Case Studies | NEURAL EDGE AI
Case Studies

What the work looks like
in practice.

Every engagement is different. These examples show the kind of operational friction we surface and the clarity firms walk away with after a structured assessment.

ℹ️
Client details are anonymized and composite examples are used where needed to protect confidentiality. Results reflect real outcomes from real operational reviews.
73%
of GCs say knowledge loss is their top operational risk
40%
of project time lost to rework and coordination failures
$2T
wasted annually in global construction inefficiency
90%
of AI tools purchased without an operational assessment
Client Work

Real friction.
Real findings.

Estimating Mid-size GC · Commercial Construction
Estimating process dependent on one person. No documented workflow. Bids varied by estimator.
A 35-person commercial GC was losing bids at a higher rate than their team understood. The root cause was not pricing, it was an estimating process that lived entirely in one person's head with no documented structure, no handoff process, and no way to maintain consistency when that person was unavailable.
3 weeks
to complete assessment and deliver findings
4 gaps
identified in estimating workflow with clear fix priority
Discuss a similar situation →
RFI Management Subcontractor · MEP
RFI backlog causing field delays. No tracking system. Answers were verbal and undocumented.
An MEP subcontractor with 22 people was routinely stopping field work to wait on answers that should have been resolved during pre-construction. The RFI process was informal, untracked, and entirely dependent on the PM remembering what was outstanding at any given time.
68%
of their RFIs were being resolved after the delay had already occurred
2 systems
recommended to close the tracking gap without adding complexity
Discuss a similar situation →
Change Orders General Contractor · Tenant Improvement
Change order recovery below 60%. Work was being completed before documentation was submitted.
A tenant improvement GC was consistently underrecovering on change orders, not because of bad pricing, but because the work was completed before the paperwork was submitted. By the time the change order hit the owner, the leverage was gone.
<60%
change order recovery rate before the assessment
3 steps
added to the pre-work authorization process to close the gap
Discuss a similar situation →
Owner Dependency Specialty Contractor · 18 employees
Owner bottleneck on daily decisions. Growth ceiling set by one person's available hours.
An 18-person specialty contractor had been at the same revenue level for three years. Not because of market conditions, because every meaningful decision routed through the owner. The team was capable. The structure did not allow them to act without approval on things that did not need it.
14
decision types identified that did not require owner involvement
1 framework
built to document approval thresholds and delegate authority
Discuss a similar situation →
Recognize your situation?

Most friction patterns
repeat across firms.

  • Estimating that depends on one person is the most common starting point
  • RFI and change order problems almost always have a process root cause
  • An assessment names the specific gaps in your operation, not a generic one
  • We scope the engagement around what you actually need to see
If a case study resonated, a fit call will show you what that looks like for your business.
Start here
See what this looks like for your firm.
Bring your situation to the call. We will look at where your operation breaks down and whether the pattern matches what we fix.
→ Assessment before tools. Every time.
→ Every engagement is scoped to your specific operation.
→ Written findings you can act on, not a slide deck.
Book a Fit Call →
Free. 30 minutes. Opens in a new tab.