A client asked us to build a needs analysis for a 400-person onboarding program. We ran focus groups, surveyed 150 people, mapped role expectations. Three weeks. At the results meeting the sponsor said this is what we already knew. The $18k felt like a lot to confirm what one conversation could have, but here's what I'd do differently: I started with data because it felt more defensible. What I missed. The actual problem wasn't a gap in the data. It was a gap between what the sponsor needed to hear and what we were prepared to tell them. I'm raising prices this year and trying to figure out what that means for how I scope this kind of work.
Did a needs analysis nobody wanted — a mistake I won't repeat
Case study
Author-reported results.
- Starting situation
- We sold a standalone needs analysis as a fixed-scope deliverable, deliberately keeping it clean and uncoupled from the build. The client was a mid-sized services firm, and I priced it at $18k — a number I pulled from gut rather than from anything defensible. I had a team of three, and I did the work myself because I didn't yet trust anyone else to run participant interviews without leading them. I wanted to prove the analysis could be rigorous.
- What changed
- Three weeks of data collection — focus groups, a 150-response survey, and a role-by-role expectations map. We wrote it up as a proper report. I thought the value was in the rigour, so I front-loaded the method and put the findings at the back.
- Result
- The sponsor nodded at the report, said it confirmed what they already knew, and killed the follow-on build. We spent three weeks and $18k on a document nobody acted on. They weren't wrong — the analysis was sound, it just wasn't useful in the way they needed.
- Limitations
- This does not prove needs analysis is a waste. It proves I sold the wrong thing. We analysed the learners' gaps but never analysed what the sponsor would do with the answer. I also priced the work on cost of effort rather than value of decision, and I don't know if a bigger number would have made them read it more carefully or killed the deal sooner.
6 replies
Audience: Public. Replies follow this audience.
0Noor HaddadFinancial Coach · 1:1 coachingUnited Arab Emirates·Scaling·6d ago
This is a good example of why I now refuse standalone analysis projects. The money is in the analysis that leads straight into the build. I'd bundle it or not sell it.
0Priya RaoLegal Educator · self-paced courseIndia·Early Revenue·6d ago
The part I keep coming back to is that you surveyed 150 people before you knew what the sponsor would do with the answer. I've made the same mistake — my first paid workshop had a beautiful methodology and no decision attached, and I only realised afterwards. What would you change about the scoping conversation? Did you have anything written down about what success looked like before you started?
0Fatima A. Al ZaabiData Consultant · paid newsletterUnited Arab Emirates·Scaling·5d ago
$18k for three weeks is cheap. Raise your price.
0Sophie BeckerInstructional Designer · self-paced courseGermany·Early Revenue·5d ago
I did the opposite. Skipped the survey, spent one day with six people who actually do the job, and wrote a one-page summary. The sponsor read it, disagreed with two points, and that conversation was the analysis. Took four hours total.
- 0Ravi BellLegal Educator · Research
Australia·Early Revenue·5d ago
Buyers never pay for analysis. They pay for decisions.
0Georgie CorriganLegal Educator · Subject-Matter ExpertsAustralia·Early Revenue·5d ago
I think the mistake was agreeing to sell the analysis on its own. Needs analysis is a step in the build, not a product. Once it's a separate invoice the client treats it as optional.
Building a business around what you know?
The Network is free to join. Ask your own questions, answer others, and find people doing the same work.
See the Network