On its Web site, Nordic Technologies AB describes itself as a “deeply integrated technology consulting firm that enables innovation-driven organizations with solutions to help enhance business performance.” On the outside, it appears to be an idea-driven firm with an emphasis on technology and innovation.

According to the case study, it was Nordic Technologies AB that helped HBR in developing a Case Study Analysis Service for corporate clients. The example cited was of a client that was “diligently and intentionally making available to the business community a widely accepted methodology and a set of acceptable technology choices,” a long-term advantage to the business. Nordics is also well known for its corporate business consulting services.

The Case Study in question was supposed to be one of a series developed by HBR to assist clients in selecting a specific technology platform and accompanying management practices. In the case of that project, it appears that the Consulting firm worked closely with the technology vendor.

However, as HBR explained it, the company that hired them created a Case Study Solution that was completely different from what the company expected or even wanted. Instead of presenting a comprehensive case study analysis of all the pros and cons associated with the vendor’s platform, the solution presented only an overview. Nor did it give a detailed explanation of the core business benefits that should be derived from the selected technology.

There are no references in the case study to the pricing or even the technology platforms, but HBR asked for another case study. When Nordics submitted a new one, this time using the same model elements as the first one, the case was approved without any revisions. With Nordics putting forth a new case study, the consulting firm concluded that they could not be helpful at all.

According to HBR, Nordics took more than two years to respond to each of the eight requests. The firm sent an e-mail to Nordics requesting more information and a second e-mail asking for more clarifications. Nordics responded that they needed to get back to them to clarify some of the issues that were raised and that it would take longer than expected.

In the end, Nordics claimed that their case study solution was not required and had nothing to do with the business. They also claimed that their response was requested prior to Nordics sending a detailed case study. It is also worth noting that Nordics was unable to provide the metrics that they suggested.

According to HBR, Nordic Technologies AB did not provide any reports that would have assisted the company in identifying whether the case study solution offered was in keeping with the business’ needs. According to HBR, the client was also not provided with a sample of the case study solutions.

HBR believes that Nordics could have handled the case differently if they had wanted to. It is difficult to imagine how Nordics could have created a completely different Case Study Solution from the first one without Nordics providing more information and a description of the technical solutions.

In fact, Nordics has told several other companies that they can provide such a report, but it was only the HBR case study that needed to be modified. Nordics claims that they are proud of the way they represent their solutions.

In other words, if the case was not a case study, then Nordics simply never contacted the client to ask questions about it and did not provide the client with a copy of the case study analysis. However, this does not account for why Nordics never contacted the client after the report was accepted or the reasons for the revisions.

There is no question that Nordics is a well-known consulting firm that understands the importance of the Case Study Solution. However, this case illustrates the importance of verifying that the consultant providing the solution is actually providing the type of results that will allow you to reach your own objectives.

[related_post themes="flat"]