Back keeping forward-deployed/TAM in-house under Ryan; own the capacity assessment

Situation

In the C-Suite Sync, Bjorn killed the plan to outsource the TAM/forward-deployed-engineering function (sold to Citadel) to Cutting Edge and gave it to Ryan team instead. Ryan pushed back that he lacks capacity. Peter backed the in-house call and took ownership of the capacity question: he will work with Ryan to figure out capacity and come back only if they are short people. He also offered that forward-deployed engineering should ultimately report into go-to-market, not core engineering.

Reasoning

The in-house-vs-outsource call is Bjorn (customer-experience / go-to-market ownership) and Peter backs it. But Ryan claims he lacks capacity, so the open question is factual, not directional. Peter puts himself on the hook to actually check Ryan capacity rather than let the disagreement fester. His if-short-I-come-back-if-not-I-wont framing is deliberately low-ceremony: escalate only if there is a real gap; if Ryan has spare cycles, just absorb it (consistent with Bjorn view that the capacity exists).

Additional Context

Peter confirmed. Attribution guardrail: the loggable Peter piece is backing in-house plus owning the capacity assessment - NOT the outsourcing-kill decision itself (Bjorn).

Observed Evidence

Your primary statement is you want this done in-house. So let me work with him, figure out capacity. If we are short people, I will come back and tell you. If we are not, I will not. Forward deployed engineering reported into go-to-market, not engineering.

Matching Patterns

Confidence Breakdown

Reasoning Depth Analysis