MedTech founders rarely fail because the device is bad. They fail because they fix the wrong problem first. And in this episode, you'll learn how to decide what to prioritize in your MedTech launch when several parts of it could be improved. And today I'll give you the decision rule that helps you identify the move most likely to unlock real contracts and meaningful revenue. Welcome to Clinician to CEO, the podcast helping clinicians simplify your go-to-market strategy so that you can stop guessing and turn your working prototypes into international MedTech businesses. I'm your host, Hakeem Aade. Let's get started. In the last episode, we covered the four Ps of a MedTech launch product proof pathway and people, And I left you with a decision to make on the following scenario where we had scored each one of those four Ps out of 10. And I said the scenario was that the product scored an eight, the proof was a five, pass away was a six, and people scored. Four. And if you recall, I said, anything below seven half percent is a vulnerability and therefore you have three vulnerabilities and you had 90 days to materially improve one. And the question was, which do you fix first? Now, a vulnerability does not necessarily mean that that is a priority so you might still have three below seven, but you can't fix everything all at once. So you have to prioritize. so which one do you choose first. And the options were A, refine the product. B, strengthen the proof. C, clarify the buying pathway. Or D strengthen the people engine driving adoption. So now let's get into the methodology for which one you should choose first. And the rule that you need to have in mind all the way through is that you do not automatically fix the lowest number. You fix the one that most severely impacts revenue. That's the rule, Not the weakest P, not the easiest P, but the one that is actively blocking revenue. So now let's apply that rule. Let's test it. If product is an eight, would improving it to a nine or a 10? Significantly change adoption very unlikely. And it's also very unlikely you'd be able to make that change within 90 days. So A is effectively out. So therefore what you're left with is proof pathway or people. And Here's the diagnostic question you need to ask, and you have to be brutally honest with yourself. What is actually happening in the live conversations that are happening in the field,, is it one, are clinicians saying we love it, but procurement is pushing back, asking for economic data. If that's a yes, then proof is a constraint, or is it two?. Are you stuck in endless meetings because you don't know the real budget holder or the decision route? If it's a yes to that, then the pathway is a constraint, or is it three? Are people interested but no one is actually driving it effectively, internally or externally? For example, no champion, no distributor focus, no follow through. If the answer to number three is yes, then people is a constraint. The lowest number does give you a clue, but it's behavior in the field that confirms the answer. So being. Honest about what's actually happening in those conversations is critical. So for example, in this scenario where we have product of eight, proof of the five pathway, the six, and people at a four, if commercial conversations are stalling because nobody's pushing the deal forward, Then D is correct people is the constraint. And the fact it's also the lowest number will reinforce that instinct. But however, if that's not the case and the actual real reason is because procurement is saying, come back when you have stronger economic data, then B is correct, IE proof is the constraint. And that's why instinct is dangerous because you could just automatically say, because people are the four then emotionally and instinctively then you'd say, well, people is the thing that we have to, work on where what we're actually saying is it's situational. It's not just the lowest number. And here is the real takeaway. The score helps you identify vulnerabilities, but conversations will then reveal the real constraint., And that's what determines the priority. One thing that we do know for certain in this scenario, if the answer is not a, improving the product from an eight to a nine or a 10, won't unlock contracts therefore won't unlock revenue inside 90 days, the real decision sits between proof pathway and people, and which one you prioritize depends entirely on what is happening in your commercial conversations. So a little practical 90 day filter for you here Before committing to your next 90 days, ask yourself. if I materially improved this P would contracts and revenue accelerate inside this quarter? If the answer is no, then it's not your first move. Simple, not easy, but simple. And I say this all the time, Most MedTech products don't fail because the device is bad. they stall because founders improve the wrong thing first, structure beats activity. Constraint thinking beats optimism. Scoring is the starting point, but conversations are the key. And if you want help identifying your real commercial constraint and then hence, understanding which p to focus on that will move your revenue forward in the next 90 days. Book a healthcare export accelerator discovery call with me via the link in the show notes. Thanks for listening. Keep challenging your assumptions and keep growing.