What Operations Teams Say After Working With Us
The accounts here come from in-house operations leaders who have worked through one or more of our engagements. They describe what their situations were, what we worked on together, and what changed as a result.
Back to HomePerspectives From the Engagements
Each account below reflects an actual engagement type. Names and identifying details have been generalised in line with our confidentiality commitments.
We came in asking for the Repository Audit thinking it would be a tidy exercise. What came back was a detailed catalogue of three separate storage systems we were running in parallel, with specific duplicates identified and a prioritised list of what to consolidate first. The walkthrough session was the part I found most useful — we could ask questions in real time and clarify the reasoning behind each recommendation.
The Workflow Redesign took eight weeks as described. The discovery phase was thorough — they interviewed people from procurement, finance and the legal function, which we had not done internally. The current-state diagram they produced was the first time we had a written description of our contracting process, which was useful on its own. The runbook took two drafts before it matched how our team actually works, but the follow-up review helped address the remaining questions.
Twelve months into the Retainer and I still find the monthly sessions genuinely useful. We use the time to work through specific process questions, tool configuration decisions and the occasional template review. The quarterly peer calls with other retainer clients were something I was sceptical about initially — in practice, hearing how other operations teams have handled similar issues has been the most practically useful part of the arrangement.
We started with the Audit — mostly to understand what we were dealing with before a board-requested compliance review. The report was clean and well-structured, and the recommended roadmap made sense to us. That led directly into the Workflow Redesign, which we ran in the subsequent quarter. The two engagements felt like a natural sequence rather than two separate projects.
The scope of the Retainer is clearly defined — it covers process and tooling, not the agreements themselves. That boundary is stated upfront and is consistently maintained. For our needs, the operational advice is what we were looking for. The knowledge base is well organised and the response time on ad-hoc questions has been reliable.
We had selected a CLM platform before engaging Statutum, which meant we needed process design before we could configure it sensibly. The engagement focused on the workflow structure and intake form design, then the configuration support aligned that directly to our chosen tool. The training session covered not just the platform but the reasoning behind the process choices — which made adoption noticeably easier.
Detailed Engagement Accounts
Three accounts describing the situation before the engagement, what was worked on, and the state of things after. Identifying details have been generalised.
Regional professional services firm preparing for a CLM evaluation
The operations team had agreements spread across three shared drives, an email archive folder maintained by the legal EA, and a SharePoint site set up during a previous project that was never decommissioned. No single person had a clear view of what existed. Before evaluating CLM software, management wanted a structured account of the current state.
The Repository Audit mapped all five storage locations, identified 340 agreement files across them, flagged 61 probable duplicates and found three naming conventions in concurrent use. The written report categorised gaps by severity and sequenced the recommended remediation steps. The walkthrough session focused on the highest-priority items and how to handle the duplicate resolution.
The team consolidated to a single primary repository within six weeks of the report delivery, used the roadmap to scope their CLM software requirements, and entered the evaluation process with a clear sense of what they needed the platform to handle. The audit report was also shared with the external evaluator to provide context.
"We spent two hours in the walkthrough and came out with a clear action list. That was exactly what we needed before the software conversation."
Mid-size distributor moving from email-based contracting to a structured workflow
Agreements were requested by email to the legal EA, reviewed and circulated manually, signed using a free e-signature tool, then filed in shared drives by whoever happened to close the email thread. The process varied by business unit. Finance could not reliably identify which agreements were in their renewal window without manually searching email.
The Workflow Redesign documented the current state across four business units, ran structured interviews with ten stakeholders, and produced a target-state process diagram with defined intake fields. A shortlist of five CLM tools was evaluated against requirements; one was selected and initial configuration was supported in weeks seven and eight. The runbook described the new workflow step-by-step for the operations team.
The team moved fully to the new platform within ten weeks of the engagement close. The thirty-day follow-up identified two configuration adjustments needed for the procurement team's intake form. Finance reported being able to run a renewal report for the first time without manual searching. The client later added the Operations Retainer to support ongoing process refinements.
"The current-state diagram was confronting. We had no idea the process varied so much across teams. Seeing it written down was the starting point for the conversation we needed."
Technology company sustaining a CLM practice through a period of growth
Following a Workflow Redesign engagement with a previous provider, the operations team had a functioning CLM process. However, the company doubled in headcount over eighteen months and the original process design was no longer matching the volume or variety of agreement types being requested. The operations lead needed structured support to evolve the process without re-commissioning a full redesign project.
The Retainer began with a diagnostic session reviewing the existing process against current volume and agreement types. Monthly working sessions then addressed specific items: a new intake category for partnership agreements, a revised approval routing for agreements above a threshold value, and template governance questions as the template library grew. Quarterly reviews tracked the state of the practice across the year.
The year-end review showed the team had added three new agreement categories, revised the approval routing twice, and reduced average contract turnaround time by adjusting the intake form to capture approval-relevant information earlier. The client renewed for a second year and extended the scope to include template review guidance, referred to a qualified external provider for substantive content questions.
"The peer calls are the part I did not expect to value as much as I do. Hearing how other ops teams handle template governance or approval routing gives me reference points I would not otherwise have."
Reach the Team
#22-04, Singapore 068898
9:00 am – 6:00 pm SGT
Interested in Working Together?
Send us a brief description of your current situation and what you are hoping to address. We will respond within one business day with an honest view of which engagement format, if any, suits your needs.
Send an Enquiry