Industry · Professional services
Engagement methods captured once, so quality does not depend on who is staffed.
The firm's method lives in senior people, and clients experience the variation.
Example: Calloway & Reed Advisory (fictional). Fictional organisation, fictional data, scripted answers.
What makes this sector hard
- 01The firm's method lives in its senior people, and clients feel the difference between teams.
- 02Client due-diligence evidence is gathered at the start and rarely refreshed.
- 03Unbilled time and write-offs come to light at month end, after the client has moved on.
- 04Engagement letters differ by partner, and the clause that limits the firm's liability is not always the one the playbook expects.
See it work on Calloway & Reed Advisory’s own data
Simulation. Five short examples, one for each working area. The wording is scripted and no model is called; the figures are computed from what you decide, and a person’s approval covers exactly what you decided.
Settle the changes to the engagement kick-off method
- What happened
- Three teams proposed changes to the firm's kick-off method after a quality review found clients getting different starts to similar projects.
- The question
- Which proposed changes become the firm's kick-off method, and which of them change what a team must do? Asked by: Head of quality.
Settle the changes to the engagement kick-off methodAccept or reject each proposed change. The method below is rebuilt from your decisions, and the changes that alter what a team must do are marked.Open
Accept or reject each proposed change. The method below is rebuilt from your decisions, and the changes that alter what a team must do are marked.
Accept or reject each change. The text below is rebuilt from the changes you accept, and changes that alter what people must do are marked.
Engagement kick-off method, version 3 (fictional)
Agree the scope and the deliverables in writing before work begins.
Reworded
Agree the scope and the deliverables in writing before any work begins.
Wording only; nothing a team must do changes.
Name the client's decision-maker and a day-to-day contact.
Added Changes what people must do
Agree how often the decision-maker will review progress.
Adds a commitment of the client's time as well as the firm's.
Hold a kick-off meeting within five working days of signature.
Reworded Changes what people must do
Hold a kick-off meeting within three working days of signature.
Shortens the time a team has to prepare.
Record the risks the team can see at the start.
Issue the first status report at the end of week two.
Reworded Changes what people must do
Issue the first status report at the end of week one.
Brings the first report forward into a busy week.
The text after your decisions (5 lines)
- Agree the scope and the deliverables in writing before work begins.
- Name the client's decision-maker and a day-to-day contact.
- Hold a kick-off meeting within five working days of signature.
- Record the risks the team can see at the start.
- Issue the first status report at the end of week two.
4 proposed changes: 0 accepted, 0 rejected; 0 accepted change(s) alter what a team must do.
A shorter kick-off, a review rhythm agreed with the client and an earlier first report each change what teams do in the first week, so a partner signs them off before teams are told [S1].
The wording-only change adds nothing a team must do [S2]. The method below is rebuilt from your decisions and has 5 steps.
Relies on: S1 · Team proposals after the quality review (fictional)S2 · Engagement kick-off method, version 3 (fictional)
The head of quality with a partner decides. Approving issues the rebuilt method for team briefings and a practical check. It does not change any current engagement.
Not ready. 4 changes are still undecided. Accept or reject each one first.
Not done here. It does not decide that a shorter kick-off is better for clients: partners decide, and the platform shows only what changed.
Check the client due-diligence file before an engagement starts
- What happened
- A new client, Orrin Developments, wants to start an advisory engagement next week, and the firm's file for it is incomplete.
- The question
- Is the evidence in the client file in place and current, and what is missing? Asked by: Money-laundering reporting officer.
Check the client due-diligence file before an engagement startsAttach evidence for a missing item, or have its owner confirm that a stale one is still current. The completeness is recomputed from what is actually held.Open
Attach evidence for a missing item, or have its owner confirm that a stale one is still current. The completeness is recomputed from what is actually held.
Resolve what is missing or out of date. Evidence counts only when it is attached, or when its owner confirms it is current; the sign-off needs the stated completeness.
45% complete · 95% needed
Identity
- The client company's identity verified PresentVerified from the company register on 3 June
- The beneficial owners identified MissingTwo owners named; the holder of 22 percent is not explained
Source of funds
- The source of funds for the fee explained StaleAn explanation dated 14 months ago, for an earlier engagement
- A check for politically exposed persons PresentRun on 3 June
Engagement
- A conflict check cleared by the risk team MissingRequested, not yet answered
- The engagement letter signed by an authorised signatory PresentSigned by the client's finance director
The client file is 45% complete; accepting the client needs 95%.
3 item(s) are open: The beneficial owners identified; The source of funds for the fee explained; A conflict check cleared by the risk team [S1].
An explanation of funds from an earlier engagement does not count for this one until the client confirms it is still current [S2].
Relies on: S1 · Client file for Orrin Developments (fictional)S2 · Client acceptance procedure (fictional)
The money-laundering reporting officer decides. Approving records the state of the client file for the partner's decision. It does not accept the client or make any report.
Not ready. Evidence is 45% complete; the sign-off needs 95%.
Not done here. It does not accept a client or decide what is reported to an authority: the partner and the reporting officer do.
Find unbilled time before the month closes
- What happened
- Month end is three days away, and the finance partner wants to know which engagements have recorded time that has been neither billed nor written off.
- The question
- Which engagements have unbilled time that needs a decision, and how much is it worth? Asked by: Finance business partner.
Find unbilled time before the month closesEach flagged engagement has a reason. Mark it for a decision now, or as explained; the value of the time in question is recomputed from your decisions.Open
Each flagged engagement has a reason. Mark it for a decision now, or as explained; the value of the time in question is recomputed from your decisions.
Review each flagged record: confirm it or dismiss it. The totals and the answer below follow your decisions.
Engagement Partner Status Value of the time Finding Decision Orrin Developments: strategy Partner A Billed in full 42,000 Matched None needed Calder Retail: pricing review Partner B Six weeks of time, no invoice 31,800 Six weeks of time with no invoice raised Hale Rail: operating model Partner C Billed 56,000 Matched None needed Aldwick Trust: governance Partner A Over the fixed fee 9,400 Time beyond the fixed fee, not agreed with the client Penrose Foods: due diligence Partner B Billed in full 38,500 Matched None needed Northvale Gas: workshop series Partner D Client queried the last invoice 14,200 The client queried the last invoice and time is held back Medisure: policy work Partner C Billed 12,000 Matched None needed Larkin: training design Partner D Write-off proposed 6,800 A write-off is proposed with no reason recorded - Flagged
- 4 of 8 · GBP 62,200
- Decide now
- 0 · GBP 0
- Explained
- 0 · GBP 0
- Undecided
- 4 · GBP 62,200
4 of 8 engagements have unbilled time needing a decision; 0 are marked for it now, with GBP 0 of time.
Unbilled time is not an error in itself: for each line the partner bills it, agrees a write-off with a reason, or explains it [S1].
0 marked as explained stay out and 4 are undecided; a write-off with no reason recorded is the line most likely to be questioned later [S2].
Relies on: S1 · Time recording and billing extract, month to date (fictional)S2 · Write-off and billing policy (fictional)
The finance business partner with the engagement partners decides. Approving sends each decision to the engagement partner. It does not raise an invoice or write anything off.
Not ready. 4 flagged engagements are still undecided. Confirm or dismiss each one first.
Not done here. It does not bill a client or write time off: partners decide, and a write-off needs a recorded reason.
Read an engagement letter against the firm's playbook
- What happened
- A client has returned an engagement letter with its own changes, and a partner wants to sign today.
- The question
- Which clauses in the client's version differ from what the firm accepts, and which readings are uncertain? Asked by: General counsel.
Read an engagement letter against the firm's playbookDecide each highlighted clause. A reading the analysis is unsure of cannot be accepted; send it to counsel.Open
Decide each highlighted clause. A reading the analysis is unsure of cannot be accepted; send it to counsel.
Read each highlighted clause and accept it, reject it, or send it to counsel. A clause the analysis is unsure how to read cannot simply be accepted.
Engagement letter, client's version (fictional) · 6 clauses read, 5 highlighted
1The Firm's total liability to the Client shall not exceed the fees paid under this engagement.
medium risk Liability Reading clear
A cap at the fees paid, which the playbook accepts
2The Firm shall indemnify the Client against all losses arising from the services.
high risk Indemnity Reading clear
An unlimited indemnity, which the playbook does not accept
Obligation: The Firm indemnifies the Client against all losses
3All work product shall be owned by the Client, including the Firm's existing methods used in it.
high risk Ownership Reading uncertain
Could transfer ownership of the Firm's own methods; the reach of 'used in it' is unclear
4The Firm shall not work for any competitor of the Client during the engagement and for twelve months afterwards.
high risk Exclusivity Reading clear
A restriction that lasts twelve months after the work ends
Obligation: The Firm does not work for the Client's competitors (twelve months after the engagement)
5Fees are payable within sixty days of invoice.
6The Client may end the engagement on seven days' notice.
medium risk Ending Reading uncertain
Short notice; it is not clear that fees for work done remain payable
- Accepted
- 0 (0 obligations)
- Rejected
- 0
- With counsel
- 0
- Undecided
- 5
5 clauses differ from the playbook or need reading: 0 accepted, 0 rejected, 0 with counsel.
The unlimited indemnity and the transfer of the firm's own methods are the two the playbook does not allow [S2].
Whether 'used in it' reaches every method the firm brings is uncertain, so it goes to counsel and is not recorded as an acceptance [S1].
Relies on: S1 · Client's version of the engagement letter (fictional)S2 · Engagement terms playbook (fictional)
General counsel decides. Approving records the firm's position on each clause for the negotiation and sends the unsure readings to counsel. It does not sign or send anything.
Not ready. 5 highlighted clauses are still undecided. Accept, reject or send each to counsel first.
Not done here. It does not negotiate, sign or give legal advice: counsel decides, and the partner signs.
Choose which new advisory offering to build
- What happened
- The partnership can invest in one new advisory offering next year and wants a recommendation.
- The question
- Which offering should the firm build, and does the answer survive different priorities? Asked by: Managing partner.
Choose which new advisory offering to buildChange how much each criterion matters. The ranking is recomputed, and the page says whether the leader would survive other weightings.Open
Change how much each criterion matters. The ranking is recomputed, and the page says whether the leader would survive other weightings.
Change how much each criterion matters. The ranking is recomputed, and the page tells you whether the leader would survive a different judgement.
- 1Interim finance leadershipQuick to start; depends on a few senior people.Client demand: 4Margin: 3Fit with our people: 4Speed to first revenue: 5Low risk to reputation: 43.95
- 2AI readiness reviewsStrong demand; few people with the skills today.Client demand: 5Margin: 4Fit with our people: 2Speed to first revenue: 4Low risk to reputation: 33.77
- 3Operating-model redesign for mid-size firmsOur strongest skill; slow to sell.Client demand: 3Margin: 4Fit with our people: 5Speed to first revenue: 2Low risk to reputation: 53.68
- 4Sustainability reporting supportSteady demand; crowded market.Client demand: 4Margin: 3Fit with our people: 3Speed to first revenue: 3Low risk to reputation: 43.41
The leader would change if Fit with our people (counted half as much). Treat the order as sensitive to that judgement.
Leader's margin over the next option: 0.18. The leader can change under another weighting.
With these weights the top-ranked offering is Interim finance leadership (score 3.95).
The order could change under the weightings tested, and would change if Fit with our people (counted half as much) [S1]. The margin between first and second place is 0.18.
A ranking orders the offerings on the scores written in the proposals; it does not replace the partners' judgement of where the firm should be known [S2].
Relies on: S1 · Pipeline and client survey summary (fictional)S2 · Offering proposals (fictional)
The managing partner decides. Approving records the top-ranked offering as the recommendation to the partnership. It does not commit budget or people.
Ready.
Not done here. It does not decide: the partners vote, and a score is an input to that decision.
Where a person decides, and what is never done
Every example above ends with a named person approving it. Approving means exactly what is written here, and nothing more.
- SOP IntelligenceDecides: The head of quality with a partnerApproving lets: Approving issues the rebuilt method for team briefings and a practical check. It does not change any current engagement.Never: It does not decide that a shorter kick-off is better for clients: partners decide, and the platform shows only what changed.
- ComplianceDecides: The money-laundering reporting officerApproving lets: Approving records the state of the client file for the partner's decision. It does not accept the client or make any report.Never: It does not accept a client or decide what is reported to an authority: the partner and the reporting officer do.
- Financial IntelligenceDecides: The finance business partner with the engagement partnersApproving lets: Approving sends each decision to the engagement partner. It does not raise an invoice or write anything off.Never: It does not bill a client or write time off: partners decide, and a write-off needs a recorded reason.
- Legal IntelligenceDecides: General counselApproving lets: Approving records the firm's position on each clause for the negotiation and sends the unsure readings to counsel. It does not sign or send anything.Never: It does not negotiate, sign or give legal advice: counsel decides, and the partner signs.
- Executive IntelligenceDecides: The managing partnerApproving lets: Approving records the top-ranked offering as the recommendation to the partnership. It does not commit budget or people.Never: It does not decide: the partners vote, and a score is an input to that decision.
Always a person in professional services
- A partner decides whether to accept an engagement; the platform never does.
- The money-laundering reporting officer decides what is reported; the platform shows the evidence.
- Counsel decides how the firm answers a client's claim.
The capabilities behind these examples
- Review and approve, as peopleA procedure that nobody accountable has approved is a liability, however well it reads.
- See what changed between versionsWhen a procedure is revised, people cannot tell what actually changed, so they either re-read everything or miss the one change that matters.
- Publish a versioned, official releasePeople work from whichever copy they happen to find, and nobody can say which version was in force on a given day.
- Vendor and Third-Party RiskTrack suppliers and subprocessors, their security assurances, data-access arrangements, contract controls, expirations and exceptions.
- Audit Readiness and Evidence CompletenessConnect each obligation to its controls, evidence, owner and effectiveness, show which artifacts are missing, and produce an evidence-backed preparation and gap report.
- Revenue AssuranceFind possibly unbilled deliveries, missing invoices, incorrect contract pricing, expired entitlements, missed renewals and other revenue leakage.
- Multidimensional Profitability IntelligenceCalculate supported profitability and margin by customer, contract, project, product, location, department and business unit, respecting the accounting and allocation…
- Contract IntelligenceExtracts obligations, unusual clauses, renewals, liability, indemnity, pricing, confidentiality and data-processing exposure from contracts, compared against approved…
- Legal Drafting and Negotiation SupportReviewed first drafts, redlines, clause comparisons, playbooks and negotiation questions.
- Growth Opportunity DiscoverySurfaces opportunities from the organisation's own verified data (for example repeat findings, unused capability, unserved locations) as hypotheses for a person to…
- Decision Options ComparatorSide-by-side comparison of recorded options against stated criteria, with evidence and uncertainty for each cell.
All industries · All demonstrations · Ask for a demonstration on your own sector
The other industries
- HealthcareClinical routines that are written down once, followed everywhere and checked in practice.
- ManufacturingLine procedures that survive a retirement, a new shift and a new product.
- BankingControls and procedures that a supervisor can trace, from the rule to the person who did the work.
- InsuranceClaims and underwriting routines applied the same way by every handler.
- RetailStore routines that are the same on a busy Saturday in every shop.
- LogisticsDepot and driver procedures that hold across sites, subcontractors and seasons.
- TechnologyRunbooks and release routines that new engineers can follow and leaders can trust.
- EducationSafeguarding and operational routines every member of staff can find and follow.