PP&A kept the survey design constant so the two waves would compare cleanly: the core NPS question, an open question on the reason for the rating, an overall satisfaction rating, five zero-to-ten satisfaction areas (value for price, client partner and account management, service delivery and implementation team, quality of outcomes, and escalation management), a twelve-month trajectory question and a final comments field. The client assembled the target list of strategic, executive and operational leaders and sent the invitation under senior leadership's name, with account managers following up. Fieldwork ran from December 2 to 22, 2024, and PP&A alerted the client within 24 hours whenever a respondent rated six or below.

Participation grew to 48 respondents from 35 accounts, 71 percent of them in North America and a fifth in Australia. PP&A made one methodology change and documented it: partial responses that contained an NPS rating but stopped before the satisfaction questions were now included, and the 2023 results were restated on the same basis so the comparison held. The team scored NPS at the account level, mapped each account's satisfaction ratings against the survey average, coded the comments by responder type, and delivered the report with a methodology bridge and per-account profiles showing both years side by side.

The account-level NPS rose from 50 to 54, firmly in the "great" band and well above the industry range. Of the 48 respondents, 28 were promoters, 18 passives and only two detractors, the first recorded in either wave. Proportionally more respondents were promoters than in 2023. Satisfaction was rising or stable for nearly everyone, with only two respondents reporting a decline, and four of the five satisfaction areas improved on the prior year while account management held steady. Service delivery and escalation management were the strongest areas. Value for price remained the biggest opportunity.

The comments gave the refresh its practical value. Promoters praised skilled, professional consultants who embed themselves in client teams and long-standing trusted relationships. Passives and lower scorers pointed to variability in the quality of individual consultants, staffing consistency, slow realization of value, transparency on milestones and, less often, billing accuracy. Quality of outcomes and account management were the most common soft spots even among high-scoring clients, while quality of outcomes and value for price recurred among lower scorers. The client left with confirmation that its momentum was real, a broader and more international evidence base, and a short list of execution and account-management fixes to work on before the next wave.

• --