Innovative Medical Equipment
Greg
23 July 2026
Turn data access into a parent-level commercial build.
Do not sell a list. Establish the two procurement routes, diagnose the activation and follow-up gap, then earn the working session with the people who can fund the complete unit.
First 90 seconds
Open on the business change
No deck tour. Get Greg talking about the new decision environment.
Greg, with the Gentherm acquisition now public, I want to keep this practical. Rather than run back through the deck, can we use today to establish what must be true for IME's growth plan to move at parent-company level, then decide who needs to be in the working session?
Then stop. Let Greg describe what changed, who now matters, and what is still unsettled.
Discovery spine
Ask in this order
The route should sound like a normal medical commercial diagnosis.
What has the acquisition changed about the priorities for the next 90 to 120 days?
Separate immediate integration work from the commercial growth mandate.
Funding route, reporting line, time pressure
What has the internal team already mapped, and where is the plan still open?
Let Greg define the work already done before positioning the missing operating layer.
Strategy without execution ownership
How are you sourcing and maintaining the claims, provider, affiliation, and specialty data today?
Ask broadly. Do not name a provider first.
Definitive, coverage, license, freshness
Would you prefer to keep that license direct, or have one accountable partner source and integrate the data layer?
Make procurement model a choice, not a wedge.
Control, procurement burden, vendor count
If the right dataset landed tomorrow, what exactly happens in week one?
Move the conversation from access to activation.
No ranked cohort, sequence, owner, or workflow
Who owns response handling, follow-up, and the feedback loop once conversations start?
Expose the operating gap without criticizing the team.
Handoffs, slow follow-up, unclear accountability
What would Gentherm need to see in 90 to 120 days to call this a successful commercial integration?
Translate activity into parent-level evidence.
Pipeline, meetings, revenue path, repeatability
Who now owns the Medical commercial plan and the budget that sits behind it?
Ask for the real authority map, not a generic introduction.
Decision maker, budget owner, integration lead
Synthesis checkpoint
What I am hearing is that data access matters, but the larger risk is turning it into a repeatable commercial system with clear ownership and proof the parent company can evaluate. Is that fair?
Core positioning
Give them two clean data routes
Neutral on route. Firm on ownership, integration, and activation.
01
IME licenses the source directly
IME keeps the vendor relationship and provides the licensed feed. ECG validates it, integrates it, ranks the cohorts, activates it, and builds the operating system around it.
- Clean separation between license and build
- IME controls the source relationship
- ECG remains accountable for commercial activation
02
ECG consolidates the required data layer
ECG uses its internal data and sourcing routes, passes any agreed third-party data charge through at cost, then integrates the result into the business unit.
- One accountable build partner
- Less procurement and handoff overhead
- Same client-owned operating asset at handover
Say it this way
There are two sensible ways to handle the data. You can keep the license direct and give us the feed, or we can source the required third-party layer through our own routes and pass that cost through without markup. We are neutral on which route you choose. What matters is that the data becomes a usable, client-owned commercial asset, not another disconnected subscription.
At-cost boundary
At cost applies only to agreed third-party data licensing or acquisition. ECG's work to validate, integrate, rank, activate, instrument, learn, and hand over the system remains part of the engagement.
Only if Greg names Definitive or asks about alternatives
If you license Definitive directly, we can design around that feed. If you would rather consolidate it, we can also source the required layer through our own routes, including a direct cofounder-level route into Alpha Sophia, and combine it with the data we already hold. The choice stays with you.
Data sovereignty
At handover, you receive the usable exports, schema, field definitions, provenance, scoring logic, segments, suppression records, refresh method, and campaign history. The underlying third-party rights still follow the original license and applicable law, but the operating asset is not trapped with us.
Reframe
The data is an input, not the answer
This is the bridge from a data purchase to the higher-ticket business unit.
Validated data→
Client-owned layer→
Ranked cohorts→
Evidence→
Email and LinkedIn→
Conversations→
Named owner→
Follow-up→
Learning→
Parent proof
If Greg asks why data is part of the diagnosis
In US medical, the source, licensing, and structure of the data determine whether the commercial system can be owned, refreshed, and transferred. We ask every medical client before designing the build.
Scope discipline
Force one measurable proof cell
Do not pitch every market. Make them choose where fast evidence matters most.
Patients and caregivers
Clarify the trigger, audience availability, consent boundaries, response route, and commercial outcome.
DME and channel partners
Clarify the partner profile, geography, product fit, decision roles, and the expected next step.
Providers and clinicians
Clarify specialty, affiliation, claims signal, patient fit, message evidence, and handoff ownership.
Forcing question
If we could prove only one segment in the first 90 days, which one would create the strongest case for the parent company to expand the program?
Authority path
Progress it to the actual budget owner
Greg remains the sponsor. The next session earns parent-level participation.
→
→
Public fallback if Greg is unclear on the parent owner
Would Dwight Thomas, as the current leader of Gentherm Medical, be the right person for the commercial integration discussion, or is there someone else now carrying that mandate?
Live responses
Keep the frame when challenged
Short answer, then return to diagnosis.
We are already buying Definitive.
That is completely workable. Keep the license direct and we will design around the feed. The decision is not whether the data exists. It is who turns it into a governed, repeatable commercial system and leaves IME owning the result.
Can ECG source the data for us?
Yes. We can combine our internal data with the required third-party layer, pass agreed external data charges through at cost, and remain accountable for integration and activation.
Why would you pass it through at cost?
Because our value is not a markup on rows. It is building the commercial unit that validates, prioritizes, activates, learns, and transfers. Keeping the data charge transparent aligns the incentives.
Who owns the data at the end?
IME owns the operating data asset, exports, schema, scoring, segments, suppression, refresh method, and campaign history. Any underlying third-party rights remain subject to the source license and applicable law.
We want to keep the vendor direct.
Fine. We are neutral on procurement. Give us the licensed feed and we will integrate it. The build and handover remain the same.
Gentherm can do this internally.
They may be able to. The useful question is whether the team has the capacity, medical data workflow, channel infrastructure, response ownership, and four-month build focus to prove it now. We can build it in-market, leave the capability behind, and avoid permanent dependency.
What will the engagement cost?
We should not price a shape we have not agreed. The next working session needs the proof cell, data route, ownership model, and parent scorecard. Once those are fixed, we can present the commercial structure live.
Can you just help us buy the list?
We can support the sourcing decision, but a list by itself is not the outcome. The valuable asset is the complete system that turns the data into qualified conversations, disciplined follow-up, and transferable learning.
Information discipline
Hold back until Greg opens the door
If screen sharing starts, press B to blur this section and other conditional detail.
Do not sound pre-briefed
Ask the standard data-source question and let Greg identify the provider.
Use it only after Greg asks about ECG sourcing or alternatives.
Wait for Greg to raise specific programs, codes, counts, or previous vendor experience.
Stay on data, activation, response ownership, proof, and handover.
External data charge only. The ECG build is the paid engagement.
Earn the decision group and define the shape before presenting commercials live.
Last five minutes
Ask for the working session
Do not leave with a vague promise to circulate internally.
Close on the decision group, not the proposal.
Greg, the useful next step is a working session with you, Brad, and whoever now owns the Gentherm Medical commercial integration. We will bring a one-page architecture for the two data routes, a proposed first proof cell, and the parent-level scorecard. We can use that session to agree what IME supplies, what we build, and what evidence unlocks the wider program. Who is the right parent-company owner to include, and can we put that session in the diary now?