Run the first 90 days as an evidence program, not a setup race. Days 0–30 should establish the mandate, minimum local capability and live customer learning; Days 31–60 should convert learning into a repeatable commercial and operating motion; Days 61–90 should turn the accumulated evidence into an explicit investment decision and a Day-180 plan.
Mandate → Minimum capability → Customer evidence → Operating proof → Day-90 investment decision
Developed by E2M as a management framework; not an external industry standard.How to use this guide
Treat the plan as a management system. Each workstream has an output, dependency, owner and evidence threshold. If an activity does not reduce uncertainty or remove a proven constraint, it should not automatically earn budget.
What should exist by Day 90
- A clear Brazil mandate and decision rights
- Evidence-based ICP and named-account universe
- A tested route to market and commercial follow-up rhythm
- A justified entry model and structural trigger map
- A first-team and provider plan tied to real bottlenecks
- A refreshed 12-month economics case
- A documented invest / maintain / change / stop decision
The operating timeline
Days 0–30 — Establish the learning system
Create minimum local capability, begin customer evidence and make every structural decision reversible unless a current requirement says otherwise.
| Workstream | Decision / activity | Depends on | Suggested owner | KPI / evidence | Deep dive | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Governance | Define the 90-day mandate and decision rights | Agree what must be proven by Day 90, what is explicitly deferred and who can decide locally. | Executive sponsor + named Brazil owner | One-page mandate approved; weekly operating cadence running | ↗ | |
| Market thesis | Turn Brazil into a falsifiable ICP and account hypothesis | Define ICP, buyer roles, named-account universe and the assumptions that would invalidate the thesis. | Global positioning + existing customer evidence | Priority account list; buyer map; top assumptions documented | ↗ | |
| Entry model | Choose the minimum viable entry model for the current milestone | Compare direct sales, partner/distributor, outsourced BD, EOR, entity and hybrid options before adding permanence. | Mandate + transaction requirements + employment/logistics needs | Entry model selected for the next milestone; alternatives and triggers documented | ↗ | |
| Commercial | Start live customer discovery and first meetings | Launch targeted outreach, local introductions and customer conversations; capture objections and next steps systematically. | ICP + credible local meeting/follow-up capacity | Relevant meetings started; second-step actions and objections logged | ↗ | |
| Operating setup | Create only the local capability needed to learn | Secure temporary workspace/meeting infrastructure, executive landing and specialist providers only where the launch requires them. | Travel plan + operating needs + provider scope | No critical meeting/operating blocker; provider map and dependencies visible | ↗ | |
| Evidence system | Establish the baseline dashboard and budget guardrails | Track commercial progression, operating blockers, spend and unresolved decisions from week one. | Mandate + budget envelope | Weekly evidence dashboard live; baseline cost and KPI assumptions captured | ↗ |
Days 31–60 — Convert learning into operating proof
Refine the market thesis, move accounts through real buying steps and resolve only the blockers that evidence has made real.
| Workstream | Decision / activity | Depends on | Suggested owner | KPI / evidence | Deep dive | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market thesis | Refine ICP and value proposition from observed evidence | Narrow segments, buyer problems and messaging based on real conversations—not initial market assumptions. | First 30-day customer evidence | ICP v2; clearer disqualifiers; repeated problem/trigger patterns | ↗ | |
| Commercial | Convert interest into a repeatable sales motion | Move priority accounts into discovery, evaluation, procurement, pilot or commercial next steps; test channels and follow-up rhythm. | Target accounts + local follow-up capacity | Opportunity progression by stage; stakeholder depth; repeatable objections | ↗ | |
| Structure | Resolve transaction blockers that are now proven | Where customer, hiring, invoicing, import or contracting requirements justify it, advance entity/EOR/partner/provider decisions. | Observed blocker + qualified specialist input | Each structural commitment tied to a documented constraint and owner | ↗ | |
| People | Define the first-team requirement before hiring broadly | Identify the first role/capability that removes a proven bottleneck; compare hire, EOR, contractor, partner or outsourced capacity. | Workload + commercial motion + role economics | Role scorecard and make-vs-buy decision approved | ↗ | |
| Infrastructure | Match office, housing and logistics to the operating reality | Use actual meeting density, team footprint, travel and customer geography to decide what physical footprint is justified. | Travel/team pattern + client geography | Workspace/housing model chosen with explicit upgrade trigger | ↗ | |
| Economics | Refresh the business case with real Brazil inputs | Replace launch assumptions with current salary, provider, workspace, GTM and transaction evidence. | Live quotes + first commercial evidence | Updated 12-month base case; sensitivity range; major cost drivers understood | ↗ |
Days 61–90 — Decide what Brazil has earned next
Separate traction from activity, lock the operating model and turn the evidence into the next capital-allocation decision.
| Workstream | Decision / activity | Depends on | Suggested owner | KPI / evidence | Deep dive | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Commercial | Test whether the pipeline is becoming evidence—not activity | Focus on opportunities showing stakeholder involvement, evaluation, procurement, pilot, budget or contracting behavior. | Consistent account follow-up + decision criteria | Qualified pipeline by stage; conversion evidence; reasons for stalled/lost opportunities | ↗ | |
| Entry model | Decide which capabilities Brazil has earned next | Choose whether to remain light, deepen partner/outsourced execution, hire, incorporate, expand infrastructure or change the thesis. | Commercial + operating + economics evidence | Explicit invest / maintain / change / stop decision with triggers | ↗ | |
| People | Approve only the headcount supported by repeatable demand or operating load | Sequence the next 1–3 roles and define what should still stay outsourced or at HQ. | Role scorecards + economics + manager capacity | Approved hiring sequence; owners; 180-day capacity plan | ↗ | |
| Operating model | Lock provider governance and handoffs before complexity grows | Clarify who owns legal, tax, accounting, payroll, immigration, office, sourcing and commercial execution; remove overlap and gaps. | Selected providers + named internal owner | Provider RACI; escalation path; recurring operating review | ↗ | |
| Scale plan | Translate evidence into the next 90-day operating plan | Set the next commercial targets, hiring/structure milestones, budget, dependencies and critical path through Day 180. | Day-90 evidence + HQ investment decision | 30/60/90 next-cycle plan approved with owners and milestones | ↗ | |
| HQ decision | Write the Day-90 investment memo | Summarize what was proven, disproven, still unknown, capital required and the smallest next commitment that solves a proven constraint. | All workstreams closed or explicitly unresolved | Board/HQ memo completed; decision recorded; unresolved assumptions assigned | ↗ |
How the 90 days change by entry model
The sequence is stable; emphasis changes. Use the model as a starting hypothesis, not a legal conclusion.
| Entry model | First-90-day emphasis | Trigger to deepen the model | Evidence needed by Day 90 | Common failure mode |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct sales / no entity | Maximize customer learning and local credibility before fixed structure. | A local transaction, hiring or compliance constraint becomes repeated—not hypothetical. | Clear ICP, buyer progression, transaction path and evidence that direct coverage is sufficient or not. | Scaling activity before proving who buys and how the transaction completes. |
| Partner / distributor-led | Prove partner access, capability and economics before granting meaningful scope. | Partner demonstrates real account access, delivery capability and acceptable governance/economics. | Evidence of partner-generated progression, not just introductions; defined territory/governance next step. | Treating a signed partner agreement as market validation. |
| Outsourced BD / local representation | Use flexible local capacity to test accounts, messaging and follow-up cadence. | The motion becomes repeatable enough that persistent internal ownership or capacity is the bottleneck. | Documented playbook, stage conversion evidence and decision whether to keep outsourced capacity or hire. | Outsourcing a weak ICP instead of fixing it. |
| EOR-first | Use employment capability before entity formation only when a real role is justified. | Role demand is proven and legal/tax/employment structure is confirmed by qualified advisers. | First hire productive, manager/role scope clear, economics understood and entity trigger defined. | Hiring a country role before commercial or operating mandate is clear. |
| Entity-first | Run incorporation in parallel only when transactions, regulation, hiring, imports or governance make it necessary. | Critical path and specialist inputs confirm the entity solves a current constraint. | Entity can support real transactions/operations; no unnecessary infrastructure built around it. | Confusing incorporation progress with market traction. |
| Hybrid | Sequence multiple paths—e.g., customer validation + provider setup + selective hiring—under one owner. | Dependencies are explicit and each permanent commitment has its own evidence threshold. | Workstreams converge into one Day-90 decision rather than becoming separate projects. | Letting providers and workstreams optimize independently. |
The KPI system: evidence over activity
Do not manage the launch with one vanity metric. Use a small evidence ladder that shows whether the market thesis and operating model are becoming more credible.
Share of meetings with ICP-fit accounts and the quality of problem validation.
Second meetings, stakeholder additions, technical evaluation, procurement, pilot or budget actions.
Movement between defined stages—not raw meeting volume.
Repeated transaction, hiring, tax, logistics, language or local-presence blockers.
Current cost-to-learn, expected recurring commitment and sensitivity to the chosen model.
How many critical assumptions are proven, disproven or explicitly unresolved by Day 90.
Operating templates
Use the guide as the narrative layer and the templates as the working layer. All files are editable.
Six operating principles to preserve
Start with what HQ must know by Day 90; tasks are only means.
Use reversible capacity until evidence justifies a permanent layer.
Specialists can own domains; one person must own the integrated plan.
Let repeated buyer and transaction friction determine what to build.
Coordinate legal, tax, accounting, payroll, immigration, real estate and other specialists around the same critical path.
The output is not a status deck; it is a recommendation supported by evidence.
Common mistakes to avoid
Parallelism is useful only when dependencies are explicit. Otherwise it creates cost and coordination noise.
A local title does not solve an unclear market thesis.
Interest is weaker evidence than buyer progression and economic commitment.
Entity setup can be necessary, but it is an enabling workstream—not the market-entry objective.
Without explicit thresholds, every weak signal becomes a reason to keep spending.
Use E2M tools to resolve the plan
The guide tells you what to decide. The tools below help quantify or structure the decision.
Official context behind the operating plan
Official or independent reference used to anchor the operating context.
Open source ↗Official or independent reference used to anchor the operating context.
Open source ↗Official or independent reference used to anchor the operating context.
Open source ↗Official or independent reference used to anchor the operating context.
Open source ↗Official or independent reference used to anchor the operating context.
Open source ↗Use evidence to earn the next layer
Mandate → Minimum capability → Customer evidence → Operating proof → Day-90 investment decision
Put the 90-day plan into your Expansion Passport.
Preserve your decisions, connect workstreams and turn the guide into a company-specific sequence.
Turn the 90-day plan into local execution
E2M can coordinate the local operating layer across market validation, providers, commercial execution, recruiting, office/housing and setup so headquarters has one accountable Brazil interface.
Discuss your Brazil entry →Sources & further reading
- Federal Government — REDESIM
- Federal Government — Mapa de Empresas
- IBGE — CEMPRE
- Ministry of Labour — Novo Caged, July 2026
- McKinsey — B2B Pulse 2024
E2M frameworks are operating tools, not statutory Brazilian standards. Legal, tax, employment, privacy, immigration, customs and other regulated matters should be confirmed for the specific facts with qualified Brazilian advisers.