CrackerJack Consulting Podcast

The episode contains a handful of genuinely useful, non-obvious ideas - most notably the methodology-driven vs. product-driven distinction, the PRTZ email tagging system, Zotero as a knowledge base, and the mid-study statistical failure-projection model - but these are interspersed with extended throat-clearing, host self-insertion, and generic consulting advice about focus and curiosity that most listeners would already know.

“we are methodology driven. Fundamental difference”

“we stopped the study, go fix the problem, and then come back. It saves them hundreds of thousands of dollars and sometimes it saves them submission period, which is. Can be billions”

The repurposing of a brain-surgery sensor for 3D product usability tracking and the distinction between hiring for competence vs. stars are genuinely counterintuitive moments, but the overarching framework - focus narrow, read widely, hire curious people - is standard boutique firm advice dressed in a specific domain's clothing.

“we found that methodology from uh, neuroscience and brain surgery because that same little sensor is inserted into the human brain”

“I do not hire stars. I do. I never hire extraordinary expertise. I will always hire extraordinary competence. Big difference.”

Charles Moro is a genuine 45-year practitioner who has run a profitable boutique at real scale with blue-chip clients and FDA engagement - he has clearly done the thing - but he is largely unknown outside usability science and the conversation stays at a level accessible to any curious generalist, limiting the ceiling on what an advanced operator could extract.

“Apple, Meta, Amazon, Dyson, you know, all blue chip corporations”

“We've been continuously profitable since the day of our founding”

The episode is notably concrete by boutique-podcast standards: named clients, named methodologies, tool names and prices, headcount, years of operation, study-size thresholds, and a specific dollar-range for savings; the main gap is that most quantitative claims are ballpark estimates rather than auditable data.

“We subscribe to at least 50 journals... We have probably 10,000 articles in our Zotero database... Few hundred dollars a year”

“we can track ah, the user's manipulation of the product in 3D space at a sub millimeter level”

The host asks structurally sound questions and usefully batches three follow-ups at once, but he repeatedly derails to share his own firm's practices (Miro board, Marshall Goldsmith) and offers too much validation without pressing on gaps - for instance, never challenging how one person can meaningfully monitor 50 journals or whether the PRTZ system has actually surfaced transformative insights.

“Can I mention something we do? I'd be interested in your feedback.”

“How do you sort through all of this information? How do you avoid constantly becoming distracted?... if you're constantly developing something new, how do you actually become expert at it?”