The following case studies are representative of ArcView Partners' work. Details have been modified to protect client confidentiality, but the situations, findings, and outcomes are drawn from actual engagements.
A newly appointed department head needed to know whether the existing IT team and technical architecture could support the department's objectives, or whether a different direction was required. Internal assessments had produced unclear answers.
Executive leadership needed an independent answer to a straightforward question: could they trust the information they were receiving about IT delivery and risk exposure?
A healthcare technology startup had been unable to deliver new product features for several months. The technical team reported they were fully occupied with production incidents and system stability issues. Board members and investors were pressuring the CTO to keep delivering promised features.
A client needed to know whether persistent delivery issues with a technology vendor reflected genuine technical challenges, unrealistic expectations, or something else. Internal opinions varied, and the vendor's explanations were difficult to verify without independent technical review.
After a year of development across multiple technology partners, a critical project had not produced the expected results. The client needed to understand why, and whether the current approach could succeed or required fundamental change.
A public administration had invested several years and significant budget into a large-scale technology modernization project with a major consulting firm. Despite multiple remediation efforts, including an independent audit by another large consultancy, the project continued to deliver poor quality outcomes. Leadership faced a decision: continue investing in remediation or terminate the contract and restart. Given the amounts already committed, no one was willing to make the call without certainty about the technical situation.
We do not seek beyond completing the engagement as agreed. We don't implement solutions, manage projects, or take ongoing advisory roles. This eliminates the structural conflicts that compromise most technology advice.
Investigations often involve sensitive internal dynamics, competitive concerns, or confidential transaction details. We operate with utmost discretion and never disclose current or past client engagements details or findings without explicit permission.
Our conclusions are based on evidence: documentation, system reviews, interviews, and technical analysis. We distinguish between what we know, what we believe is likely, and what remains uncertain. We don't speculate or rely on assumptions when facts are obtainable.
Every report includes a set of recommendation on how to proceed further. We do not deliver ambiguous findings or hedge our conclusions. You will know what we found and what we think you should do about it.
Need an independent IT assessment?