You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Copy file name to clipboardExpand all lines: src/pages/index.js
+5-5Lines changed: 5 additions & 5 deletions
Original file line number
Diff line number
Diff line change
@@ -73,8 +73,8 @@ const IndexPage = () => {
73
73
id: "02",
74
74
label: "STRATEGIC VENDOR SELECTION",
75
75
client: "Multi-Office Law Firm (DC · NY · SF)",
76
-
title: "Cutting Through Six MSP Proposals to Find the Right Partner for a 40-Person Firm",
77
-
challenge: "A 50-person litigation firm operating across three major markets had outgrown its incumbent IT provider, a vendor with deep political ties to firm leadership but a documented security failure and premium pricing that couldn't be justified. The firm needed to evaluate six competing managed service providers, but each proposal used different pricing structures, different SLA definitions, and different assumptions about scope. Comparing them directly was like comparing six different languages.",
76
+
title: "Cutting Through MSP Proposals to Find the Right Technology Partner for a Law Firm",
77
+
challenge: "A small litigation firm operating across three major markets had outgrown its incumbent IT provider, a vendor with deep political ties to firm leadership but a documented security failure and premium pricing that couldn't be justified. The firm needed to evaluate six competing managed service providers, but each proposal used different pricing structures, different SLA definitions, and different assumptions about scope. Comparing them directly was like comparing six different languages.",
78
78
approach: "Built a structured evaluation framework from the ground up: a weighted scoring matrix spanning security posture, unified communications, compliance readiness, service desk coverage, and total cost of ownership. Each vendor's proposal was normalized against the same criteria regardless of how they chose to present it. SOC 2 certifications were independently verified. Risk and cost tradeoffs were modeled visually so firm leadership could see where the gaps were, not just who scored highest, but why. Vendor write-ups were produced for each of the six finalists, and a full transition roadmap with IT recruitment advisory was delivered alongside.",
79
79
outcome: "Two vendors emerged as clear finalists, differentiated not just on price but on security maturity and cultural fit for a firm operating in sensitive litigation environments. Leadership had a defensible, documented rationale for their selection, independent of the incumbent relationship. The engagement also surfaced an IT staffing gap the firm hadn't previously scoped, expanding the advisory into recruitment strategy.",
80
80
metrics: [
@@ -153,9 +153,9 @@ const IndexPage = () => {
153
153
<divclassName="hero-content">
154
154
<divclassName="hero-badge">FROM DATA TO DECISIONS</div>
0 commit comments