What clients have said about working with this practice
The accounts below were provided by clients at the conclusion of their engagements. They are reproduced with permission and without amendment to the substance.
← Return to Home40+
ENGAGEMENTS
4.7
AVG. RATING
4+
YEARS PRACTICE
85%
RETURN CLIENTS
Client accounts
Ahmad Hisham Zulkifli
Chief Operating Officer, Petaling Jaya
We had spent several months looking at conversational AI vendors before engaging Havenmark. The consultation gave us a clear framework for thinking about what we actually needed — which turned out to be somewhat different from what the vendors had been proposing. The written paper was used directly in our board briefing. I found it more useful than anything the vendors had produced.
March 2025 — Conversational Interface Consultation
Lim Mei Ling
Head of Finance, Kuala Lumpur
The forecasting advisory was thorough and, at times, uncomfortable — in a productive way. The advisor was honest about the limitations of the approach we had been using, which was not what we wanted to hear but was exactly what we needed to know. The paper has since been used as the basis for a review of our planning methodology. Worth the time investment.
February 2025 — Forecasting Model Advisory
Siti Rahimah Kamaruddin
Group Strategy Director, Shah Alam
We ran the AI Literacy Programme for a group of fourteen senior leaders. The sessions were well-paced and the materials were prepared specifically for our context — which made a significant difference. Several team members have commented that they now feel equipped to ask better questions when vendors approach us. That was precisely the outcome we had hoped for.
April 2025 — AI Literacy Programme
Tan Kok Wai
IT Director, Subang Jaya
I appreciated the directness of the engagement. There is a tendency in advisory work for consultants to avoid committing to a clear position. That was not the case here. The advisor gave us a clear view, acknowledged the uncertainties, and explained the reasoning. The process ran slightly longer than anticipated, but the output was worth it.
January 2025 — Conversational Interface Consultation
Nur Zulaikha Ibrahim
Chief Risk Officer, Kuala Lumpur
The forecasting advisory gave our risk team a rigorous basis for a conversation we had been deferring for over a year. The written paper was balanced and, importantly, it acknowledged what was genuinely uncertain rather than projecting confidence where none was warranted. I would recommend this practice to colleagues in similar roles at other institutions.
March 2025 — Forecasting Model Advisory
Rajesh Subramaniam
Managing Director, Damansara
We ran the literacy programme for our executive committee. The advisor handled a room of twelve opinionated senior leaders with composure. The exercises were challenging enough to hold attention and the plain-language framing was well-judged. One of our board members asked for a copy of the materials afterwards, which I took as a good sign.
February 2025 — AI Literacy Programme
Three engagements in brief
Evaluating a customer service chatbot proposal
CHALLENGE
A mid-sized logistics firm had received a proposal from a vendor to deploy a conversational AI system for customer query handling. The leadership team was uncertain whether the scope of queries proposed was realistic, and whether the hand-off design was appropriate for their operational context.
APPROACH
The consultation reviewed a sample of actual customer queries over a six-month period, mapped the operational context in which the system would function, and assessed the vendor's proposed scope against this evidence. The hand-off design was examined in detail.
OUTCOME
The written paper recommended a narrower initial scope than the vendor had proposed, with a specific pilot design. The firm used the paper to negotiate revised terms with the vendor. The pilot proceeded on the modified basis four months later.
"The paper gave us something concrete to take back to the vendor. They were initially surprised by the narrower scope, but the reasoning was clear enough that the conversation moved quickly." — Operations Director
Assessing a demand forecasting model in active use
CHALLENGE
A financial services firm had been using a forecasting model for three years to support capital allocation decisions. Confidence in the model had begun to erode among senior users, but no structured review had been conducted. Leadership wanted an external assessment before deciding whether to replace or retain the model.
APPROACH
The advisory examined how the model had been built, the assumptions embedded in it, and — critically — how the model's outputs had been used in actual decisions over the preceding two years. Discrepancies between the model's intended use and its actual use were documented.
OUTCOME
The paper recommended retaining the model with modifications to its update cadence and the introduction of a formal monitoring process. A replacement was not recommended. The paper also identified three decision contexts in which the model's output was being given more weight than the evidence warranted.
"Knowing that the model itself was not the problem — but how we were using it — saved us from an expensive replacement we did not need." — Head of Finance
AI literacy for a twelve-person executive committee
CHALLENGE
A GLC's executive committee was receiving an increasing number of AI-related proposals from internal teams and external vendors. Members felt that their ability to evaluate these proposals was inconsistent across the committee. The CEO wanted to address this before the next budget cycle.
APPROACH
The AI Literacy Programme was customised using two actual proposals the company had received that year as case material. Sessions addressed how AI systems function, how to evaluate vendor claims, what governance structures were appropriate, and what questions a board-level leader should ask.
OUTCOME
The committee developed a shared evaluation framework, which was subsequently formalised as company policy. One of the two proposals used as case material was deprioritised following the programme; the other proceeded with modified terms. The company has since engaged Havenmark for a second programme with a different group.
"The programme moved at the right pace for a senior group. Nobody felt talked down to, and the case material meant that the discussions were immediately relevant to decisions we were actually facing." — Chief Strategy Officer
Speak with the practice
TELEPHONE
+60 3-2184 7639ADDRESS
Level 24, Naza Tower
Platinum Park, KLCC
50088 Kuala Lumpur
WORKING HOURS
Mon–Fri: 9:00 am – 6:00 pm
Sat: 10:00 am – 1:00 pm
Sun: Closed
If what you have read here is relevant to your organisation, we would be glad to hear from you
An initial conversation is the straightforward way to begin. It takes about thirty minutes and carries no obligation.