Technical Credibility and Governance Approach
Why This Page Exists
CFOs, COOs, and PE operating partners do not buy theory.
They buy confidence that the person advising on IT governance has carried real accountability for outcomes, risk, and capital.
This page exists for one reason.
To make it clear what sits behind JH Strategic IT in terms of frameworks, experience, industries, and scale, so you can judge whether that credibility matches the pressure you are under.
This is not a marketing profile.
It is the operating context for the advice you will receive.
Who Is Behind JH Strategic IT
JH Strategic IT is led by Jayson Hahn, an independent IT governance advisor and former enterprise CIO and CTO.
Across his career he has:
-
led technology organizations at executive level, not as a consultant but as the person accountable for results
-
owned IT spend decisions, not just recommended them
-
reported directly into business leadership, including CEO and COO structures
-
operated in environments where uptime, risk, regulatory pressure, and financial discipline all mattered at the same time
-
The advisory work is grounded in what it takes to explain technology spending to leaders who do not speak technology and who are responsible for capital.
Governance Frameworks Used In Practice
JH Strategic IT does not sell frameworks.
It uses them as tools to make decisions visible, measurable, and defensible.
Common frameworks brought into the work include:
-
TBM (Technology Business Management)
Used to categorize technology spend into clear cost towers and services, so CFOs can see where money goes and how it maps to business capabilities.
-
COBIT and related governance models
Used to structure decision rights, control points, and accountability so that IT is governed as a business function, not a technical silo.
-
IT service and operational frameworks
Used to align reliability, incident, and change practices with the level of operational risk the business can accept.
-
Risk and security reference models
Used to translate cyber and operational risk into economic impact instead of technical jargon.
These are not applied as textbook exercises.
They are adapted to fit your organization’s size, regulatory exposure, and board expectations.
Scale and Complexity Experience
The advisory perspective is shaped by environments where:
-
technology supports thousands of employees and customers
-
operations depend on 24x7 availability, not office hours
-
multiple lines of business share platforms and services
-
outages have direct revenue, reputational, and regulatory impact
-
IT spend is large enough that small percentage changes move real money
-
board oversight and audit scrutiny are part of normal operations
-
This experience matters because governance advice is only useful if it has survived the realities of scale, politics, and time pressure.
Industries Served
The work is concentrated in environments where failure has financial and regulatory consequences, including:
-
insurance
-
financial services
-
healthcare
-
other regulated and compliance driven environments
-
These are industries where:
-
outages are not just inconvenient, they are reportable
-
spend cannot drift without justification
-
boards expect clear articulation of risk
-
regulators pay attention to how systems are governed
-
JH Strategic IT brings that discipline into every engagement, even if your business is not formally regulated.
What This Looks Like For CFOs
For CFOs, technical credibility should translate into:
-
clear mapping of IT spend to business capabilities
-
confidence that frameworks are being used to impose discipline, not generate documents
-
the ability to challenge IT, MSPs, and vendors on equal footing
-
board ready language that links technology decisions to P&L impact, cash flow, and capital efficiency
Technical depth matters, but only if it can be converted into a financial story the board will accept.
That is the standard applied to every recommendation.
What This Looks Like For COOs
For COOs, technical credibility should translate into:
-
a realistic view of how systems behave under operational stress
-
clarity on which capabilities truly protect throughput, quality, and customer experience
-
decisions that weigh resilience and performance against margin pressure
-
an honest assessment of risk that goes beyond marketing language from vendors
-
The question is simple.
Does the governance advice you receive make operations more predictable and defensible, or does it add complexity without impact.
What This Looks Like For PE Operating Partners
For PE operating partners, technical credibility should translate into:
-
a clean connection between technology spend and value creation levers
-
an understanding of how IT can dilute or improve EBITDA and exit readiness
-
a realistic assessment of transformation risk across portfolio companies
-
the ability to challenge roadmaps and vendor claims with reference to governance, not gut feel
The goal is not to slow deals or execution.
The goal is to ensure technology economics support the thesis rather than undermine it.
How Technical Work Is Delivered
Technical depth is expressed through:
-
spend visibility models that make technology costs readable to finance
-
service and capability mapping that connect systems to business processes
-
risk and impact views that describe what happens if systems fail, in financial terms
-
governance models that define who decides, who is accountable, and what thresholds must be met for spend approval
-
vendor and MSP review that evaluates contractual and operational performance against business value
-
board and leadership narratives that compress complexity into usable, honest communication
None of this requires you to read architecture diagrams.
It requires you to engage with the economic logic behind them.
Quick Facts
-
Led technology at executive level, with direct responsibility for IT strategy and spend
-
Deep exposure to regulated and high scrutiny environments
-
Uses TBM, COBIT, and related models as tools, not as products
-
Focuses on spend visibility, risk clarity, and value realization
-
Works alongside CIOs, CFOs, COOs, and PE operating partners, not around them
-
Operates as an independent advisor, without vendor or implementation incentives
FAQ
Do you provide detailed technical architecture or implementation services
No. The focus is governance, spend visibility, and financial clarity. Architecture and implementation remain with your IT team, MSP, or chosen delivery partners.
Are you certified in specific frameworks
The value you receive does not depend on a badge. Frameworks such as TBM and COBIT are used where they support better financial and governance decisions, not as standalone products.
Can you work directly with our CIO and technical teams
Yes. The work is most effective when finance, operations, and IT participate in the same governance model, each from their own perspective.
How technical do our executives need to be to work with you
They do not need to be technical. The responsibility of the advisory work is to translate technology decisions into terms that CFOs, COOs, PE operators, and boards can act on.
What kind of documentation do we receive
You receive concise outputs that can be used in leadership and board settings. That includes spend views, capability maps, risk and impact summaries, and clear recommendations on governance and reallocation.
Strategic IT Governance Resources
If you are evaluating IT spend, risk, or value under board or investor pressure, these resources explain how different situations require different governance responses.
Start With Decision Clarity
A clear decision framework for executives deciding between independent governance, internal IT leadership, vendors, or large consulting firms.
Executive Persona Guidance
How to translate IT spend into defensible financial narratives the board can challenge and approve.
How governance exposes operational risk, cost leakage, and execution blind spots before they hit the P&L.
How independent IT governance supports diligence, value creation, and post-close oversight across portfolio companies.
Core Services
A fixed-scope engagement that delivers a board-ready financial view of IT spend, risk, and value.
A rapid diagnostic for executives who need immediate clarity before a board meeting, renewal, or capital decision.
A structured program that installs permanent financial and operational governance over IT.
Ongoing executive-level oversight to keep spend, risk, and vendor behavior aligned with business outcomes.