Ask any business leader what they prioritize in the thought leadership content created by tech services firms, and they’ll tell you that timely, relevant, and detailed case studies are exceptionally important to picking potential partners. In fact, 43% of our thought leadership consumer respondents said case study evidence was the quality they valued most. Digging deeper, case study evidence was rated the third most valuable attribute of quality content by tech services business leaders who consume thought leadership, after relevance (1) and statistical evidence (2).
To Micah Freedman, the chief transformation officer at hospitality services firm Edyn (and a former IT services, software and strategy executive), primary research findings are critical to setting context for understanding a tech services firms’ take on important business challenges — and their approach to solving them. “And then it’s the experience of solving problems — that’s done in a case example form – (that’s) where you can see qualitatively how the problem was solved, (and) what the outcome was.”
Not surprisingly case study evidence was cited as the top attribute of quality thought leadership content by all tech services firms that we surveyed. And laggards rated it more highly than leaders. (Perhaps they see case studies as an important means for burnishing their credibility?). Given the near unanimity on the importance of quality case study content, why do they get short shrift from tech services firms across the space? We endeavored to learn why by evaluating the “success stories” sections of the websites. This, we believe, indicates how comfortable they are sharing relevant case examples in their marquee thought leadership materials.
We evaluated 19 of the largest tech services companies in the field using a scale of 1-5 (where 1 was worst and 5 the best) on a variety of criteria:
- The number of case studies published on the landing page of their “success stories” web page during the preceding 18 months.
- The percentage of case studies featuring named clients vs. those that skated by with disguised identities.
- Whether these case studies revealed the customer’s core challenges.
- Details of the tech service firm’s unique problem-solving thinking and capabilities.
- Articulation of hard, quantitative results achieved or envisioned — beyond soft, fuzzy qualitative business outcomes achieved (i.e., unsubstantiated reduced cost, improved productivity, accelerated time to market claims, etc.).
- Next steps in extending the client relationship.
- Whether or not the case study transcends static storytelling (i.e., pdf/HTML text) by incorporating audio, video and data/concept visualizations, etc.
Admittedly, our methodology is part art, part science. Yet our findings were revealing:
- IT services firms publish a good deal of case studies, but much of it is lackluster and comes off as a checklist activity. As we noted, decision makers who consume thought leadership content truly value case studies. They seek real-world evidence that their potential partners have solved the business challenges they are dealing with. Tech services companies realize this and fill up their “success stories” section with content, much of it self-congratulatory and bereft of detail. Many case stories seem like they’re written by business development staff who are far removed from the project or by development teams more comfortable with the technology deployed than the results achieved. The case studies we reviewed barely scraped the surface in outlining the business-technology challenge the client faced, nor did they substantiate the tech service firm’s unique expertise in solving the challenge. Mean score: 3.11.
- The overwhelming majority of IT services firms had more disguised vs. named clients in their case studies. In many instances, anonymous case studies outnumbered client-named ones by average of two or three to one. In extreme cases, the ratio is seven or nine to one. In a few cases, firms didn’t offer any named case studies. We know how difficult it can be to get clients to participate in deep-dive case studies without a good amount of arm twisting to make it a win-win proposition. In our experience, it’s worth the effort for one simple reason: named case studies carry greater clout than unnamed ones (i.e., they are more credible in the eyes of clients and prospects, as well as the media, intermediary and analyst communities). Mean score: 2.32.
- Tech services firms do a reasonably good job of highlighting their clients’ core problems in their case studies. One reason could be that operating primarily under a shield of anonymity allows them to be somewhat transparent in surfacing a client’s challenges. Another could be that they are much more adept at observing the problem rather than articulating how they solved it. Lastly, most tech services firms are more comfortable discussing the technical elements of the problem (i.e., latency in processing, limited network bandwidth, hard-coded software that is inaccessible to modern open tools, etc.). Mean score: 3.26.
- Tech services firms are adept at promoting their proprietary solutions, frameworks, and methodologies but do not explain how they are different. They also tend not to dive deeply into the business gains their clients attained. Most gloss over the outcomes by issuing platitudes on significant business improvements without detailing specific, measurable outcomes. One reason could be that they see themselves merely as implementors, not strategic thinkers and actors, leaving a wide-open lane for white-glove management consultants like Bain, Boston Consulting, and McKinsey. Mean scores: unique expertise, 3.05; business benefits, 3.42.
- Regarding next steps, many of the companies fell flat. They typically paid lip service to follow-up work that typically shores up business gains achieved by clients — either operationally or technologically. Such post-engagement activities signal that the client featured is happy and willing to expand the partnership. Mean score: 2.84.
- Most IT services firms publish static case studies in either PDF or HTML formats. While that may have worked earlier this millennium, it’s not good enough in today’s transmedia age. Not all clients and prospects are created equally. Some still prefer textual presentations, true. Others, however, prefer their case studies in more stimulating formats – videos, audio, data or concept visualizations and e-books built in dynamic HTML. Leading tech services companies (i.e., faster-growing companies which often have greater budgets and latitude to entice clients to participate in rich case study presentations) seem to understand this. Our evaluation revealed they tend to present more case studies in a variety of transmedia formats, blending straight text with more dynamic content displays on a single HTML page. (See one example, below.) Mean score: 2.42.
Outthinking the Competition 