# Fractional CPO Scope of Work · Open Template v1.1 ### Part of the Fractional Rates Index engagement standard · CC BY 4.0 ### This is a working template, not legal advice. It attaches to [`services-agreement.md`](services-agreement.md). Under agreement §4.5 **this document governs the description of services and deliverables, and the agreement governs all legal and commercial terms and controls in the event of conflict.** Outcomes and targets stated here are good-faith objectives, not guarantees or conditions of payment. > **Sources.** This document is built from the fractional CPO scope-of-work source content (Batch 4, > wave 3) and from the executed structure of [`services-agreement.md`](services-agreement.md) §§2–4, > §5 and §10. Every section is sourced; **no field is left pending.** > > **On the bracketed values.** Figures like `[20-25] hours`, `[3] months` and `[30] days` are **this > practice's own conventions, offered as template defaults for the parties to set.** They are **not > market norms and not measured data.** Publishing a house convention as a market range inside a > citable open standard would be circular — the convention would become citable "market evidence" and > could later be cited back at its own author as independent corroboration. This template does not do > that. For what is actually measured, see [`../FINDINGS.md`](../FINDINGS.md), which finds that only > 129 of 736 providers have a confirmed published price and states explicitly that the sample > establishes a disclosure pattern rather than a market rate. --- ## The short version A fractional CPO scope of work has five sections that matter: **outcomes**, **decision rights**, the **operating cadence**, the **execution boundary**, and **commercial terms**. **Scope defined by outcomes and rights survives contact with reality. Scope defined by task lists collapses into hourly babysitting by month two.** --- ## 1. Outcomes, not activities **Two or three outcomes, measurable at day 90.** Not an activity list. **[State 2-3 outcomes here.]** Worked examples of the right altitude: - Install a prioritization process the team runs independently - Deliver an evidence-backed 12-month strategy - Reduce decision latency on customer requests to under a week **Drafting note.** Activity lists — "attend standups, review specs" — buy presence, not change. Each outcome above names a state of the world that is different at day 90 and can be checked. If a line cannot be checked, it is an activity wearing an outcome's clothes. --- ## 2. Decision rights The single highest-leverage paragraph in the document. **Most fractional failures are undefined-authority failures wearing other costumes.** Consistent with agreement §4.1–4.3. | Level | In this engagement | |---|---| | **Decides** | Roadmap priorities within the agreed strategy; process design; product strategy **and its exclusions**; the product decision process; customer-evidence direction; coaching of the internal product team | | **Recommends** (founder decides) | Hiring and compensation; pricing; fundraising narrative; **changes to the strategy itself** | | **Stays out of** | People decisions on day one; anything the founder is not ready to delegate — **named honestly**, not left implicit | **Drafting note.** Two lines here do disproportionate work. "Product strategy *and its exclusions*" makes deciding what the product will **not** do an owned decision rather than an orphaned one. "Changes to the strategy itself" sits with the founder deliberately: the Executive owns decisions *within* a strategy but cannot unilaterally replace the strategy they were hired to execute. The third row is the one people leave blank. Write down what the founder is not ready to delegate, in plain words, on day one. An unnamed reservation surfaces in month two as a disagreement about competence. --- ## 3. The execution boundary Written down, because **this is where scope creep lives.** - **The Executive owns:** decisions, strategy, process, coaching. - **The internal team owns:** tickets, specs, delivery. - **Not exclusive:** the Executive maintains other clients; this is inherent to the fractional model (agreement §1.2) and is not a conflict. Competitor restrictions are handled at agreement §8.1. - **People-management authority:** excluded unless separately agreed in writing (agreement §4.3). **If no internal execution capacity exists, say so in this document and shape the engagement accordingly** — rather than discovering it in month two as mutual resentment. --- ## 4. Cadence and availability Per source §3 and agreement §3. - **Fixed weekly leadership session** — the spine of the engagement - **Async response norm:** **[24-48 hours]** on business days - **Escalation path for decisions that cannot wait:** **[named route and named person]** - **Committed time:** **[20-25]** hours per month, shaped as fixed cadence plus responsive async - **Variance:** the monthly band is a good-faith planning envelope, not a meter; single months may vary **[±20%]** without adjustment (agreement §3.2) - **Sustained overage:** two consecutive months above the band triggers a scope conversation, not silent invoicing (agreement §3.3) **Why monthly bands rather than weekly caps.** Weekly hard caps fight the natural rhythm of leadership work, which front-loads around decisions. Use a monthly band with a fixed weekly cadence inside it. **The escalation path is not optional.** A response norm without an escalation route means every urgent decision either waits for the weekly session or arrives as an interruption. --- ## 5. Commercial terms Per source §5 and agreement §2 and §5. - **Monthly retainer:** **$[amount]** against the defined hour band in §4 - **Minimum term:** **[3] months** — real outcomes need two decision cycles - **Notice:** **[30] days**, either side, after the initial term - **IP:** assigned to the Company on payment; the Executive retains pre-existing methods and frameworks (agreement §6) - **Confidentiality:** agreement §7 - **Conversion clause:** if a full-time hire emerges, search support is included and **any placement economics are named upfront**, not negotiated at the moment of conversion > The retainer figure is a field for the parties. No benchmark range is stated here. See > [`../FINDINGS.md`](../FINDINGS.md) for every figure the index supports, each with its denominator. --- ## 6. Reporting line and counterpart - **Reports to:** **[role]** - **Named Company counterpart:** **[name, role]** A single named person who owns the relationship, unblocks access, and is accountable for Company-side inputs. Engagements without one fail slowly, and for reasons that look like the Executive's fault. --- ## 7. The evidence program **The first clause people forget and regret.** Name the interview volume **and the access the Company must provide.** - **Customer conversations in the first 60 days:** **[60-80]** - **The Company's obligation:** opening those doors — introductions, scheduling, and permission to speak to named accounts **Drafting note.** An evidence-backed strategy is one of the standard outcomes in §1, and it is not achievable unilaterally. Writing the volume without writing the access obligation puts the Executive on the hook for a number only the Company can deliver. --- ## 8. Tools and data access **Day one, in writing.** **[List the systems, repositories, dashboards, analytics and accounts required, with the owner of each.]** Two weeks of access friction comes out of a 90-day engagement, not out of the calendar. Access is the cheapest thing on this list to arrange and the most expensive to arrange late. --- ## 9. Deliverables and handover **Fractional done well ends deliberately.** Per source and agreement §10, on wind-down the Executive delivers, within the final month's hours: - The documented strategy - The running decision process - The open decision log - Where relevant, the hiring profile for a successor - A **[range]** hour transition session with the successor or founder. Handover work beyond the final month's band is chargeable under agreement §3.4 **Drafting note.** Each deliverable needs a stated acceptance test. "A product strategy" is not a deliverable; "a written product strategy reviewed and accepted by **[counterpart]**" is. The decision *log and its rationale* matter more than the decisions themselves — a successor who inherits conclusions without reasoning will re-litigate all of them. --- ## 10. Review and change control - **First 90 days:** **fixed outcomes** per §1 - **After 90 days:** rolling scope, **reviewed quarterly** - **How a change is recorded:** written amendment signed by both parties, per agreement §11.3. The Scope of Work may be amended only in writing signed by both parties, per agreement §4.5. **Why this shape.** Deliverable-fixed engagements turn a leader into a vendor; scope-free ones turn the retainer into a subscription to meetings. Fixed outcomes first, rolling scope after. Scope in a fractional engagement moves, and that is not a failure. What fails is scope moving without either party noticing, which is a change-control problem rather than a scoping one. --- ## Versioning **v1.1 (2026-08-20).** Realigned to services agreement v1.1: precedence inverted so the agreement controls legal and commercial terms, amendment reference moved to §11.3, and handover overrun made chargeable under §3.4. **v1.0 (2026-08-17).** First complete publication. All sections sourced from the scope-of-work source content (Batch 4, wave 3) and [`services-agreement.md`](services-agreement.md). No field pending. --- *Published as part of the Fractional Rates Index engagement standard. License CC BY 4.0: reuse freely with attribution to saasfractionalcpo.com.*