The portfolio was full. The strategy wasn’t.
A $2.2B technology-enabled services enterprise had assembled 74 transformation initiatives claiming $142M of annual value.
The platform was ready. The operating model wasn’t.
A $1.3B professional-services enterprise had authorized $62M to modernize its commercial and delivery platforms — 31 workstreams, a credible architecture, and a $38M annual benefit case.
AI saved time. Finance couldn’t count it.
A large professional-services organization had deployed generative AI across knowledge work for 1,200 professionals.
The cost target was clear. The path to it wasn’t.
A PE-backed, multi-site services company of $950M revenue carried a sponsor mandate to remove $25M of annual run rate from a $210M controllable cost base.
The board had status. It didn’t have proof.
A $1.6B services enterprise presented $120M of aggregate transformation benefit to its governance bodies across seven major programs.
The contact center was solving problems the business created.
A large service organization handled 1.2M assisted customer contacts a year at $9.25 fully loaded per contact — an $11.1M annual cost line under continuous efficiency pressure.
The transformation was green. The value wasn’t.
An $84M multi-year transformation was roughly 18 months in, with $46M spent and 61 active workstreams.
Eight sectors. One grammar.
| Sector | Why ETEGY was called / what the work surfaced |
|---|---|
| Professional & advisory services | Growth was outrunning the operating model. The work connected selling, contracting, staffing, delivery, economics, and value proof across global-to-business-unit/services integration, CLM, PSA, and advisory capability. |
| Software & technology services | Services performance could not be read end to end. The work connected commercial demand, resource capacity, delivery, utilization, margin, and governance into one operating view. |
| Financial services & insurance | Work entered through too many paths and became hard to route, execute, prove, and improve. The work exposed workflow, ownership, decision, technology, and evidence breaks across complex service operations. |
| PE-backed businesses | The value-creation plan and operating reality had separated. The work reconciled account economics, pricing, capacity, delivery, governance, and value proof to show what had to change to protect the thesis. |
| Higher education | Institutional change crossed functions before anyone had one agreed view of the work. The work clarified lifecycle, ownership, workflow-platform requirements, readiness, and operating dependencies before implementation. |
| Energy & utilities | Change capability itself was inconsistent. The work defined governance, sponsor roles, practitioner standards, measures, and operating controls required to make change repeatable. |
| Life sciences & healthcare | Speed, evidence, and control were pulling in different directions. The work clarified workflow, readiness, data, control, and delivery requirements needed to move without losing compliance or proof. |
| Consumer & hospitality | Integration created local optimization instead of one operating model. The work aligned decision rights, planning, quality, systems, people, and customer/owner workflows around the target condition. |
We publish the method itself.
The maps, the workshop flow, the exit positions, the ledger structure.
Take it.
What you can’t download is knowing which of several hundred findings is the one that matters. On a single value stream that’s a hundred-plus. Run it across a full function — marketing, operations, services — drilled to team level and rationalized back up, and it’s several hundred in aggregate. Sorting signal from noise at that volume is the judgment. The template is just the template.
Claims vs. evidence →Bring yours. We’ll show the arithmetic.
Forty-five minutes, no deck, no prep. If there’s nothing worth scoping, we’ll say so.