Slalom Consulting

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.

Lindemann Industrie GmbH is a Construction business based in Berlin, Germany. As Leiter Digitalisierung, I own the technology strategy and vendor relationships. Every spending decision gets evaluated against a concrete business case — we do not invest in technology for its own sake.

What specific problem or business challenge led you to hire this company?

Honestly, we had been deferring this Industry-Specific Solutions investment for eighteen months. User feedback had been consistent and our conversion data confirmed the impact. We eventually ran out of reasons to delay.

What services did the company provide for your project?

Primarily Industry-Specific Solutions, with QA and solution architecture included in scope. They owned the build end-to-end from requirements through to go-live, including three existing system integrations. Not needing to coordinate separate QA or architecture vendors was genuinely valuable.

Why did you choose this company over other providers you considered?

We shortlisted five vendors. Two were eliminated immediately based on the technical proposals. Of the remaining three, this team's Industry-Specific Solutions approach was the most specific and evidenced — actual Construction reference cases, not generic slides. The reference calls confirmed what the proposal described.

How clearly did the company understand your requirements and business goals?

Thoroughly. The requirements document they produced was detailed enough that our QA team used it directly to write acceptance criteria. Every story had a defined business outcome attached. Nothing was left to interpretation, which paid dividends all the way through to testing.

How was your overall experience with their communication and project management?

I used to chase status updates weekly on vendor engagements. This was the first time I did not have to. Updates came consistently, problems surfaced early, and the shared project board always reflected reality rather than optimism.

Did the company deliver the project on time and within your expected budget?

Yes. I had privately planned for a contingency given the integration complexity involved. None of it was needed. Final invoice came in within rounding of the approved budget and we launched on the agreed date. That outcome is less common than vendors would have you believe.

What tangible results or business impact have you seen since the project was completed?

Four months live. User adoption exceeded our first-month target by around 20%. Support volume is down. Features we had deferred for years because the old architecture made them too expensive to build are now in active development. The platform opened our roadmap.

What did you like most about working with this company?

The post-launch engagement. Some vendors treat go-live as the end of their obligation. This team treated it as a transition to a different kind of engagement. Hypercare was substantive, documentation was genuinely useful, and they checked in proactively at thirty and ninety days.

Would you recommend this company to others, and would you work with them again?

Yes, with the caveat that they are not the cheapest option and they are selective about what they take on. If price is the primary criterion there are alternatives. If you want a Industry-Specific Solutions partner in the Construction space who will actually deliver against a serious brief, this is the team.

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.

Gangnam Ventures Co Ltd is a mid-size Logistics & Supply Chain business in Seoul, South Korea. I joined as Product Manager two years ago specifically to modernise how we build and buy technology. This engagement was part of that programme.

What specific problem or business challenge led you to hire this company?

Our previous vendor had left us with three years of accumulated technical debt. Delivery velocity had dropped to maybe a third of what it should have been. We needed new engineering eyes and a structured plan to dig out.

What services did the company provide for your project?

POS System Development design and build, plus the performance testing that revealed an architecture concern we needed to address before launch. The testing investment paid for itself. They also handled the deployment pipeline and monitoring configuration, which our internal team had not budgeted time for.

Why did you choose this company over other providers you considered?

Referral from someone whose technical judgment I trust. The due diligence we ran confirmed what we had been told. The proposal stage was also notably more thorough than the alternatives — they clearly understood the POS System Development requirements better than the other vendors we evaluated.

How clearly did the company understand your requirements and business goals?

Very well. The discovery process was more thorough than anything we had experienced before. They challenged requirements that were vague, proposed better alternatives where our thinking was limiting, and produced a spec that our stakeholders agreed was the clearest articulation of the product they had ever seen written down.

How was your overall experience with their communication and project management?

The most structured project management I have experienced with an external vendor. Sprint planning was tight, acceptance criteria were specific, retrospectives were honest and acted on. The PM treated the risk register as an operational tool, not a compliance document. I never had to ask for a status update.

Did the company deliver the project on time and within your expected budget?

On time. Budget was within the approved ceiling, including one scope addition we introduced mid-project that was quoted fairly and handled in parallel without affecting the main delivery stream. No surprises at invoice stage.

What tangible results or business impact have you seen since the project was completed?

Five months post-launch: zero P1 incidents, Core Web Vitals in the green, and two enterprise clients who had been citing platform limitations in renewal conversations have since renewed without raising the issue. The system is doing what we needed it to do.

What did you like most about working with this company?

The post-launch engagement. Some vendors treat go-live as the end of their obligation. This team treated it as a transition to a different kind of engagement. Hypercare was substantive, documentation was genuinely useful, and they checked in proactively at thirty and ninety days.

Would you recommend this company to others, and would you work with them again?

Yes. The value starts in the discovery phase — clients who invest time in that process will get the most out of the engagement. We did and it is evident in what was delivered.

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.

As Senior Engineering Manager at Prairie Tech Solutions Inc, a Human Resources organisation in Calgary, Canada, I manage technology investment and delivery outcomes. We make commercial decisions about technology — every project needs a credible case before it gets approved.

What specific problem or business challenge led you to hire this company?

We had a clear product vision for our next growth phase in the Human Resources market but the Software Development expertise we needed was not something we could recruit for on our timeline. An external specialist was the pragmatic answer.

What services did the company provide for your project?

Software Development design and build, plus the performance testing that revealed an architecture concern we needed to address before launch. The testing investment paid for itself. They also handled the deployment pipeline and monitoring configuration, which our internal team had not budgeted time for.

Why did you choose this company over other providers you considered?

We had been through a failed engagement the year before and took vendor selection seriously this time. We asked specific questions about how they handle scope change, estimate work, and communicate problems. The answers were consistent across everyone we spoke to, which suggested the process was real rather than sales-trained.

How clearly did the company understand your requirements and business goals?

Thoroughly. The requirements document they produced was detailed enough that our QA team used it directly to write acceptance criteria. Every story had a defined business outcome attached. Nothing was left to interpretation, which paid dividends all the way through to testing.

How was your overall experience with their communication and project management?

Professional and efficient. The PM had a clear view of the critical path at all times and was transparent when anything threatened it. We made one significant scope change mid-project. It was handled through a proper change request, fairly priced, and absorbed without disrupting the delivery timeline.

Did the company deliver the project on time and within your expected budget?

Delivered on time. We had one week of unplanned delay due to an external API issue that neither party controlled. They communicated it early, proposed a workaround, and the launch date stayed the same. That is how delays should be managed.

What tangible results or business impact have you seen since the project was completed?

Biggest impact: our internal team is no longer spending three days a week maintaining a platform they hated working with. That productivity is now going into building. The platform change was as much about our engineering team's quality of life as it was about the end user.

What did you like most about working with this company?

The directness. When our requirements were unclear, they said so. When our priorities were contradictory, they explained why. When a technical approach we assumed was right had significant downsides, they told us before we committed. That kind of honesty is what I actually want from a technology partner.

Would you recommend this company to others, and would you work with them again?

Yes, without reservation. I have already referred two peers in the Human Resources sector who were facing similar Software Development challenges. I gave those referrals confidently because I know the experience I described was not a one-off — it reflects how they work.

Please describe your company, your role, and the industry you operate in.

Zenith FinServ Ltd operates in the Agriculture sector out of Bangalore, India. In my role as Chief Data Officer I am responsible for both the technology strategy and day-to-day delivery. We hold our vendors to the same standards our clients hold us to.

What specific problem or business challenge led you to hire this company?

Our Software Development capability had become the bottleneck for everything. Feature requests, client requirements, internal initiatives — all of them were queuing behind a platform we had patched past its design limits. We needed a proper rebuild.

What services did the company provide for your project?

The stated scope was Software Development delivery. In practice they also contributed to product strategy conversations, flagged gaps in our requirements, and produced integration documentation that our partner vendors later told us was unusually thorough.

Why did you choose this company over other providers you considered?

The questions they asked during the briefing were the first signal. Vendors who ask precise questions in the sales process tend to apply the same discipline during delivery. The technical proposal was detailed, the team was senior, and the pricing was transparent. All three were factors.

How clearly did the company understand your requirements and business goals?

Extremely well — partly because they had enough Agriculture context to ask the right questions without us having to explain the basics. The functional spec translated our business requirements into technical language with a precision that meant the development phase had almost no clarification cycles.

How was your overall experience with their communication and project management?

Good. The sprint cadence worked well for our team. Fortnightly reviews gave us the checkpoints we needed. The one friction point — time zone overlap — was resolved after the first sprint and did not reoccur.

Did the company deliver the project on time and within your expected budget?

Yes on both. There was one sprint where a third-party API dependency introduced a one-week slip. They flagged it three weeks before it became critical, presented two options, and we agreed on one that recovered the timeline within the same sprint. That kind of foresight is the difference between good and average project management.

What tangible results or business impact have you seen since the project was completed?

Four months live. User adoption exceeded our first-month target by around 20%. Support volume is down. Features we had deferred for years because the old architecture made them too expensive to build are now in active development. The platform opened our roadmap.

What did you like most about working with this company?

The directness. When our requirements were unclear, they said so. When our priorities were contradictory, they explained why. When a technical approach we assumed was right had significant downsides, they told us before we committed. That kind of honesty is what I actually want from a technology partner.

Would you recommend this company to others, and would you work with them again?

Yes. The value starts in the discovery phase — clients who invest time in that process will get the most out of the engagement. We did and it is evident in what was delivered.