SaaS case study interview and evidence kit

Prepare a real customer story using this kit. Blank fields and the fictional arithmetic example do not establish a result or authorize publication. Keep underlying customer records appropriately restricted.

Story brief

• Owner:
• Buyer question the story should answer:
• Relevant audience and workflow:
• Customer contact and approval contact:
• Starting situation:
• Implementation or evaluation completed:
• Result evidence available:
• Unresolved concerns:
• Intended publication channels and reuse:
• Name, logo, quote, metric, and detail restrictions:
• Recording agreement, if applicable:
• Review process and timing:

Interview prompts

1. What was happening before you tried the product?
2. What made this worth addressing then?
3. How did you handle the work before, and what was difficult?
4. Which alternatives did you consider?
5. What did implementation require from each team?
6. What changed in the workflow?
7. How do you know the result improved?
8. What remains difficult or unchanged?

Keep exact quotes distinct from paraphrases. Do not request endorsement of a figure that has not been established.

Result evidence ledger

Fictional arithmetic example: 10 manual checks per review before, six afterward. Reduction = (10 - 6) / 10 = 40%. The invented counts illustrate arithmetic only. A real claim needs comparable records, defined periods, material process changes, and approved wording. No baseline means no defensible before-and-after percentage.

Contribution record

• Product capability used:
• Customer work and process changes:
• Hands-on assistance from our team:
• Environment and compatibility conditions:
• Other changes that may affect the result:
• What the evidence supports:
• What it does not establish:

Story outline

1. Title grounded in an evidenced result.
2. Short summary with necessary qualifiers.
3. Customer context and starting problem.
4. Alternatives and decision.
5. Implementation and contributions from each team.
6. Changed workflow.
7. Results, evidence, and limits.
8. Relevant next action.

Accuracy and publication record

• Final version identifier:
• Approver and approval date:
• Approved scope:
• Evidence record location:
• Review condition for material changes:

When a figure is removed or qualified, update the title, summary, and excerpts too. Check approved scope before turning a case-study quote into advertising or another use.

Headline evidence check

• Outcome named by the headline:
• Exact unit and population:
• Measured, estimated, or current-workflow evidence:
• Qualifier needed in headline or adjacent summary:
• Does the headline imply a different result from the evidence?
• Summary and excerpts updated after review:

Fictional example: ten manual checks reduced to six supports a claim about check count, if verified. It does not establish a 40% reduction in time or cost. Without comparable before/after records, use a workflow headline rather than manufacturing an improvement figure.