Case study
- Client
- A UK financial-advice firm (placeholder)
- Sector
- Financial advice
- Capability
- Automation
- Date
- June 2026
Automating Wealth
Placeholder — illustrative sample, not a real engagement
TL;DR
This is placeholder content — a stand-in until a real anonymised write-up exists. In the sample scenario, a UK financial-advice firm ran every client review through a sprawl of shared spreadsheets: the same figures rekeyed three times, formulas that had drifted, a two-day compliance sign-off.
We're imagining a single source of truth for client data, a projection service that drafts the report, and a review queue where an adviser approves it. Every figure here is invented; replace this file before launch.
The work
The constraint
This section is placeholder text. Imagine a fictional advice firm whose planning process lived in a sprawling set of shared spreadsheets. Every client review meant rekeying the same figures three times and hoping the formulas had not drifted.
For the purposes of this sample, the invented hurdles were:
- Made-up integration pain: four systems, none of which could talk to the others.
- Made-up compliance load: every report needed a manual sign-off that took two days.
- Made-up scaling limit: the firm could not take on new advisers without adding back-office staff one-for-one.
What we built
Placeholder narrative. The fictional team is said to have mapped the existing process, agreed a single source of truth for client data, and built an invented calculation service that produced draft reports automatically.
Picture a small set of services: a data-import step, a projection engine, and a report generator, wired together with a review queue so a human still checked the result. Advisers in this imaginary story reviewed and approved the output rather than assembling it by hand.
Who runs it now
More placeholder prose. In the sample, the firm’s own operations lead owns the review queue and the rules behind it; the engineering handover took a pretend fortnight.
None of this reflects real work. Delete this file and write the genuine case study when it is ready.
The impact
Placeholder framing line. In this fictional scenario the manual chore became a reviewed, automated workflow.
- 60% less admin time (fictional). Made-up figure. Advisers stopped copying data between systems and spent the time with clients instead.
- Three weeks to onboard, not three months (fictional). Invented outcome. New advice teams were live on the platform in a pretend three weeks.
- Sign-off in an afternoon (fictional). Entirely fabricated. The two-day compliance check became a same-day review because the draft arrived with its sources attached.
Closing placeholder line. Swap this entire section for real impact data once a project is documented.
Got a problem that looks like this one?
Tell us where the work piles up. We'll tell you honestly whether we can move the number.