Consulting engagement and client collaboration portal
The client and consultant combine project work, exchange data, and review the result. Additional requests are saved to the agreement to make it clear if the scope of the project changes.
Data lists, files, questions, interviews, accesses and their versions travel via email, shared directories and tables. Analysis is delayed, different versions of the data are used, and consultants spend a lot of time coordinating.
How the solution works
- The client's request is adjusted to the agreed goals of the consultation, expected results and scope of work.
- The customer provides the data, and the consultant returns the revisions and review materials.
- The accepted answer or new need is passed on for further work with clear boundaries.
Key challenges
- Client data and document collection managed in a fragmented manner
- Client comments and solutions split between meetings and channels
- The client problem and project outcome are formulated too broadly
Solution capabilities
The Question to Decide
The request is adjusted to a clear client solution, work limits and necessary input data.
Agreed scope
The client and consultant see the task of the first job that has been accepted and what is not yet coordinated.
Submission of data
The client receives specific requests, submits documents and responds to deficiencies. Receipt is separated from data eligibility for analysis.
Review of work
The client is presented with a version of the conclusion or other material for him/her. Comments are linked to a specific version to make clear what the client asks for change.
Additional needs
A new issue is assessed by agreed scope and transferred to commercial alignment when changing the order.
Business context
- Client data and document collection managed in a fragmented manner
- Data lists, files, questions, interviews, accesses and their versions travel via email, shared directories and tables. Analysis is delayed, different versions of the data are used, and consultants spend a lot of time coordinating.
- Client comments and solutions split between meetings and channels
- Issues, alternatives chosen, risk tolerance and approvals are not always linked to a specific recommendation or project stage. The work is repeated, decisions are postponed, and the direction of the project changes without a clear history.
- The client problem and project outcome are formulated too broadly
- The need, desired change, assumptions, decision limits, and success criteria are gathered through interviews, suggestions, and different documents. The project begins to address too many issues, and the client and team have a different understanding of what needs to be achieved.
- The client and consultant agree on a tangible result
- It is easier for the buyer to evaluate the consultation proposal when clear works, submissions and his own participation. The overall course of review allows for matching notes and additional needs. This helps to continue cooperation under the captured agreement and justify the change in scope of the project.
Core features
- The Question to Decide
- Agreed scope
- Submission of data
- Review of work
- Additional needs
Key integrations
- Project and Analysis Document Management
- Customer request, service eligibility assessment and material version prepared for review.
- Customer and bidding system
- Question, agreed scope and commercial solution.
- Project Management System
- Facts, hypotheses and dependencies passed on to the principal.
Potential impact (%)
The ranges indicate an illustrative relative change in the metric under the stated assumptions. Results depend on the starting position and actual use of the solution. Percentages for different metrics must not be added together.
Re-explicit data request
12–42%Decreasing
This illustrative scenario assumes that 30-60% of errors can be addressed through the data and rule checks described. That share is assumed to fall by 40-70%. Company data is needed to verify both the addressable share and the resulting change.
Count repeated requests for vagueness of the original request.
After the start, there is a dispute over the promised result
5–25%Decreasing
This illustrative scenario assumes that 20-50% of missed actions can be identified through task and deadline tracking. That share is assumed to fall by 25-50%. Company data is needed to verify both the addressable share and the resulting change.
Counting works that require re-commercial coordination due to uncertainty of initial volume.
Part of negative feedback on the progress of the consultation project
4–15%Decreasing
Indicative assumption: 15-30% of negative reviews relate to the unclear scope of consultation and the purpose of the result. The solution could reduce this proportion by 25-50%. This is a scenario of potential; assumptions need to be verified by feedback collected by the company.
When a company starts collecting reviews, negative feedback about the progress of the consultation project is counted from all evaluations received on the topic. The same method of evaluation applies before and after installation and similar customer groups are compared. Without initial data, the actual change is not determined.
Conditional calculation scenarios. The assumptions have not been validated against client measurements.
When this solution is relevant
- Customer data requests, submitted documents and comments become lost between emails.
- Before work can begin, it is necessary to balance the business issue being addressed, the expected outcome and the scope of the consultation.
Implementation requirements
The consultation portal has a consensus on the client's question, required data and criteria for receiving the result. The additional need has a clear review of the scope and commercial conditions and is forwarded to the consultant in charge.