Client work archive
Case Studies From Consulting Work in the U.S.
A case study is useful when it describes a real situation with real constraints. This archive collects engagements by the type of problem, not by industry trophy. Each entry states what the firm sold, who bought it, and what changed on the page. Where a project included sensitive client material, the details are generalized and marked as such.
Entries below are grouped by the type of problem, not by industry. Each one names the situation, the constraint we worked inside, what changed, and what the firm said afterward. There is no ranking here, and no outcome is presented as a forecast for your project.
- Every entry follows the same four-part shape
- Generalized entries are labeled as generalized
- No projected results, no invented numbers
Reading guide
How to read these entries
The shape
Each case study follows the same shape: the situation, the constraint, what we changed, and what the firm reported afterward. We do not publish projected results, and we do not publish client outcomes as a promise for your project. If a firm prefers to stay unnamed, the study runs without attribution but keeps the operational detail that makes it useful.
The match
Read for the constraint first. Two firms can share an industry and have nothing in common if one sells to enterprise procurement and the other sells to owner-operators. Where the match is close, the entry tells you what we would ask in a first call. Where the match is loose, treat the entry as an example of method rather than a prediction.
Entry one
Boutique consultancy with strong referrals and weak inbound
Firm profile
Two-partner strategy consultancy
Service page rewrite and inquiry qualification
Situation
A two-partner strategy consultancy had a full pipeline from referrals and almost nothing from its site. The pages described capabilities in abstract terms. Buyers arriving from search could not tell whether the firm served their company size.
Constraint
The referral flow had to stay unchanged. Partners were not available to answer unqualified calls, and the page could not imply a larger team than the firm has.
What we changed
We rewrote the service page around two buyer profiles, added a who-this-is-for section, and placed a short consultation form above the fold. Page copy gained the company-size and scope detail that referrals used to carry verbally.
What the firm reported
The referral flow stayed unchanged. The firm reported that inbound inquiries arrived better qualified, since the page now filtered size and scope before the call.
Entry two
Design studio needing visible craft standards
Situation
Buyers comparing studios could not tell what the practice stood behind. The portfolio showed outcomes without showing the standards, process, or constraints behind them.
Constraint
Nothing unverifiable could stay on the page. A badge row had been added earlier by a template; it carried no backing and had to come out rather than be rewritten.
What we changed
We restructured the credentials area to reference AIGA membership next to the process description, added two project write-ups with stated constraints, and removed the unbacked badge row.
What the studio reported
The studio uses the same structure for new work now. New project pages begin with the constraint paragraph first, and the credentials block sits next to the process description rather than in a separate sidebar.
A studio serving regional clients had good work and an unclear public identity. Their portfolio existed, but nothing on the site connected it to professional standards they actually held.
Entry three
Legal-adjacent practice borrowing established authority
A compliance practice serving small firms wanted credibility without overstating its scope. The line between research support and licensed advice had to stay visible on every page.
Situation
Small-firm buyers arriving from search could not tell where the practice's support ended and where a licensed attorney needed to take over.
What we changed
We placed a credentials block referencing LexisNexis access next to the research-and-review service description and wrote a plain scope statement listing what the practice does not handle.
What the practice reported
The scope statement produced more useful calls, according to the practice, because it reduced inquiries outside their licensed area.
Entry four
Firm-level proof through third-party directories
A B2B services company had no review presence, which meant prospects comparing vendors had nothing to find. The fix was not a testimonial section on their own site.
Directory listing
We set up a Clutch listing with accurate categories and project size ranges, so buyers filtering by budget and service type could actually find the company.
Profile upkeep
We brought the Google Business Profile current with hours and location, then placed a short proof band near the top of the service page so the listings were visible.
Feedback rhythm
The company began collecting client feedback into those profiles on a schedule rather than once, so the listings stayed current instead of going stale.
What it means for buyers
Third-party directories let a prospect check the vendor without asking the vendor. That is the point of publishing there rather than only on your own domain.
Entry five
An onboarding step that was losing signed work
A consultancy sent engagement letters as PDFs with instructions to print and return. Interested buyers stalled at that step. The lost work was not a pricing problem or a scope problem; it was a friction problem between verbal agreement and a countersigned page.
Before
PDF letter emailed, buyer asked to print, sign, scan and return. Most delays sat here.
After
Letter signed from a phone link in the confirmation email. The scope of work did not change.
We mapped the flow through an e-signature tool similar to DocuSign, so the letter could be signed from a phone link in the confirmation email. The delay between verbal agreement and signed letter is what moved; the contract terms did not.
Signed letters moved from a scan-and-return loop to a single phone link, which is the step most verbal agreements were stalling on.
Entry six
Consultancy borrowing the consulting playbook
One client asked why larger firms read as more credible when the work is comparable. The answer was structural: published thinking, named authors, case studies that survive scrutiny.
Bain & Company-style authority is a format, not a budget line, and the format is copyable. A small firm can publish named essays, keep author pages current, and write project entries that a skeptical buyer can actually check.
Published thinking
We built a small insights section with two named authors, each with a short bio and a stated area of work.
Named responsibility
Each author page says what that person works on and what they do not, so a reader knows who is answering.
Scrutiny-ready entries
We migrated three older project write-ups into full case studies with stated constraints and named service scope.
What we generalize, and why
Where a client asks for confidentiality, we change identifying details while keeping the constraint intact: firm size, service area, buyer type, and the specific page problem. Generalization is labeled in the entry. We do not present a composite as a single client story, and we do not inflate any outcome. If a study would only work with invented numbers, it does not run.
What stays
The constraint, the firm size band, the service area, and the buyer type. These are what make an entry comparable to your own situation.
What changes
Names, dates, and identifying market details. Figures are reported at the level the client approved, not rounded up for effect.
Questions these entries tend to raise
Do these entries describe projects like mine?
Some do and some do not. Each entry states the firm size, buyer type, and the specific page problem, which are the three details that decide whether the situation is comparable. If yours differs on any of them, the method may still transfer but the outcome will not match.
Why are some clients not named?
Confidentiality. Where a client asks to stay unnamed, we keep the operational detail and drop the identifiers. Every generalized entry says so at the top, so you are never reading a composite dressed up as one client's story.
Can I speak to a past client?
Only with that client's agreement, and only where the engagement is past. Ask in the first call and we will say plainly whether a reference is available for the type of work you are considering.
What is not included in these studies?
Budget figures, internal roadmaps, and any result the client has not approved for publication. We also do not publish projected results or present an outcome as a promise for your project.
If one of these looks like your situation
Bring the part you recognize to a first call. We will say which entries are comparable, which are not, and what we would need to look at before scoping anything. If the fit is poor, we will tell you that on the call rather than after a proposal.
Consultation calls run during office hours, Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM – 6:00 PM.