- Sheridan, Wyoming, US
- [email protected]
- Call Us Anytime+123 (4567) 890
- Email Us[email protected]
- Opening HourMon - Sat 8:00 - 6:30, Sunday - CLOSED
Get latest update for our trusted applications
Business Value
Every other firm optimises the technical outcome. We are accountable for the business outcome.
This is not a positioning statement, it is a working method. Before we design anything we write a value model with your finance and operations leaders: which number moves, from what baseline, by how much, owned by whom, reviewed when. Everything we build afterwards is answerable to that document.
$1.7B
generatedCumulative client value across the portfolio
120+
value modelsWritten, agreed and tracked with clients
99%
retentionClients who continue after project one
Technology has been allowed to be unaccountable for far too long.
In almost every other part of a business, spending is justified against a return. A factory line has an output figure. A sales hire has a quota. A marketing campaign has a cost per acquisition, and if it fails to deliver one, someone answers for it. Technology has largely escaped this discipline, and it has escaped it for a simple reason: the deliverable is easy to see and the value is not.
So we all learned to report the deliverable. Sprints completed, uptime achieved, features shipped, models trained. Every one of those is real work. None of them tells a chief executive whether the money worked. And because nobody agreed in advance what the number was supposed to be, nobody can settle the argument afterwards.
Our entire method is a response to that gap. We insist on the number first, in writing, agreed with the people who own it. It makes our sales conversations harder and our scoping slower. It also means that when we say we generated $1.7 billion in client value, there are 120 documents behind that figure with client signatures on them. Accountability is the product.
They were the only partner who asked for our P&L before our requirements document. Six months later the numbers they promised were sitting in our board pack.
There are only four ways technology can create value.
Any proposal that cannot name which of these it moves is a proposal about technology, not about your business. We use this list to disqualify our own ideas.
Revenue created
Demand captured instead of lost, conversion improved, price optimised, new products made sellable, customers retained who would have left.
Cost removed
Manual effort eliminated, cost per interaction reduced, licence and workaround spend retired, waste and rework designed out.
Risk reduced
Default, fraud, downtime, safety and compliance exposure lowered — value that appears as losses which did not occur.
Time returned
Cycle times compressed and hours given back to people whose attention is the constraint on growth.
One page. Six fields. Impossible to hide behind.
This is the document that governs the engagement. It is deliberately short, because ambiguity is where accountability goes to die.
A worked example, from a real engagement.
Notice what is absent: no mention of technology, vendor, model or architecture. Those are our problem. The client's document contains only the commitment.
How the same project runs with and without a value model.
- 01Kick-off starts with requirements
- 02Success criteria are features and dates
- 03Trade-offs decided on effort
- 04Launch is the finish line
- 05Benefits case filed and forgotten
- 06Renewal argued on relationship
- 01Kick-off starts with the value model
- 02Success criteria are baseline and target
- 03Trade-offs decided on value per unit of effort
- 04Launch is the halfway point
- 05Benefits measured monthly against a holdout
- 06Renewal argued on the reported number
Three mechanisms that stop this becoming a slogan.
Anyone can claim to focus on business value. These are the structural commitments that make the claim expensive to break.
MECHANISM 01
Fee at risk
In outcome-based engagements a defined portion of our fee depends on the agreed metric moving. We have forfeited fees. It is a considerably more persuasive commitment than a values page.
MECHANISM 02
Holdout measurement
Wherever it is statistically possible we hold back a control group so improvement can be separated from seasonality, market movement and everything else that flatters a benefits case.
MECHANISM 03
Written refusals
When we cannot find a defensible path to value we say so in writing and decline the work. About one assessment in five ends this way, which is the clearest evidence the method is real.
$1.7B
Client value generatedAcross 120+ signed value models
1 in 5
Assessments say stopWritten recommendations not to proceed
99%
Client retentionClients who continue after project one
The six places we always look first.
After 120 assessments the pattern is remarkably consistent. Value is rarely where the organisation thinks it is.
- 01Demand you never answered — calls, enquiries and forms that went nowhere
- 02Decisions made too late to matter — approvals, pricing, interventions
- 03Work done twice — manual transfer between systems that should connect
- 04Discounts given to customers who were never leaving
- 05Capacity lost to unplanned downtime and rework
- 06Reports produced by hand that nobody trusts anyway
31%
of callsUnanswered before intervention, property client
11 hrs
per personWeekly, spent moving data between systems
19%
of spendRetention discount to customers who would stay
9
systemsConsulted to resolve one service case
None of these require artificial intelligence to find. They require somebody willing to measure the current state honestly before proposing a solution — which is what the first week of every engagement is for.
What executives ask about the method.
- 01. What if the value is genuinely hard to measure?Then we say so and use the best available proxy, documented as a proxy. We would rather commit to an imperfect measure openly than retreat to counting features. Where no defensible measure exists at all, that is usually a sign the initiative should not be funded.
- 02. Our finance team will not release value model detail to a vendor.Understandable, and unnecessary. We need the specific lines relevant to the opportunity, and we work under NDA. In practice the finance team's involvement is what makes the resulting number credible internally.
- 03. Does this make you slower than other firms?Two weeks slower at the start, and considerably faster afterwards, because scope arguments end early. The projects that appear fast are usually the ones building things nobody needed.
- 04. What if we just want a system built?We will build it, and we will still write the value model, because we would rather know whether it worked. If you genuinely do not want the number measured, we are probably the wrong partner and there is no hard feeling in that.
Where to go next.
Name the number. We will tell you what it would take to move it.
Two weeks, fixed fee, credited against anything that follows. You keep the value model whether or not you work with us.
