Sample packaged methodology
This is a finished run, exactly as your practice would see it. Read the packaged offering, the stage gates and the templates, check each rule against the quoted passage behind it, open the four source documents, and download the playbook and offering deck. No sign-in needed.
Run this with your own expertSample methodology — example firm, read only
Halcott & Reese Advisors
How we run a profitability review · Advisory — profitability and pricing · 4 sources loaded
Dana has run this review more than forty times and it sells on her name. Two senior managers can deliver parts of it, but the scoping decision, the margin rebuild and the client workshop still depend on her being in the room. The firm wants to sell it as a fixed-scope four-week offering delivered by the practice, not by one partner.
Packaged methodology
5
3
2
14
Approved by the expert
Dana Whitfield's profitability review is already a disciplined method rather than a personal instinct: the sources describe a fixed four-week rhythm, a written data request that does not change, a bottom-up margin rebuild that refuses the client's own reported figures, and a validation workshop that ends only when the client can restate the leaks unprompted. What has never been written down is the decision logic at each gate — when scope is settled, when the model may be built, when a finding has landed, and when the report may go out. This packaging run documents five stages with those gates made explicit, three deliverable templates drawn from the firm's existing report structure and working papers, and two workflows that move the review from an interview with Dana into work the practice can staff and sell as a fixed-scope offering.
Four-Week Profitability Review
A fixed four-week engagement that rebuilds margin engagement by engagement, names the three largest leaks in dollars, and leaves the owner with a sequenced ninety-day plan whose first action pays for the engagement.
- Buyer
- Owner or managing partner of a professional service firm between 50 and 500 people, sponsored jointly with the finance lead.
- Duration
- Four weeks from signed data request to presented report, plus booked 30-day and 90-day reviews.
- Scope
- Three years of revenue by client and service line, payroll and utilisation by person, direct engagement costs, overhead schedule, and the last eight proposals won and lost. One validation workshop, one decision document, one ninety-day plan. No implementation delivery.
- Pricing basis
- Fixed fee against a fixed scope, priced on the size of the margin position being examined rather than hours; the sequencing rule that the first action pays for the engagement inside ninety days is the value anchor.
- Margin is rebuilt bottom-up from client files, not restated from the client's own reporting.
- Every headline figure carries a source file reference, so findings survive being argued with in the room.
- The engagement ends with a decision document under twelve pages, not a record of the work.
- Recommendations carry a dollar value, a named client owner and a date, and the 30- and 90-day reviews are booked at presentation.
1. Scope the decision and issue the data request
ConfirmedFix in one sentence the decision the client has to make at the end of the engagement, then put the standing data request in front of the finance lead and get it signed as complete.
Lead partner, with the engagement manager drafting · Week 1
- Opening conversation with the owner and finance lead
- Standing data request (WP-14 section 2)
- Prior proposals and any existing margin reporting
- One-page scope note with the decision statement at the top
- Signed data request with a dated gap log
- Write the decision statement in one sentence and confirm it back to the owner
- Issue the unchanged data request: three years of revenue by client and service, payroll with utilisation, direct costs, overhead schedule, last eight proposals won and lost
- Run a completeness check against the request and log every gap with the name of the person who owes it
- Obtain written confirmation from the finance lead that the data set is complete
Is the engagement scoped?
The decision the client must make is written in a single sentence and the owner has agreed to it.
If it takes more than one sentence, the scope is still two engagements. Split it or narrow it before pricing.
May modelling begin?
The finance lead has confirmed in writing that the data request is complete.
Partial data is the main cause of overrun. Hold the start date rather than beginning on gaps.
Quality barA colleague who has never met the client can read the scope note and state the decision and the data set without asking a question.
Expert interview — Dana Whitfield, Partner
“Before I look at a single number I write down the decision the client has to make at the end. If I cannot name that decision in one sentence, the engagement is not scoped yet.”
Expert interview — Dana Whitfield, Partner
“I will not start the diagnostic until the finance lead has signed the data request as complete. Starting on partial data is how these engagements run long.”
Expert interview — Priya Raghavan, Senior Manager
“The first thing I do is a completeness check against the data request, and I log every gap with the name of the person who owes it.”
2. Rebuild margin engagement by engagement
ConfirmedProduce margin the client has never seen: costed bottom-up from their own files at fully loaded rates, with overhead allocated on direct labour rather than spread evenly.
Engagement manager, reviewed by the lead partner · Weeks 2–3
- Signed data set
- WP-14 costing rules
- Client engagement files
- Engagement-level margin model with source references in every headline cell
- Ranked margin leak list with a dollar value against each leak
- Cost each engagement at fully loaded staff cost including non-billable time, not at standard rate
- Cost partner time at the partner's loaded rate even where it was not billed
- Allocate overhead on direct labour dollars
- Reference every headline figure to the client file it came from and remove any figure without one
- Produce margin by engagement, client, service line and responsible partner, and rank the leaks by dollar value
Is the model ready for narrative?
The lead partner has signed it and every headline number has a source file behind it.
No narrative is drafted before the signature. Writing first is how unsupported figures survive.
Which leaks make the report?
The three patterns are tested every time: work sold below delivery cost, clients consuming unpaid partner time, and service lines that look profitable only because overhead is spread evenly.
Quality barAny figure in the model can be defended in the room by naming the client file behind it, without going back to the analyst who built it.
Expert interview — Dana Whitfield, Partner
“I rebuild margin from the bottom up, engagement by engagement, rather than accepting the client's own reported margin.”
Internal working papers — profitability model standard (WP-14)
“Overhead is allocated on direct labour dollars, never evenly across service lines.”
Internal working papers — profitability model standard (WP-14)
“Every headline figure in the model carries a source reference to the client file it came from. Figures without a source reference are removed before review.”
3. Argue the numbers in a validation workshop
ConfirmedLand the findings with the people who have to act on them by working through the rebuilt margin with them, rather than sending it.
Lead partner facilitating, engagement manager on the model · Week 4, two hours
- Signed margin model
- Printed workshop pack
- Owner and finance lead in the room
- Confirmed leak list, in the client's own words
- Reworked findings list for anything that failed the restatement test
- Facilitate a two-hour session with the owner and the finance lead on the rebuilt margin
- Work through each candidate leak and let the client challenge the figures against their files
- Test whether the client can restate the three biggest leaks unprompted
- Rework any finding that does not land before it enters the report
Has the finding landed?
The client can restate the three biggest margin leaks in their own words without looking at the slides.
A nodding client is not a landed finding. Rework and retest rather than writing it up.
Quality barThe session is a working argument about the numbers, not a status update: printed pack, named facilitator, finance lead present.
Expert interview — Dana Whitfield, Partner
“I never send the findings. We run a two hour validation workshop with the owner and the finance lead and we argue with the numbers together.”
Expert interview — Dana Whitfield, Partner
“The client can restate the three biggest margin leaks in their own words without looking at my slides.”
Expert interview — Priya Raghavan, Senior Manager
“That session needs a printed pack, a named facilitator, and the finance lead in the room or it turns into a status update.”
4. Design and sequence the recommendations
ConfirmedConvert confirmed leaks into a short decision document where every recommendation is owned, dated and sized, and the sequence pays for the engagement early.
Lead partner, with the engagement manager drafting · Week 4
- Confirmed leak list
- Past deliverable structure
- Client operating constraints
- Profitability diagnostic report, body under twelve pages
- Sequenced ninety-day action list with owners, dates and dollar values
- Attach a dollar value, a named owner inside the client and a date to each recommendation
- Sequence the recommendations so the first action pays for the engagement inside ninety days
- Write the decision and recommendation on page one, before any analysis
- Keep the body of the report within twelve pages and move model detail to the appendix
- Have a second partner read the finding list cold before delivery
Is a recommendation complete?
It carries a dollar value, an owner inside the client and a date.
Anything missing one of the three is an opinion and comes out of the report.
May the report go to the client?
A second partner can follow the finding list cold, and no finding names an individual employee.
Quality barThe report reads as a decision document: the decision is on page one and the work sits in the appendix.
Expert interview — Dana Whitfield, Partner
“Every recommendation carries a dollar value, an owner inside the client, and a date. A recommendation without those three things is an opinion.”
Expert interview — Priya Raghavan, Senior Manager
“Nothing goes to a client without a second partner reading the finding list cold and being able to follow it without me explaining it.”
Past client deliverable — structure extract
“The body of the report never exceeds twelve pages; everything else belongs in the appendix.”
5. Hand over and book the reviews
ConfirmedClose the engagement so the plan survives contact with the client's month-end: reviews booked in the room, ownership transferred, nothing left dependent on the partner.
Lead partner, then engagement manager for the reviews · Presentation day, then day 30 and day 90
- Presented report
- Ninety-day action list
- Client calendars
- Dated first-ninety-days plan with both review meetings already booked
- Accepted ownership record for every action
- Present the decision document to the owner and finance lead
- Book the thirty-day and ninety-day reviews during the presentation meeting
- Confirm each named owner has accepted their action and date
- Run the reviews against the dated plan, not against a fresh analysis
Is the engagement closed?
Both reviews are in the calendar and every action has an accepted owner.
Booking afterwards does not happen; book while everyone is in the room.
Quality barNinety days later the client is working the same plan that was presented, and the review can be run by whoever holds the file.
Expert interview — Dana Whitfield, Partner
“I book a thirty and a ninety day review at the time we present, not afterwards, because afterwards never happens.”
Past client deliverable — structure extract
“A dated plan with the thirty and ninety day review meetings already booked.”
Profitability Diagnostic Report
client · Owner or managing partner and finance lead · 6 sections
Carry the decision, the rebuilt margin position and the sequenced ninety-day plan in under twelve pages.
| Section | What goes in it |
|---|---|
| The decision | One page. State the decision the owner has to make and your recommendation before any analysis appears. |
| Where the margin actually is | Rebuilt margin by service line and by client set against the margin the business reported. Each figure carries its source file reference. |
| The three leaks | One sentence per leak, sized in dollars, traced to the engagements that produced it. Name the work, never an individual employee. |
| What changes | Each recommendation gets a dollar value, a named owner inside the client and a date, sequenced so the first action pays for the engagement within ninety days. |
| The first ninety days | A dated plan with the thirty-day and ninety-day review meetings already booked. |
| Appendix | Model extract and data source list. Everything that is not a decision belongs here. |
Engagement Margin Model — build specification
internal · Engagement manager and analyst · 6 sections
Make the model reproducible by someone other than the partner, on the firm's costing rules rather than the client's.
| Section | What goes in it |
|---|---|
| Data set and completeness log | The standing data request, plus a gap log naming the person who owes each missing item and the date it was promised. |
| Costing rules applied | Fully loaded staff cost including non-billable time; partner time costed at loaded rate even when unbilled; overhead allocated on direct labour dollars. |
| Margin views | Margin by engagement, client, service line and responsible partner, each view reconciling to total revenue. |
| Leak ranking | Ranked leaks with a dollar value and the engagements behind each one. |
| Source references | Every headline cell carries the client file it came from. Cells without a reference are removed before partner review. |
| Partner sign-off | Date and name of the partner who signed the model before narrative drafting began. |
Four-Week Profitability Review — scope and offer letter
sales · Prospective client owner and finance lead · 6 sections
Sell the review as a fixed scope with a fixed fee, without the partner needing to improvise the scope.
| Section | What goes in it |
|---|---|
| The decision we will settle | The client's decision in one sentence, in their language, taken from the scoping conversation. |
| What we will do, week by week | Week one scoping and data, weeks two and three the model, week four the workshop and the report, then the booked reviews. |
| What we need from you | The standing data request verbatim, plus the written confirmation of completeness that starts the engagement clock. |
| What you receive | The decision document, the leak list sized in dollars, and the dated ninety-day plan with reviews booked. |
| What is not included | Implementation delivery, systems work, and any analysis outside the three-year data scope. |
| Fee and terms | Fixed fee against this scope, invoicing schedule, and named engagement team. |
Intake to modelling start
Trigger: An owner accepts the four-week review and the scope letter is signed.
| Who | Does what | Produces | Gate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead partner | Write the decision statement in one sentence and confirm it with the owner. | One-page scope note | Owner has agreed to the decision statement as written. |
| Engagement manager | Issue the standing data request unchanged and open the gap log. | Issued data request with gap log | — |
| Engagement manager | Run the completeness check and chase each gap against the named owner. | Completed gap log | — |
| Client finance lead | Confirm in writing that the data set is complete. | Written completeness confirmation | No modelling starts before this confirmation is on file. |
| Engagement manager | Open the model from the build specification and schedule the week-four workshop. | Model shell and booked workshop | — |
Model sign-off to client delivery
Trigger: The margin model is complete and the leak list is drafted.
| Who | Does what | Produces | Gate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead partner | Review the model and check that every headline number carries a source file. | Signed model | No narrative is drafted before the model is signed. |
| Lead partner | Facilitate the two-hour validation workshop and test the restatement bar. | Confirmed leak list in the client's words | Any finding the client cannot restate is reworked, not written up. |
| Engagement manager | Draft the report to the template, keeping the body under twelve pages. | Draft decision document | — |
| Second partner | Read the finding list cold and confirm no finding names an individual employee. | Delivery clearance | Clearance is required before the client sees any version of the report. |
| Lead partner | Present the report and book the thirty-day and ninety-day reviews in the meeting. | Presented report with both reviews booked | — |
- The sources do not set a fee range or a floor, so the fixed price for the packaged review still has to be decided by the firm.
- Nothing in the interviews describes what happens when the validation workshop produces a fourth material leak late in week four — whether scope extends or the leak is logged for a later engagement.
- There is no stated rule for which engagements can be led by a senior manager without the partner facilitating the workshop.
- The 30- and 90-day reviews are booked but the sources do not define what is delivered at them, or whether they are chargeable.
Get One Expert's Method Out Of Their Head This Week.
Create an account, load the interviews and past deliverables behind your best offering, and get stages, gates, templates and workflows your team can deliver.