What happens when a consulting project nearly doubles in scope, but nobody formally revisits the agreement, budget, or definition of success?

In this episode of Bryce and Rhonda Work the Case, Bryce Holloway and Rhonda Lea welcome guest Joe Hanson, a senior software engineer, to examine a real IT consulting engagement involving an expert report for a UK antitrust case.

The project began with an estimate of approximately 450 hours. When two legal cases were consolidated, the scope expanded, additional research was required, and the team worked harder to meet its deadlines. By the end, billable hours had nearly doubled, the client faced an unexpected bill, and the consulting firm ultimately offered a substantial discount.

Together, we examine what went wrong, including unclear expectations, the absence of a formal change-control process, fragmented communication between stakeholders, and limited visibility into project progress and spending.

We also explore an important question: Could the team have achieved the client's goals with less work if everyone had agreed on what success looked like from the beginning?

An invoice tells you what you owe. It doesn't tell you how much work remains.

Subscribe to Bryce and Rhonda Work the Case for real-world consulting case studies and practical lessons on scope management, project delivery, operational efficiency, and profitability.

Visit theCaseWork™  to learn how connected client delivery can help professional services firms manage scope, execution, time, and billing.

#ScopeCreep #ITConsulting #ProjectManagement #ProfessionalServices #ClientDelivery

Six teams reported 60 to 70% progress. A few hours mapping the work revealed most features were only about 20% complete.

In this episode of Bryce and Rhonda Work the Case, Bryce Holloway and Rhonda Lea unpack a real agile program recovery story. Six teams were busy, status meetings sounded positive, and leadership believed the work was more than halfway done.

Then the teams mapped every feature from planning and design through build, testing, integration, and delivery. The result exposed a major execution problem: work was being reported as progress before it was complete, integrated, tested, and deliverable.

Bryce and Rhonda break down the root causes behind inaccurate project status reporting, including siloed teams, weak cross-team communication, unclear milestones, incomplete definitions of done, missing dependencies, and priorities that did not support the full program.

You will learn how to:

This case became a recovery story because the teams finally had a shared view of the work, the gaps, and the path forward.

Subscribe to the Working the Case newsletter on LinkedIn for weekly breakdowns of delivery, operations, and execution problems. Follow the podcast on YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts for more real-world cases on project delivery, process improvement, and business systems.

Six months into a complex system build, no one could define what was actually done. This episode breaks down how missing milestones quietly derail execution.

In this case study, a professional services engagement to build a new CRM, client portal, and PCI-compliant billing system stalled despite constant activity. Two vendors worked in parallel, but without shared milestones, clear deliverables, or visibility into the full system, progress became impossible to measure. The result was not a productivity failure. It was a breakdown in execution structure.

We walk through how the absence of defined milestones led to:

The conversation also explores how leadership decisions and team culture compounded the issue. Information was controlled, clarity was limited, and vendors were not positioned to ask the questions needed to move the project forward. This episode highlights a key operational truth. If milestones are not clearly defined, execution cannot be controlled.

You will learn:

If you work in consulting, operations, or system implementation, this case offers a practical look at how projects fail slowly and how to prevent it.

For more case breakdowns like this, subscribe to the Working the Case Newsletter on LinkedIn where each engagement is analyzed in depth.

You can also follow the podcast on YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts to stay up to date on new episodes and execution-focused insights.

For more information on theCaseWork™, visit theCaseWork.com.

A six-month project with zero progress reveals a deeper issue: when vendors don’t know what they’re building, execution isn’t the problem.

In this episode, Bryce and Rhonda break down a failed CRM migration inside a healthcare organization that was trying to scale under pressure. The goal was clear at a high level: move from Salesforce to Zoho, build client portals, and integrate multiple systems. But the execution never had a chance.

For six months, three separate vendors worked in isolation with almost no direction. There was no clear statement of work, no defined deliverables, and no coordination between teams. The only feedback loop was reactive: build something, present it, and be told to redo it.

When Rhonda stepped in with a three-month deadline and no access to the original agreements, the real problem became obvious. The vendors had no clarity on what they were supposed to deliver. Work had been happening, but progress had not.

This episode walks through how lack of clarity at the agreement level cascaded into stalled execution, rework, and operational failure. It also highlights the hidden risks of vague requirements, disconnected vendors, and poor data practices during system migrations.

Key problems discussed:

What you’ll learn:

This case matters because it shows how failure rarely starts in execution. It starts at the beginning, with unclear expectations and missing structure. By the time problems show up in delivery, the damage has already been done.

If you work in consulting, operations, or system implementation, this episode will help you spot early warning signs before projects stall or fail.

For a deeper look at how to structure engagements and avoid these breakdowns, explore theCaseWork™ platform and see how it supports clarity across the entire execution chain.

For deeper written breakdowns of this case and others, subscribe to the Working the Case newsletter on LinkedIn.

Why do profitable projects quietly turn into zero-margin work? This episode breaks down how scope creep, weak estimation, and unclear agreements derail client engagements.

In this first case, Bryce and Rhonda analyze a $180,000 fixed-fee consulting project that was expected to deliver a 40% margin but ended with none. The breakdown reveals a pattern seen across professional services: unclear scope, disconnected teams, and no system to manage change.

They walk through what actually happened inside the engagement, including how small “can you take a look at this” requests compounded into months of extra work, how teams operated without visibility into the original statement of work, and why estimating based on assumptions instead of data leads to predictable failure.

The conversation introduces the concept of the execution chain, a structured way to connect agreements, deliverables, milestones, tasks, time tracking, invoicing, and insights. When any part of this chain is weak or disconnected, projects drift, margins disappear, and client relationships become strained.

Key problems discussed:

What you’ll learn:

This episode matters because these issues are not edge cases. They are common patterns across consulting firms, agencies, and professional service organizations. Understanding where execution breaks down is the first step to fixing it.

If you’re seeing similar patterns in your own projects, follow along as future episodes break down more real-world cases and show what should have been done differently.

If you want a deeper look at how to structure engagements and avoid these breakdowns, explore theCaseWork™ platform and see how it supports clarity across the entire execution chain.

For deeper written breakdowns of each case, subscribe to the Working the Case newsletter on LinkedIn.