If a pilot shows we prevent even one major incident, does that justify the full investment?”
3. “What metrics would you need to see in a pilot to feel confident presenting to the board?”

---

Response Framework 4: Challenge the Cost/Risk Trade-off

Core Approach: Reframe $200K investment against cost of infrastructure failure

Scripted Response:
“I respect your process - board and CFO approval is absolutely appropriate. But let me ask you something as an engineering leader:

What would it cost your healthcare tech company if a critical infrastructure failure took down patient-facing systems for 4 hours?

Based on what we see with 300-person healthcare tech companies:

• Revenue impact: $50K-$100K+ in SLA credits and lost transactions
• Engineering cost: 20+ engineers dropping everything for war room response
• Reputational damage: Customer escalations, potential churn risk
• Regulatory risk: If patient care is impacted, potential compliance issues

One significant outage can cost more than our annual fee. So when you go to the board, the question isn’t ‘Should we spend $200K on monitoring?’ It’s ‘What’s the cost of not having visibility into our infrastructure?’

Have you had a major incident in the last 12 months? What did that cost in engineering time and customer impact?”

Why This Works for Healthcare Tech:

• Healthcare companies are hyper-sensitive to downtime (patient safety implications)
• Reframes from cost to risk mitigation
• Positions monitoring as insurance, not expense
• VP Engineering owns uptime and reliability - this hits their core responsibility
• Board and CFO understand risk language

Follow-Up Questions:

1. “What’s your current SLA commitment to customers? What are the financial penalties for breaches?”
2. “How much engineering time goes to firefighting vs. building features right now?”
3. “Has the board asked about infrastructure resilience given you’re in healthcare?”

---

What NOT to Say (Common Mistakes)

• “This doesn’t require board approval - you can sign this yourself” - Undermines their organizational process and suggests you don’t understand their authority limits
• “We can break it into smaller contracts to stay under approval thresholds” - Sounds sketchy and manipulative; damages trust
• “Most companies this size don’t need board approval” - Dismissive; every company has different approval processes
• “What if I gave you a discount to make it easier to approve?” - Desperate; devalues product and doesn’t solve the real objection
• “How long will that take? Can you speed it up?” - Pushy; disrespects their internal process
• “Everyone says that and then they just sign anyway” - Implies they’re lying; kills credibility

---

Healthcare Tech (300 Employees) Context

Industry Statistics:

• Average cost of IT downtime in healthcare: $5,600-$9,000 per minute for patient-facing systems
• Healthcare data breach average cost: $10.9 million (highest of any industry per IBM 2025 report)
• Healthcare cloud infrastructure market growing 23.9% CAGR (2025-2035), reaching $721.1B by 2035
• 70% of healthcare leaders prioritize investments in technology platforms and digital tools
• Healthcare IT infrastructure with advanced monitoring can reduce compliance preparation time by 65 hours monthly

VP Engineering Persona (Healthcare Tech):

Top Priorities: Infrastructure reliability/uptime, engineering velocity, technical debt management, security/compliance, scaling systems, cost efficiency

Decision Style: Technical evaluation required, involves DevOps/SRE leads, needs data/metrics, risk-averse (healthcare context), values peer references, typically 30-90 day evaluation cycle for infrastructure tools

Fears:

• Major production outage impacting patient-facing systems
• Security breach or HIPAA compliance failure
• Board/CFO perception that engineering is inefficient or spending unwisely
• Recommending a vendor that fails and reflects poorly on their judgment
• Team burnout from constant firefighting vs. feature development

Language to Mirror: “Observability,” “mean time to detection/resolution,” “SLA compliance,” “production reliability,” “engineering efficiency,” “proactive vs. reactive,” “on-call burden”

Authority Reality:

• VP Engineering at 300-person company typically has approval authority up to $50K-$75K
• $200K crosses threshold requiring CFO sign-off
• Board involvement likely if this is their first enterprise infrastructure tool at this price point
• Decision committee typically includes: VP Engineering (champion), CFO (budget holder), CTO/CEO (strategic alignment), possibly board member focused on technology risk

---

Recommended Response Strategy

1. Start with Framework 1 (Facilitate Internal Champion) - Shows partnership, helps them succeed internally, most respectful of their process
2. If sensing hesitation, use Framework 2 (Uncover Real Dynamic) - Quickly determines if they’re a genuine champion or deflecting
3. If price/risk is the concern, offer Framework 3 (Pilot) - De-risks the decision and generates internal proof points
4. For analytically-driven buyers, use Framework 4 (Challenge Cost/Risk) - Provides quantitative ammunition for business case

Tone: Professional, consultative, respectful of organizational process, data-driven, focused on helping them build internal business case

Timeline Expectation: Board approval processes at 300-person companies typically take 30-90 days. If they’re genuinely interested, expect 1-2 board meeting cycles. Don’t push for artificial urgency.

Red Flags to Watch For:

• Vague on timeline (“I’ll get back to you after I talk to them”)
• Unwilling to let you help build business case
• Can’t articulate what CFO/board will care about
• Hasn’t socialized this internally at all yet
• These may indicate they’re not a real champion or the need isn’t urgent