When new nuclear achieves economic viability, $3.3T of annual global energy investment will be transformed.

We accelerate that commercial reality through economics-first advisory

$10.0B
Fusion Investment
35+
Fusion Companies
$100.0B
Market by 2030
15+
Years Experience

Why MODULE12

Deep fusion-domain fluency combined with finance, cost modeling, strategy, market analysis, and operating execution.

Fusion-focused

An advisory partner for organizations building, buying, enabling, or funding fusion. We work where physics meets markets.

The other half of the path

Technology readiness is only half the path to deployment. We work on adoption readiness: costing the plant, sizing the market, testing the supply chain, and structuring the capital.

Run by a founder

Every engagement and touchpoint is led by our founding team, supported by a bench of specialized experts.

Every engagement starts with a scoping call

A scoping call, then an agreement with a defined term and scope. If the question does not fit a standard shape, just ask.

Book a scoping call

Who we work with

MODULE12 helps fusion startups, supply-chain companies, public-sector teams, and emerging ecosystem players turn technical progress into credible commercial, financial, and deployment pathways.

  • Fusion startups

    TEA and financial models, a line-by-line audit of the models you already have, investor and data-room materials for fundraising, and a Technology-to-Market plan for a DOE award.

    Ways to engage

  • Supply-chain companies

    The economic case for your component technology and its impact on fusion LCOE, supply chain and materials risk analysis, and market and partnership strategy.

    What we do

  • Public-sector teams and programs

    An independent second opinion on TEA, cost models, and milestone evidence for programs managing awards, and tailored workshops and executive briefings on the business of fusion.

    What we do

  • Industrials, utilities and hyperscalers

    Market analysis and published research on fusion funding, technology, and deployment trends, and tailored workshops and executive briefings on the business of fusion.

    Ways to engage

  • Investors weighing capital

    Independent validation and review of TEA, cost models, and milestone evidence, with fees that never depend on the conclusion.

    Independence

What we do

MODULE12 is a fusion-focused advisory partner for organizations building, buying, enabling, or funding fusion. We work where physics meets markets.

  • Techno-Economic Analysis & Cost Modeling

    TEA models that quantify system costs, performance, learning curves, and uncertainty for prototype, pilot, and FOAK to NOAK programs.

  • Commercialization Roadmaps, Market Strategy & Partnerships

    Market, business model, and partnership strategies that guide fusion technologies from prototype validation to FOAK and early commercial deployment, aligned with regulatory strategy.

  • Financial Modeling, Scenario Planning & Capital Strategy

    Integrated financial models and capital strategies that link TEA outputs to P&L, cash flow, funding needs, valuation, and investor expectations.

  • Supply Chain, Materials & Manufacturing Risk Analysis

    Risk analysis for critical fusion nodes, mapping domestic supplier readiness and identifying geopolitical exposure for First-of-a-Kind (FOAK) deployment.

  • Independent Validation & Review

    An independent second opinion on TEA, cost models, and milestone evidence to strengthen confidence for investors weighing capital and government programs managing awards.

  • Education, Training & Workshops

    Tailored workshops and executive briefings on the business of fusion: economics, commercialization, and capital, drawing on content from our MIT and Princeton courses.

  • Investor & Data-Room Materials

    Models, narratives, and data rooms that translate complex fusion technology into a compelling, diligence-ready case for fundraising and partner negotiations.

  • Market Intelligence & Published Research

    Rigorous market analysis and published research on fusion funding, technology, and deployment trends that inform strategy across the fusion ecosystem.

How we work

Technology readiness is only half the path to deployment

Technology readiness versus adoption readinessTwo axes, Technology Readiness Level (TRL) from 1 to 9 vertically and Adoption Readiness Level (ARL) from 1 to 9 horizontally. Deployment sits at the top right, where both are high. A technology development-focused strategy climbs the TRL axis only; a deployment-focused strategy climbs both together. The area between them is what TRL progress leaves unresolved.DeploymentTechnology development-focused strategyWhat TRL progressleaves unresolvedDeployment-focused strategyResearch336699Adoption Readiness Level (ARL)Technology Readiness Level (TRL)
Department of Energy, Office of Technology Commercialization: Adoption Readiness Level framework

What is ARL?

The Department of Energy's Adoption Readiness Level (ARL) is a complement to Technology Readiness Level (TRL). It classifies 17 adoption risks into four groups: value proposition, market acceptance, resource maturity, license to operate.

Why both axes

Both scales must reach the top for deployment, but while TRL advances through science and engineering, ARL advances through business operations like costing the plant, sizing the market, testing the supply chain, and structuring the capital.

The Adoption Readiness Level track is where we work.

Clearing the path to deployment and where we work

The 17 Adoption Readiness Level dimensions, and how much of each group MODULE12 covers.

  • MODULE12 core coverage
  • MODULE12 partial coverage
  • Not covered

MODULE12 core coverage

Value Proposition

Can the technology deliver what the market needs, at a price customers will pay?

  • Delivered Cost

    Achieving delivered cost competitiveness when produced at full scale

  • Functional Performance

    Ability to meet or exceed the performance and feature-set of incumbent solutions, or create new end-use markets

  • Ease of Use / Complexity

    Operational switching costs; the ability of a new user to adopt and operationalize the technology with limited training

MODULE12 core coverage

Market Acceptance

Who are the buyers? How large is the market? Who already holds it?

  • Demand Maturity / Market Openness

    Demand certainty and access to standardized sales and contracting mechanisms, as well as natural and structural barriers to entry

  • Market Size

    Overall size of the market that can be served by the technology, and the level of uncertainty with which it will materialize

  • Downstream Value Chain

    Projected path to get the product from a producer to a customer along the value chain

MODULE12 core coverage

Resource Maturity

Do the inputs exist to build and run it at scale?

  • Capital Flow

    Availability of capital to move from current state to production at scale, including required investment, willing investors, and speed of capital flow

  • Workforce

    Human capital and capabilities required to design, produce, install, maintain, and operate the technology solution at scale

  • Materials Sourcing

    Availability of required critical materials

  • Manufacturing and Supply Chain

    All the entities and processes that will produce the end-product, including integrators, component and sub-component manufacturers

  • Infrastructure

    Physical and digital large-scale systems that need to be in place to support, enable or facilitate deployment at scale

  • Project Development, Integration, and Management

    Processes and capabilities to successfully and repeatably execute projects using the technology solution

MODULE12 partial coverage

License to Operate

What are the societal and regulatory conditions for deploying at all?

  • Permitting and Siting

    Process to secure approvals to site and build equipment and infrastructure associated with deploying the technology at scale

  • Community Perception

    The general perception by global and local communities of the technology and its risks or impact, whether founded or unfounded

  • Regulatory EnvironmentNot covered

    Local, state, and federal regulations or other requirements and standards that must be met to deploy the technology at scale

  • Policy EnvironmentNot covered

    Local, state, and federal government policy actions that support or hinder the adoption of the technology at scale

  • Environmental and SafetyNot covered

    The potential for hazardous side effects or adverse events inherent to the production, transport, or use of the technology in the absence of sufficient controls

Department of Energy, Office of Technology Commercialization: Adoption Readiness Level framework, core risk areas.

Our method

We give you the answer, and the tools to adapt when it changes.

How we work

Four steps, run in order on every engagement

  1. Frame the decision
  2. Build it bottom-up
  3. Test it to breaking
  4. Deliver a strategy

Where we guide your business

Four domains, screened together to raise your ARL

Options in

  • Development strategies
  • Financing routes
  • Partnerships
  • Adjacent markets
  • Spin-offs & side revenues
  • Market entry options

  1. Screen 1: TEA

    What it really costs to build and run: FOAK and Nth-of-a-kind

  2. Screen 2: Market & commercialization

    Who buys, at what price, for how long, and which path to take

  3. Screen 3: Financial model & financing

    Returns for equity and debt, and a financing plan across milestones

  4. Screen 4: Risk & scenarios

    What breaks, how likely, and what it costs when it does

The paths worth taking

Re-tested as conditions change.

Proof of work

Selected engagements and the questions they answered.

Instruments applied:TEAMarketFinanceRisk
  • TEARisk

    TEA audit, validation and improvement

    Line-by-line audit of the client’s TEA model, correcting unsupported assumptions and validating the result against comparable projects and literature.

  • TEAMarket

    Economic case for an innovative component technology

    Literature and market data synthesis, cost trajectory scenarios, LCOE impact estimation, and geopolitical value chain analysis to directly quantify impact of client’s innovation on fusion LCOE, supporting a pre-seed raise.

  • TEAMarket

    Cost crossover analysis against conventional generation

    Techno-economic analysis identifying the deployment strategy required to beat conventional energy sources on LCOE, tested against a range of policy and market scenarios.

  • Market

    Site availability screening: brownfield and retiring fossil

    Screened brownfield industrial and retiring fossil sites for repurposing potential, considering availability, grid interconnect, site infrastructure, and more to identify best sites to reduce FOAK financing cost.

  • MarketTEAFinance

    Byproduct stream analysis

    Built the techno-economic and financial case for a high-value byproduct stream, including market sizing, delivered cost, partnership strategy, and margin benchmarked against incumbent supply.

  • Market

    Large foreign power market entry strategy

    Market entry strategy for a fast-growing overseas market developing a precedent-based playbook covering political, partner, siting and financing approach.

  • Market

    Bridge power sourcing and sequencing

    Compared bridge-power sourcing pathways for a large early load to support early initiation of a PPA for power technology still in development. Identified and assessed multiple options against cost, timeline and reliability.

  • Market

    AI-driven research acceleration partnership

    Designed the program framework and outreach strategy for a frontier research collaboration, framing the technical problem in terms each partner already supports.

  • FinanceTEARisk

    FOAK financial model and framework

    Financial model for a FOAK plant, and the financing framework built on it: capital stack mapped against technical readiness milestones, sequencing which capital sources unlock at which stage.

  • Finance

    Grant and incentive landscape mapping

    Mapped the current landscape of grants and incentive programs against the project’s cost structure and eligibility, identifying both current and future opportunities.

  • Finance

    Fundraising support

    Led and advised on fundraise activities: storytelling, staged data room built around diligence sequence, and a tiered investor list with outreach plan.

  • FinanceMarket

    Investor materials and analytical review

    Reviewed the investor deck and memo, strengthened the analytical case behind them.

Detailed cases

The following are detailed, anonymized summaries of select projects.

Independent validation

We stress-tested the model before an investor could and corrected the errors first.

Independent line-by-line audit of financial and techno-economic model review and rebuild across two engagements.

Client challenge

Two developers each had models that needed to stand up in front of investors, a grant reviewer, or a board. Neither had been independently reviewed by someone specialized in those model types.

What we did

Rebuilt each model around a clean, auditable architecture: centralized assumptions, linked statements, and an explicit errors bridge quantifying the impact of every fix. Ran full sensitivity and tornado analyses on the corrected versions.

Shape of the outcome

In one case the correction moved a headline valuation by an order of magnitude. In another it identified a $2B gap in modeled project value. Both clients are now armed with defensible numbers to justify their proposed valuations. The errors bridge made every restatement traceable, which is what made the corrected number credible.

Client anonymized. Outcomes shown as direction and ratio, not absolute figures.

Open this case on its own page

Techno-economic analysis and cost benchmarking

When does new nuclear beat cheap gas? We modeled the crossover.

Bottom-up techno-economic analysis for a reactor developer, tested against regional gas generation.

Client challenge

The developer needed to know whether its reactor could ever be cost competitive with combined cycle gas power at local fuel prices, and under exactly what conditions and strategies winning was possible.

What we did

Built a bottom-up cost model comparing nuclear and gas generation on the same basis, then tested sensitivity to the available tax credit, learning-rate assumptions and cost of capital before identifying the client-controlled decisions that would allow them to win in each scenario.

Shape of the outcome

Nuclear only crosses over at multi-unit fleet scale, which set a floor under any site strategy and PPA they could pursue. It wins with certainty only while the tax credit holds, which set a hard ceiling on the schedule to break ground. Delivered as a threshold chart rather than a headline number, so it stayed useful as the market moved.

Client anonymized. Outcomes shown as direction and ratio, not absolute figures.

Open this case on its own page

Market strategy and commercialization

Bridge power now, owned power later, a PPA start date years earlier at roughly half the cost.

A phased power-sourcing strategy modeled month by month for a project that needed power years before its primary asset.

Client challenge

The project needed to provide power years before its primary asset would be online, and had to choose among gas turbines, fuel cells, batteries and diesel gensets, each with a different cost, lead-time and permitting trade-off.

What we did

Modeled a two-phase strategy: lease interim capacity now, then flip to owned equipment at commercial operation. Month-by-month economics down to the vendor and generator model, with the transition treated as the decision that carries the value rather than an afterthought.

Shape of the outcome

The flip roughly halves the cost of power, but the saving erodes with delay: every month of slip converts an owned month back into an interim month. That turned the transition date into the primary number worth managing and identified the additional price worth spending for every month saved. Built month by month, so they could re-run it as launch dates approached.

Every interim option, mapped on cost, lead time and permitting.

The market map underneath the sequencing decision.

Client challenge

The shortlist had to be better than what any competitor was achieving so every option had to be evaluated to find a unique opportunity. Seven technology classes were evaluated, with multiple unique advantages identified, such as permitting avoidance, short term availability, operational cost, and more.

What we did

Placed every available option on cost against supply backlog, color-coded by permitting difficulty, identified the best in class technology for each advantage type, then converted each advantage into a net present value and sequenced the options to minimize cost.

What the map says

There is no free lunch. The cheapest option sits deepest in the backlog, the fastest to deploy costs the most to run, and permitting tracks siting. That collapsed seven technology classes to a defensible shortlist. Delivered as a map with the rejected options and reasons kept in, so the choice survives being questioned.

Client anonymized. Outcomes shown as direction and ratio, not absolute figures.

Open this case on its own page

Financial modeling and capital strategy

We found a way to raise $1.5B less, build the same project, and deliver stronger returns.

Financial and macroeconomic case behind a multi-billion government funding bid for a first to Nth-of-a-kind program.

Client challenge

The developer was bidding into a national funding program and had to prove three things at once: that the program was sized correctly, that the debt could be serviced out of project cash flow, and that the public got a return beyond the electricity itself.

What we did

Built one model that solved for multiple parts of the investment return, then tested debt service coverage across the build, investor return at each scale, and a macroeconomic layer converting direct and indirect job creation into national GDP contribution.

Shape of the outcome

An optimum scale exists, and it is not the largest one on the table. Past the optimum, execution risk grows faster than return. The jobs and GDP case did not need to carry the proposal once financial returns were aligned with requested funding level.

Client anonymized. Outcomes shown as direction and ratio, not absolute figures.

Open this case on its own page

Techno-economic analysis and cost benchmarking

An ancillary revenue stream worth pursuing, benchmarked against the incumbent supply.

Techno-economic case for a high-value byproduct produced alongside energy.

Client challenge

The developer wanted to know whether a high-value byproduct was worth the added capital, and how its economics would stack up against an established commercial competitor.

What we did

Built a standalone techno-economic model and market analysis for the byproduct line covering capital cost, operating cost, yield and price sensitivity, benchmarked its breakeven price against the incumbent facility economics, then layered in a second complementary product line.

Shape of the outcome

The platform shows a structural cost advantage over the incumbent, and the second product line improves returns materially. By identifying unique market characteristics, we were able to incorporate this business line into the overall roadmap in a way that will absorb a significant portion of first-of-a-kind cost and project risk.

Client anonymized. Outcomes shown as direction and ratio, not absolute figures.

Open this case on its own page

Market strategy and commercialization

We built a plan to help our client win in a market with no tax incentives or green premium

Market entry, buyer economics and precedent for a large, fast-growing overseas power market.

Client challenge

The developer needed to know whether a large, fast-growing overseas power market was a real opportunity, given that local buyers will not pay a clean-energy premium of any size.

What we did

Sized the underlying demand drivers, benchmarked the price the technology would have to clear against every incumbent supply option, identified which class of local partner controls market access, and built the case on a domestic precedent from that country for American technology localization.

Shape of the outcome

The market is real and demand is driven by industry, not policy. You win by anchoring to an established local partner rather than going direct, and a domestic precedent already proves the technology-transfer pathway. That changed the entry question from whether to enter to which partner would pave the path of entry.

Client anonymized. Outcomes shown as direction and ratio, not absolute figures.

Open this case on its own page

Supply chain and materials strategy

Nobody owns the capabilities that most significantly drive capacity factor.

Published-literature synthesis on what limits availability for a machine operating in radiation, vacuum and remote conditions.

Client challenge

A developer building remote-maintenance capability needed to know which technical capabilities were the real bottleneck to market competitive capacity factors, and which of those already had a supplier.

What we did

Synthesized published reliability and maintenance-duration data across fission and fusion device types and programs, then mapped every capability by how widely it applies across machine designs against who currently sells products and services to address each capability.

Shape of the outcome

The widest-reaching capabilities are also the emptiest of suppliers. That separated what they had to build themselves from what they could reasonably expect a supplier to bring, before committing capital to either. Every claim traced to a published source with confidence stated per claim, so the client can confidently enter customer conversations with an understanding of their likely needs.

Public sources throughout. Outcomes shown as direction and ratio, not absolute figures.

Open this case on its own page

Financial modeling and capital strategyIn progress

Adjacent revenue can fund FOAK risks no finance source is willing to absorb.

Mapping spinoff ventures and adjacent revenue streams against the first-of-a-kind capital stack.

Client challenge

The standard first-of-a-kind gap: the capital needed to build arrives years before the plant earns revenue and closing it with equity alone means dilution at the worst possible valuation.

What we did

Inventoried every adjacent revenue stream and spinoff venture the technology could support, scored each on technical readiness, learning contribution, and time to first revenue, then phased them against the capital stack so the earliest-ready streams land ahead of the largest draws.

Shape of the outcome

Ordering matters more than size: a smaller stream that lands early displaces more dilution than a larger one that lands late. The two earliest streams together cover a meaningful share of pre-financing burn. At the same time, each unit of an adjacent project progresses learning while profiting the developer.

Client anonymized. Outcomes shown as direction and ratio, not absolute figures.

Open this case on its own page

Partnerships and outreachIn progress

Creating leading AI partnerships to accelerate fusion innovation.

Partnership strategy and outreach case for frontier AI research collaboration.

Client challenge

The developer wanted to leverage generative AI to accelerate plasma-physics research but lacked internal AI expertise or budget for such capabilities. They were also approaching a fundraising round and needed to be cost-efficient while attracting the best talent for each task.

What we did

Identified a novel approach to AI-driven research acceleration, identified relevant contacts at each frontier AI lab, then mapped the client's design onto the research problems each frontier lab already funds, and wrote a targeted proposal per lab in that lab's own language, surfacing the specific ways in which partnering with our client can most advance their agenda.

Shape of the outcome

Reframed, the work directly progresses essential research for the client while addressing physics-wide challenges in a way that is enticing to top labs. By pairing these intriguing research questions with targeted outreach and a strong case for why each question is best solved through partnership with our client, we were able to gain attention of researchers at multiple frontier labs. Program is currently under way.

Client anonymized. Outcomes shown as direction and ratio, not absolute figures.

Open this case on its own page

Clients & partners

Who we work with, and alongside.

Clients

  • Natura Resources
  • Liberty Fusion
  • Firefly Fusion
  • CATF

  • Laser-driven fusion supply chain company

  • Early-stage US fusion company

  • Small modular fission developer

  • Mobile fission developer

Partners

  • Woodruff Scientific Ltd
  • FusionX
  • Fusion Industry Association
  • MIT
  • MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center
  • PPPL

Engagement model

Five ways to bring us in, one way of running the work.

  • Retained advisory

    Reserved senior capacity billed monthly, typically in three-month terms. We staff the right expert to each task within the retained level as your priorities move: fundraise readiness one month, techno-economic analysis the next, partnership development after that. The default when the gaps are real and constantly evolving.

  • Staff augmentation

    Named personnel working under your direction as a temporary extension of your team, at analyst through manager level. Twelve-week minimum, with defined substitution and continuity terms so the seat stays filled. We keep you staffed with the right talent, you focus on moving the business forward.

  • Scoped project

    Fixed scope, fixed price, defined deliverable. Techno-economic validation, market or siting analysis, a financing framework, or a Technology-to-Market plan for a DOE award.

  • Training

    A fixed-length course at a fixed price, delivered to your team. Fusion commercialization, techno-economic analysis, project finance, and market strategy, built from the same work developed for MIT and Princeton's fusion labs.

  • Research and thought leadership

    White papers, published analysis, and positioning research on the questions your market has not settled. Commissioned for a client, or co-authored where a shared byline carries further than either of us alone.

How an engagement starts

  1. 1.Scoping call
  2. 2.Agreement with defined term and scope
  3. 3.Delivery against milestones
  4. 4.Extend, expand, or clean hand off

If the question does not fit the shapes above, just ask.

Every engagement is run by a founder.

We are supported by a strong bench of specialized experts and every engagement and touchpoint will be led by our founding team.

Douglas Sutcliffe

Douglas Sutcliffe

Value Chain and Business Operations
MS Management of Technology (Fusion), MIT · Six Sigma · PSM II

Three-time sustainability founder with one exit and a seed raise for a fission startup. A decade leading global data and AI operations at Fortune 500 scale. MIT thesis on mineral sufficiency and supply-chain risk for fusion.

Layla Araiinejad

Layla Araiinejad

Techno-economic analysis
BE, MS Technology and Policy (Fusion), MIT

Led the techno-economic analysis for MIT’s first market report on nuclear fusion at the MIT Energy Initiative. Her thesis remains one of the most comprehensive public cost analyses of D-T fusion power plants. Research Associate at the MIT PSFC.

Sergei Kniazev

Sergei Kniazev

Strategic finance
MSc Physics · MBA, MIT Sloan · Certified Accountant

Eighteen years in financial advisory at KPMG and energy at BP, across more than fifty transaction advisory projects covering valuation, modeling and due diligence. Now builds investor-ready models and commercialization roadmaps.

Publications & research

Peer-reviewed and public work by the team.

Journal
2025

Techno-economic analysis of deuterium–tritium magnetic confinement fusion power plants

L. S. Araiinejad, K. Shirvan
Applied Energy 401, 126567

Bottom-up capital-cost framework for NOAK fusion plants; LCOE range $140–550/MWh.

View article
Report
2024

The Role of Fusion Energy in a Decarbonized Electricity System

MIT Energy Initiative
L. Araiinejad, contributing author — led the techno-economic analysis

Fusion cuts cumulative decarbonization cost by up to $3.6T if plant costs reach $4,300/kW by 2050.

View report
Preprint
2026

Nuclear fusion for AI: A pathway to power data centers sustainably

L. Araiinejad, V. Jagadeesan Nair
arXiv:2608.10454

Fusion against firmed renewables and advanced fission for hyperscale data-center load.

View on arXiv
Thesis
2024

Techno-economic Analysis of Deuterium-Tritium Magnetic Confinement Fusion Power Plants

L. Araiinejad
MIT Technology and Policy Program

Costs a 350 MWe ARC-class tokamak plant; the basis of the Applied Energy paper.

View on MIT DSpaceDownload PDF
Thesis
2024

A Nickel Short: Rethinking Element Scarcity in Pursuit of a Fusion-Powered World

D. Sutcliffe
MIT

Critical-material supply chains for fusion; nickel availability and supply security.

View on MIT DSpaceDownload PDF
Article
2026

Fusion Capital: Broader Than Venture

S. Kniazev
FusionX Analysis

Strategic and institutional investors hold over 40% of fusion equity at every stage; project finance and debt have yet to arrive.

View article

Industry contribution

Teaching, research and industry work alongside client engagements.

Education

  • MIT
    Business of Fusion Energy

    Business of Fusion Energy Course.

  • MIT PSFC
    Fusion Energy Week

    Business of Fusion Energy lecture.

  • PPPL
    ORNL SULI 2026: Introduction to Plasma & Fusion Course

    The course’s closing day on deployment: industry framing and the fusion landscape, techno-economic analysis and finance, regulation and international constraints.

Conferences

  • FusionX America
    Workshop

    Financing FOAK: Lessons from Capital-Intensive Sectors

  • FusionX Europe
    Panel moderated

    Financing European Fusion

  • FusionX Miami
    Panellist

    The Global Fusion Landscape

  • FIA Supply Chain trade show
    Exhibited

Research, Policy & Standards

Costing

  • Woodruff Scientific and Clean Air Task Force
    Response to fusion critique on fusion experience rates

    Contributing to the article with Woodruff Scientific and Clean Air Task Force.

    in progress
  • Woodruff Scientific and CATF
    Costing group

    Contributing to a common cost methodology for fusion, with Woodruff Scientific and CATF.

    in progress

Financing

  • FusionX
    Fusion Capital: Broader Than Venture

    Article.

  • Fusion Industry Association
    Analysis of the financial instruments that accelerated other technologies
    in progress

Independence & confidentiality

We disclose any current or recent work (within the past 24 months) with a company, or with its direct competitors, before accepting an engagement that involves it. A direct competitor is a company pursuing the same fusion concept.

We never act for both sides of the same transaction, and we take on work with a potential conflict only with the written consent of both clients.

Each client's information is used only for that client's work, and we sign NDAs on request. Fees for independent reviews never depend on the conclusion.

Book a scoping call

Every fusion engagement we run starts with a scoping call. Tell us what you are working on.

How an engagement starts

  1. Scoping call
  2. Agreement with defined term and scope
  3. Delivery against milestones
  4. Extend, expand, or clean hand off

If the question does not fit a standard shape, just ask.

Location
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Tell us about your project