Blueprint Playbook for Tab32

Who the Hell is Jordan Crawford?

Founder of Blueprint. I help companies stop sending emails nobody wants to read.

The problem with outbound isn't the message. It's the list. When you know WHO to target and WHY they need you right now, the message writes itself.

I built this system using government databases, public records, and 25 million job posts to find pain signals most companies miss. Predictable Revenue is dead. Data-driven intelligence is what works now.

The Old Way (What Everyone Does)

Your GTM team is buying lists from ZoomInfo, adding "personalization" like mentioning a LinkedIn post, then blasting generic messages about features. Here's what it actually looks like:

The Typical Tab32 SDR Email:

Subject: Transform Your Dental Practice with Tab32 Hi [Name], I noticed your practice has been growing on LinkedIn - congrats on the new location! At Tab32, we help dental practices like yours streamline operations with our cloud-based practice management platform. Our all-in-one solution includes: • Patient scheduling and communication • Clinical documentation (SOAP notes) • Billing and revenue cycle management • Multi-location management • HIPAA-compliant cloud infrastructure We've helped practices reduce no-shows by 30% and save 10+ hours weekly on administrative tasks. Would you be open to a quick 15-minute call next week to see if Tab32 could help your practice? Best, Tab32 SDR

Why this fails: The prospect is an expert. They've seen this template 1,000 times. There's zero indication you understand their specific situation. Delete.

The New Way: Intelligence-Driven GTM

Blueprint flips the approach. Instead of interrupting prospects with pitches, you deliver insights so valuable they'd pay consulting fees to receive them.

1. Hard Data Over Soft Signals

Stop: "I see you're hiring compliance people" (job postings - everyone sees this)

Start: "Your 3 locations are averaging 47 patients/day vs 62 for top-quartile practices with your chair count" (benchmarked internal data - only you have this)

2. Mirror Situations, Don't Pitch Solutions

PQS (Pain-Qualified Segment): Reflect their exact situation with such specificity they think "how did you know?" Use data with dates, numbers, and verifiable metrics.

PVP (Permissionless Value Proposition): Deliver immediate value they can use today - analysis already done, benchmarks already calculated, patterns already identified - whether they buy or not.

Tab32 Overview

Company: Tab32

Core Problem: Dental practices operate with fragmented, disconnected systems for scheduling, patient records, and billing, forcing staff to toggle between multiple platforms, losing efficiency, and creating patient care coordination gaps. Tab32 unifies these functions into a single cloud-based platform.

Target ICP: Dental Service Organizations (DSOs), multi-location dental group practices (3-1000+ employees), independent practices with 3-10 chairs, and specialty dental practices seeking operational consolidation and cloud-based infrastructure.

Primary Buyer Personas: Practice Owner/Dentist, Office Manager/Practice Administrator, Operations Manager, DSO Operations Director, Clinical Coordinator, Billing Manager.

Key Differentiators: Native cloud architecture on Google Cloud Platform with enterprise security certifications, Open Data Warehouse with SQL analytics for business intelligence, true multi-location patient database flexibility, AI-powered business intelligence, and integrated patient communication platform.

Tab32 PQS Plays: Mirroring Exact Situations

These messages demonstrate such precise understanding of the prospect's current situation that they feel genuinely seen. Every claim traces to specific data sources with verifiable metrics.

PQS Internal Data Strong (8.9/10)

3 Scheduling Gaps Costing You $12K Monthly

What's the play?

Use aggregated scheduling pattern analysis to identify specific recurring time slots where the practice has unfilled capacity. Quantify the lost revenue based on their average hourly production rate.

Why this works

Incredibly specific about exact time slots and quantified monthly cost the recipient can verify internally. This isn't generic advice - it's actionable intelligence about their specific operation with a clear dollar impact they're leaving on the table.

Data Sources
  1. Internal appointment scheduling data - time slot analysis, open hours by day/time
  2. Internal billing data - average production per hour calculation

The message:

Subject: 3 scheduling gaps costing you $12K monthly Your schedule data shows 3 recurring gaps: Monday mornings (4.2 open hours weekly), post-lunch Thursdays (3.1 hours), and Friday afternoons (5.8 hours). At your $185 average hourly production, that's $12,100 monthly in unfilled capacity. Is someone analyzing your scheduling patterns?
This play assumes your company has:

Aggregated appointment scheduling data across customer base to analyze time slot utilization patterns and calculate average production per hour from billing records, allowing you to identify recurring capacity gaps and quantify lost revenue opportunities.

If you have this data, this play becomes highly differentiated - competitors can't replicate it.
PQS Internal Data Strong (8.6/10)

Your Crown Cases: 67 Days Average to Completion

What's the play?

Track treatment-specific timelines from plan acceptance to procedure completion. Benchmark the prospect's performance against similar practices to identify process inefficiencies or patient follow-up gaps.

Why this works

Specific treatment type with exact timeline metric the practice can verify. Clear benchmark comparison shows they're underperforming, and the message identifies potential root causes (scheduling bottlenecks or follow-up gaps) without being prescriptive.

Data Sources
  1. Internal treatment plan tracking - acceptance date, completion date by treatment type
  2. Benchmark data across similar practices - median timeline by case mix

The message:

Subject: Your crown cases: 67 days average to completion Your crown treatment plans take 67 days from acceptance to completion. Practices with your case mix average 42 days. That 25-day delay suggests either scheduling bottlenecks or patient follow-up gaps. Who owns treatment plan follow-up at your practice?
This play assumes your company has:

Treatment plan tracking data across customer base showing time-to-completion for specific treatment types (crowns, fillings, root canals, etc.), with the ability to calculate median timelines and benchmark by case mix and practice characteristics.

This level of treatment-specific intelligence is extremely valuable to practice managers trying to optimize clinical workflows.
PQS Internal Data Strong (8.4/10)

Your Chair Utilization: 64% vs 78% Target

What's the play?

Calculate chair utilization rates based on appointment scheduling data and compare against benchmarks for practices with similar patient demographics. Translate the percentage gap into tangible terms (unused chair capacity).

Why this works

Specific utilization metric for their practice with contextual benchmark (by patient demographics). The translation into "3 chairs worth of unused capacity" makes the abstract percentage concrete and actionable. Simple routing question feels low-pressure.

Data Sources
  1. Internal scheduling data - appointment duration, chair occupancy by location
  2. Benchmark data - target utilization by patient demographics

The message:

Subject: Your chair utilization: 64% vs 78% target Across your 3 locations with 18 total chairs, you're running at 64% utilization. Practices with your patient demographics target 78%. That 14-point gap represents about 3 chairs worth of unused capacity. Is anyone tracking utilization metrics by location?
This play assumes your company has:

Appointment scheduling data to calculate chair utilization rates (appointment hours / available chair hours), with the ability to benchmark by practice size, location count, and patient demographics.

Chair utilization is a critical KPI for multi-location practices - showing them exactly where they stand vs. peers is extremely valuable.
PQS Internal Data Strong (8.5/10)

42 Patients Accepted Treatment But Haven't Scheduled

What's the play?

Identify patients in the acceptance-to-scheduling gap - they've said yes to treatment but haven't booked their first appointment. Use time-based urgency (60-day and 90-day markers) to create action pressure.

Why this works

Specific count of at-risk patients with time-sensitive markers (60/90 days). The statistical claim about conversion probability after 90 days creates urgency without being pushy. Routing question makes it easy to engage.

Data Sources
  1. Internal treatment plan data - acceptance date, scheduling status
  2. Benchmark data - conversion probability by time elapsed since acceptance

The message:

Subject: 42 patients accepted treatment but haven't scheduled You have 42 patients who accepted treatment plans in the last 60 days but haven't scheduled their first appointment. These patients have a 61% chance of never scheduling if they hit the 90-day mark. Who handles treatment plan follow-up calls?
This play assumes your company has:

Treatment plan tracking data showing acceptance status and scheduling status, allowing you to identify the gap between acceptance and first appointment scheduling, with benchmark data on conversion probability by time elapsed.

This is actionable intelligence the practice can act on immediately - these are warm leads sitting in their system.
PQS Internal Data Strong (8.7/10)

Your Downtown Location Runs 23% Higher No-Shows

What's the play?

Compare no-show rates across the practice's multiple locations to identify outliers. Quantify the cost of the performance gap and suggest potential root causes (like inconsistent confirmation processes across locations).

Why this works

Specific comparison between their own locations (not external benchmark) makes the insight immediately verifiable and actionable. The quantified annual cost creates urgency. The question about confirmation processes suggests a potential root cause without being prescriptive.

Data Sources
  1. Internal appointment data - no-show rates by location
  2. Internal billing data - average appointment value for lost production calculation

The message:

Subject: Your downtown location runs 23% higher no-shows Your downtown location has a 23% no-show rate compared to 14% at your suburban locations. That's costing the downtown practice an extra $78K annually in lost production. Is the same staff handling confirmations at all 3 locations?
This play assumes your company has:

Appointment attendance tracking by location and average appointment values from billing records, allowing you to calculate no-show rates and quantify lost production costs per location.

Multi-location practices often have inconsistent processes - showing them exactly where performance gaps exist is extremely valuable.
PQS Public + Internal Strong (8.4/10)

57 Treatment Plans Stuck at Insurance Verification

What's the play?

Identify treatment plans stuck in "pending insurance verification" status for extended periods. Compare to benchmark clearing times for practices with dedicated billing coordinators (inferred from staffing data). Suggest staffing as potential solution.

Why this works

Specific count of stuck items with clear benchmark showing the delay. The comparison to practices with dedicated billing staff suggests a root cause (staffing model) without being prescriptive. Easy routing question makes engagement low-friction.

Data Sources
  1. Internal treatment plan tracking - status and time in "pending insurance verification"
  2. Public staffing data - LinkedIn profiles, job postings to infer staffing model
  3. Benchmark data - clearing times by staffing configuration

The message:

Subject: 57 treatment plans stuck at insurance verification You have 57 treatment plans that have been in 'pending insurance verification' status for over 30 days. Practices with dedicated billing coordinators clear these in 8-12 days on average. Who's handling insurance verification at your practice?
This play assumes your company has:

Treatment plan workflow tracking showing status and time in each stage, combined with external staffing data (LinkedIn, job postings) to identify correlation between dedicated billing staff and verification speed.

This hybrid approach (internal workflow data + external staffing intelligence) creates a powerful diagnostic insight.

Tab32 PVP Plays: Delivering Immediate Value

These messages provide actionable intelligence before asking for anything. The prospect can use this value today whether they respond or not.

PVP Internal Data Strong (9.1/10)

Your 3 Locations Averaging 47 Patients/Day vs 62

What's the play?

Use aggregated scheduling and appointment data from your customer base to calculate patient volume benchmarks by chair count. Show the prospect exactly how their per-location throughput compares to top-quartile practices with similar configurations.

Why this works

Specific to their practice with exact numbers they can verify. The quantified revenue gap ($180K annually) is shocking and actionable. The offer to provide per-location breakdown delivers immediate value - they can identify which locations are underperforming without buying anything.

Data Sources
  1. Internal appointment scheduling data - daily patient volume by location and chair count
  2. Benchmark data across customer base - percentile ranges for patient throughput

The message:

Subject: Your 3 locations averaging 47 patients/day vs 62 Across your 3 locations, you're averaging 47 patients per day. Top-quartile practices with your chair count average 62. That's 45 missed patients per location weekly - about $180K annual revenue gap. Want the per-location breakdown?
This play assumes your company has:

Aggregated scheduling and appointment data across customer base to calculate per-location patient volume benchmarks by chair count, calculating percentile ranges (10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th) for daily patient throughput.

This is pure gold - you're delivering competitive intelligence they can't get anywhere else.
PVP Internal Data Strong (9.0/10)

Your Riverside Location: 38 Patients/Day Capacity

What's the play?

Drill down to a specific location with hyper-specific metrics. Compare their current patient volume to typical capacity for practices with the same chair count. Quantify the unfilled capacity in both patient slots and revenue terms.

Why this works

Hyper-specific to one location with actionable insight about capacity utilization. The concrete revenue calculation ($340K annual gap) creates urgency. The offer to send scheduling pattern analysis delivers immediate diagnostic value.

Data Sources
  1. Internal scheduling data - per-location patient volume and chair count
  2. Benchmark data - capacity ranges by chair count
  3. Internal billing data - average case value for revenue calculation

The message:

Subject: Your Riverside location: 38 patients/day capacity Your Riverside location with 6 chairs is seeing 38 patients per day. Practices with 6 chairs typically handle 55-60. That's 17 unfilled slots daily - roughly $340K annual gap at your average case value. Should I send the scheduling pattern analysis?
This play assumes your company has:

Per-location scheduling data showing patient volume and chair count, with the ability to benchmark against similar-sized practices and calculate revenue impact based on average case values from billing records.

Location-specific intelligence is incredibly valuable for multi-location practices trying to optimize individual site performance.
PVP Public + Internal Strong (9.3/10)

43% of Your Treatment Plans Incomplete After 90 Days

What's the play?

Track treatment plan acceptance and completion rates over time. Combine internal completion tracking with external staffing model analysis (from LinkedIn/job postings) to benchmark against practices with similar staffing configurations.

Why this works

Shocking specific metric about their practice (43% incomplete) with clear benchmark showing they're underperforming (28% average). The quantified dollar amount ($127K in limbo) creates urgency. The offer to break down by treatment type delivers immediate diagnostic value.

Data Sources
  1. Internal treatment plan data - acceptance date, completion status, dollar value
  2. Public staffing data - LinkedIn profiles, job postings to infer staffing model
  3. Benchmark data - completion rates by staffing configuration

The message:

Subject: 43% of your treatment plans incomplete after 90 days Your practice has 43% of treatment plans still incomplete 90 days after acceptance. Practices with your staffing model average 28%. That's $127K in accepted treatment sitting in limbo right now. Want the breakdown by treatment type?
This play assumes your company has:

Treatment plan tracking data showing acceptance dates, completion status, and dollar values, combined with external staffing data (LinkedIn, job postings) to identify correlation between staffing models and treatment completion rates.

This hybrid approach delivers a powerful insight: you're not just showing them the problem, you're explaining WHY it's happening (staffing model).
PVP Public + Internal Strong (8.7/10)

Your Hygienist-to-Admin Ratio Correlates with Incomplete Treatments

What's the play?

Combine internal treatment completion data with external staffing intelligence (LinkedIn profiles, job postings) to identify correlation between hygienist-to-admin ratios and treatment plan abandonment rates. Provide specific optimal ratio recommendation.

Why this works

Non-obvious connection between staffing structure and clinical outcomes that the practice wouldn't see on their own. The specific recommended ratio (4:2.5 vs their 4:1.5) is actionable. The explanation about "missing follow-up touchpoints" connects the dots. Data they can verify internally builds trust.

Data Sources
  1. Internal treatment plan data - completion and abandonment rates
  2. Public staffing data - LinkedIn profiles, job postings for hygienist and admin counts
  3. Correlation analysis - staffing ratios vs. treatment completion across customer base

The message:

Subject: Your hygienist-to-admin ratio correlates with incomplete treatments You're running 4 hygienists to 1.5 admin staff. Practices with this ratio have 38% higher treatment plan abandonment. Optimal ratio for your patient volume is 4:2.5 - you're likely missing follow-up touchpoints. Want the completion rate by staff member?
This play assumes your company has:

Treatment completion data combined with external staffing intelligence (LinkedIn profiles, job postings) to identify correlation between hygienist-to-admin ratios and treatment plan abandonment rates across customer base.

This is highly differentiated intelligence - connecting staffing structure to clinical outcomes in a way competitors can't replicate.
PVP Internal Data Strong (8.7/10)

Your Hygiene Department: $340K Untapped Capacity

What's the play?

Calculate hygiene schedule capacity utilization and quantify the revenue opportunity from unfilled hygiene hours. Use average production per hour from billing data to convert open hours into lost revenue.

Why this works

Specific to hygiene department with shocking dollar amount ($340K) in unrealized revenue. Clear capacity metric (71% vs optimal) is actionable. The offer to provide per-hygienist breakdown delivers immediate diagnostic value they can act on.

Data Sources
  1. Internal scheduling data - hygienist appointment hours and available hours
  2. Internal billing data - average production per hygiene hour

The message:

Subject: Your hygiene department: $340K untapped capacity Your hygiene schedule runs at 71% capacity - that's 116 open hours monthly across your 4 hygienists. At your $185 average hygiene production per hour, that's $340K annual unrealized revenue. Want the per-hygienist breakdown?
This play assumes your company has:

Hygienist-specific scheduling data to calculate capacity utilization (appointment hours / available hours) and average hygiene production per hour from billing records, allowing you to quantify unfilled capacity in revenue terms.

Hygiene department optimization is a major lever for practice profitability - this intelligence is immediately actionable.
PVP Internal Data Strong (8.6/10)

Your Multi-Visit Treatments: 89 Days Between Visits

What's the play?

Track time gaps between sequential appointments for multi-visit treatment plans. Compare to optimal cadence and quantify the impact on treatment completion rates using benchmark data.

Why this works

Non-obvious insight about inter-visit timing that the practice wouldn't see without data analysis. Specific metric (89 days vs 35-45 optimal) with quantified impact on outcomes (34% higher incomplete rate). The offer to identify which treatments have longest gaps is immediately actionable.

Data Sources
  1. Internal appointment data - sequential visit tracking for multi-appointment treatments
  2. Benchmark data - optimal visit cadence and impact on completion rates

The message:

Subject: Your multi-visit treatments: 89 days between visits For treatments requiring multiple visits, your patients average 89 days between appointments. Optimal cadence is 35-45 days. That delay increases your incomplete treatment rate by 34% based on similar practices. Should I send which treatment types have longest gaps?
This play assumes your company has:

Appointment tracking data that can identify multi-visit treatment sequences and calculate time gaps between sequential appointments, with benchmark data on optimal visit cadence and impact on treatment completion rates.

This is sophisticated workflow intelligence that helps practices optimize clinical outcomes - extremely valuable.
PVP Public + Internal Strong (8.8/10)

Your No-Show Rate: 18% vs 11% Benchmark

What's the play?

Compare the practice's no-show rate to benchmarks for practices using automated confirmation systems. Quantify the cost of the gap and offer to break down which appointment types have highest no-show risk.

Why this works

Specific metric about their practice (18%) with clear benchmark (11%) showing the gap. Quantified annual cost ($51K) creates urgency. The offer to show which appointment types have highest no-show rates delivers immediate diagnostic value they can act on.

Data Sources
  1. Internal appointment data - attendance tracking and no-show rates
  2. Benchmark data - no-show rates for practices with automated systems
  3. Internal billing data - average appointment value for cost calculation

The message:

Subject: Your no-show rate: 18% vs 11% benchmark Your practice has an 18% no-show rate. Practices using automated confirmation systems average 11%. At 240 appointments monthly, that's 17 additional no-shows costing you $51K annually. Want to see which appointment types have highest no-show rates?
This play assumes your company has:

Appointment attendance tracking data to calculate no-show rates, combined with benchmark data on practices using automated confirmation systems and average appointment values from billing records to quantify cost impact.

No-show reduction is a quick win for practices - this intelligence is immediately actionable and high ROI.
PVP Internal Data Strong (8.9/10)

$89K in Treatment Plans Over 120 Days Old

What's the play?

Identify aging unscheduled treatment plans (accepted but not scheduled) and quantify the dollar value at risk. Use benchmark data on treatment plan expiration after 120 days to create urgency.

Why this works

Urgent specific dollar amount ($89K) creates immediate action pressure. The 120-day metric with 73% expiration rate benchmark creates time pressure - these are about to become worthless. The offer to send the list sorted by value is immediately actionable.

Data Sources
  1. Internal treatment plan data - acceptance date, scheduling status, dollar value
  2. Benchmark data - treatment plan expiration rates by age

The message:

Subject: $89K in treatment plans over 120 days old You have $89,000 in treatment plans that were accepted over 120 days ago and still haven't been scheduled. Practices lose 73% of treatment plans after the 120-day mark - these are about to expire. Should I send the list sorted by value?
This play assumes your company has:

Treatment plan tracking data showing acceptance dates, scheduling status, and dollar values, with the ability to identify aging unscheduled plans and benchmark data on expiration rates by age.

This is time-sensitive actionable intelligence - the practice can immediately act to recover this at-risk revenue.
PVP Internal Data Strong (8.5/10)

Morning Slots Fill 2.3x Faster Than Afternoons

What's the play?

Analyze appointment booking velocity by time of day to identify demand patterns. Provide strategic recommendation based on what successful practices do (shift appointment types to match demand patterns).

Why this works

Non-obvious insight about their scheduling patterns (2.3x faster fill rate) they wouldn't see without data analysis. The strategic recommendation (shift hygiene to mornings, reserve afternoons for restorative) is actionable and based on successful practice patterns.

Data Sources
  1. Internal scheduling data - appointment booking velocity by time slot
  2. Benchmark data - optimal appointment type distribution by time of day

The message:

Subject: Morning slots fill 2.3x faster than afternoons Your morning appointments fill 2.3 times faster than afternoon slots - you have chronic 2-5pm gaps. Practices with this pattern shift hygiene to mornings and reserve afternoons for restorative work. Want the hourly fill rate breakdown?
This play assumes your company has:

Appointment booking data showing when appointments are scheduled vs. when they're performed, allowing you to calculate fill velocity by time of day and identify demand patterns across customer base.

This strategic scheduling intelligence helps practices optimize capacity utilization without adding resources.
PVP Public + Internal Strong (8.6/10)

Your Recall Appointments: 34% Never Rescheduled

What's the play?

Track recall appointment no-shows and measure reschedule conversion rates. Compare to benchmark performance for practices with automated recall systems. Quantify the permanent patient loss.

Why this works

Specific metric about their practice (34% never reschedule) with clear benchmark (19% with automation) showing the gap. The quantification of permanent patient loss (10 patients monthly) is shocking and actionable. The offer to send recall conversion analysis delivers immediate diagnostic value.

Data Sources
  1. Internal appointment data - recall appointment attendance and reschedule tracking
  2. Benchmark data - reschedule rates for practices with automated recall systems

The message:

Subject: Your recall appointments: 34% never rescheduled When patients miss recall appointments, 34% never reschedule. Practices with automated recall systems get that down to 19%. At 65 missed recalls monthly, you're losing 10 patients permanently each month. Should I send the recall conversion analysis?
This play assumes your company has:

Recall appointment tracking data showing missed appointments and subsequent reschedule behavior, with benchmark data on practices using automated recall systems to identify improvement opportunity.

Patient retention is critical for practice growth - this intelligence helps prevent permanent patient loss.

What Changes

Old way: Spray generic messages at job titles. Hope someone replies.

New way: Use aggregated customer data to deliver benchmarking intelligence prospects can't get anywhere else. Mirror their exact situation with verifiable metrics.

Why this works: When you lead with "Your 3 locations are averaging 47 patients/day vs 62 for top-quartile practices" instead of "I see you're growing," you're not another sales email. You're delivering competitive intelligence worth consulting fees.

The messages above aren't templates. They're examples of what happens when you combine internal customer data with external staffing intelligence. Your team can replicate this using the data sources in each play.

The shift from PUBLIC to PRIVATE data: Tab32's strongest plays rely on aggregated customer data - benchmarking intelligence that competitors can't replicate. This is your moat. The public data plays failed gate validation because they provided zero recipient value. The private and hybrid plays passed because they deliver insights prospects genuinely need and can't get elsewhere.

Data Sources Reference

The validated plays in this playbook rely primarily on internal customer data and hybrid combinations of internal + external data. Here are the key data sources:

Source Type Key Fields Used For
Internal Scheduling Data Private appointment_date, appointment_time, duration, location, chair_number, patient_count, hygienist_name Patient volume benchmarks, capacity utilization, time slot analysis, hygiene department optimization
Internal Billing Data Private treatment_type, procedure_code, amount, date, location, average_case_value Revenue calculations, production per hour, lost revenue quantification
Internal Treatment Plan Data Private acceptance_date, completion_date, status, dollar_value, treatment_type, patient_id Treatment completion tracking, aging plan identification, completion rate analysis
Internal Appointment Attendance Private scheduled_date, attendance_status, appointment_type, location, confirmation_method No-show rate analysis, recall conversion tracking, attendance patterns
LinkedIn Company Profiles Public employee_count, job_titles, department_structure, recent_hires Staffing model analysis, hygienist-to-admin ratios, billing coordinator presence
Job Posting Data Public job_title, posting_date, location, requirements, department Staffing model inference, growth signals, hiring patterns
Customer Benchmark Database Private percentile_ranges, median_values, by_practice_size, by_location_count Performance benchmarking across all metrics (patient volume, utilization, completion rates)

Note on private data: The plays marked "Internal Data" assume Tab32 has aggregated customer data across its platform. This is the competitive advantage - you can deliver benchmarking intelligence that competitors can't replicate. If you don't yet have this data aggregation infrastructure, building it should be a strategic priority.