Operational storytelling for consultants & agency founders
Most case studies read like reports because they are written like reports. This course works through four modules to help you turn finished project work into narratives you can actually use, on stage, on a website, and in the middle of a sales call, without sounding like you are selling.
A lot of consulting and agency case studies follow the same shape: background, approach, results. It is complete. It is also forgettable. The reader can see what happened, but not why it was hard, what almost went wrong, or what the numbers actually meant once you sat with them.
This course does not teach you to exaggerate outcomes or manufacture drama that was not there. It teaches you to notice the tension that was already present in the project, the moment where the approach was in doubt, and to build the telling of the story around that moment instead of around a bullet list of deliverables.
"A finished project has a shape. Most people describe it. Very few tell it."
Each module builds on the one before it. You will not skip ahead to "adapting the story for a sales call" before you have decided what the story actually is. The sequence is deliberate, and each module closes with a peer review round before the next one opens.
Before structure, there is selection. This module works through a method for scanning a finished engagement (or an ongoing one) for the moments worth keeping: the wrong turn, the argument in the room, the assumption that had to be abandoned. Most of what happened on a project is not story material. This module is about telling the difference.
A structure for the project story that mirrors how people actually process cause and effect: what was true before you arrived, what made the situation harder than it looked, and how the resolution addressed the tension rather than just the surface problem. You will draft one full case using this structure and defend the choices you made in it.
Charts and percentages get added to case studies because they look credible, not because they add meaning. This module covers how to choose which numbers belong in a story at all, how to frame a metric so it answers a question the reader already has, and when a number is better left out entirely.
The same project narrative needs a different shape on a stage, on a web page, and in a live sales conversation where you cannot control the pacing. This module works through adapting one story across all three, then turns to building a personal library of story fragments organized by the situation they solve, not the client they came from.
"Reduced onboarding time by a wide margin" tells the reader nothing until they know what onboarding time was costing, and for whom. The module works through a simple habit: before a metric goes into a story, write down the question it answers. If you cannot name the question, the number is probably there to look impressive rather than to inform.
This is not a design exercise. It changes how you talk about outcomes in a sales call too, where a client will ask "so what does that mean for me" the moment you mention a figure. Practicing the answer in writing first tends to make the live version steadier.
Read more about how data framing is taughtThe format is intentionally linear. There is no self-paced binge option, mostly because peer review only works if a cohort moves through the material together.
A short conversation to understand what kind of storytelling work you already do, and whether the course's pace and peer-review model will suit your schedule.
You are placed into a small cohort. Cohorts are kept small enough that peer review feedback stays specific rather than generic.
Each module runs across roughly one to two weeks, combining written material, a working session, and an individual drafting assignment.
After every module, you exchange drafts with two peers using a fixed review format, so feedback stays focused on structure and clarity rather than taste.
By the end, you leave with a working library of story fragments tagged by situation, ready to be pulled into a proposal, a talk, or a call with almost no rewriting.
A small team, kept small on purpose. Peer review facilitation needs continuity, and continuity is hard to maintain across a large rotating staff.
Lead Instructor, Narrative Structure
Spent over a decade inside consulting engagements before shifting toward teaching the structuring work directly.
Peer Review Facilitator
Designs and runs the review format used across all four modules, keeping feedback specific and structural.
Advisor, Data & Evidence
Focuses module three, working with participants on when a number belongs in a story and when it should stay out.
Program Coordinator
Handles cohort scheduling, review pairing, and the practical questions that come up along the way.
The course assumes you already have project work worth telling. If you are unsure whether your case studies have enough material, that is a reasonable first question to ask us directly.
Get in touch