In my prior post about case studies, I observed:
Case studies are effective because they speak to the needs of the readers. The reader has a problem, and the case study tells how a similar entity solved that same problem.
After I wrote that, I happened to read this case study from Honeywell.
I’ve worked with Honeywell’s customer, Harris County, Texas, but not on its security systems per se.
The case study follows a standard problem-solution format. After explaining the size and complexity of Harris County (the county where Houston is located), the problem is presented:
The problem? A lack of consistency in security products and transparency in systems used throughout the various buildings, which resulted in decreased operating efficiencies and more work for employees.
You’ll also note the use of “detriment statements,” or the reverse of benefit statements. Lack of consistency itself is NOT a detriment. More work for employees IS a detriment.
So the county called in a Texas-based integrator, ESI Fire & Security Protection, to help it solve the problem.
I don’t want to give away the ending, but if you want to find out what ESI recommended, read the rest of this case study on the Honeywell website.
And here is more information on case studies.