Project Context
Client: Federal Credit Union, Bethpage, NY ($14B in assets)
Role: Certified Qualtrics Consultant / Strategic Advisor
Engagement: Implementation feasibility assessment, risk identification, staffing and governance advisory

Key Challenge

A $14 billion federal credit union had operated on the same legacy survey platform for 20 years. When leadership recognized the tool was no longer meeting their needs — reaching only a narrow demographic of members over 60, with long tenure, in one geographic area — they committed to replacing it with Qualtrics.

The original plan allowed 18 months: one year to research and evaluate, and a second year to implement. A board-level directive compressed that timeline to six months, with a target launch date of January.

Key challenges included:

• Compressed Timeline: An 18-month implementation plan was cut to six months by executive mandate
• Team Readiness: The internal survey team had only ever worked with the legacy platform and had zero Qualtrics experience
• Data Fragmentation: Member data was spread across eight or more disconnected systems, managed by an understaffed IT consortium that was already underperforming on current requests
• Concurrent Infrastructure: A Snowflake data warehouse was being stood up simultaneously by a newly hired executive — early stage, unproven for this use case
• Measurement Scope: Five business lines required coverage (retail, contact center, digital, lending, new products) plus a quarterly board-level relationship survey with stretch goals as high as 93% MSAT
• Benchmarking Gap: The existing provider was comparing the institution to credit unions over $5B; at $14B, they needed benchmarking against the institutions they actually compete with for talent and market share

The EVP/Chief Administrative Officer engaged me as a Certified Qualtrics consultant to assess feasibility, identify risks, and advise on how to staff and structure the implementation.

What I Provided

Requirements Elicitation

The EVP came in with a broad directive: “I want Qualtrics by January.” Through structured questioning, I unpacked what that actually required — which departments needed what, which systems held the data, what the board needed to see as a minimum viable product, and what the realistic deployment sequence should look like. I turned an undefined mandate into a concrete, sequenced picture within a single working session.

Gap Analysis

I identified three gaps the leadership team had not articulated:

• Data integration: Eight disparate systems with no proven path into Qualtrics, and an IT consortium partner already failing to deliver on existing requests
• Training and enablement: A team with zero Qualtrics experience being asked to own the platform under a timeline that had just been cut in half
• Structural governance: The institution was planning to assign enterprise-level strategic ownership — board KPIs, cross-departmental adoption, and long-term platform roadmap — to a short-term contractor role with a fixed end date and no organizational authority to shape enterprise-wide direction

Risk Identification

I confirmed the 90-day tactical implementation was achievable but identified where the plan would break. The heaviest lift was not building surveys — that could be done in days. The real risk was data migration, system integration, and ensuring the data warehouse could support Qualtrics before surveys launched. I named that risk directly rather than telling leadership what they wanted to hear.

Stakeholder Translation

Three executives participated in the engagement, each with different priorities. The EVP needed strategic assurance. The VP of Learning & Development needed to understand system integration across eight platforms. The HR VP needed a timeline she could put on a project plan. I calibrated my communication to each — strategic overview for the EVP, technical specifics on APIs and data warehousing for the L&D VP, and a 30/60/90 framework for the HR VP.

Scope Definition and Boundary Setting

The EVP described wanting one person to serve as strategic advisor, trainer, survey builder, Qualtrics liaison, and governance owner — all in a single contractor seat ending in December. Rather than accepting that scope, I mapped out where each function belongs. Tactical implementation and training are consultant-appropriate. Enterprise governance, board-level KPI ownership, and long-term roadmap ownership require an internally embedded leader with organizational authority. I recommended they separate these into two functions and staff them accordingly.

My Role

• Feasibility Assessment: Evaluated whether a six-month implementation timeline was achievable and identified the conditions required for success
• Requirements Discovery: Translated a broad board mandate into sequenced, actionable requirements within a single working session
• Gap Identification: Surfaced three critical gaps — data integration, team readiness, and governance structure — that leadership had not articulated
• Risk Advisory: Named the actual risk (data migration and system integration) rather than the perceived risk (survey building timeline)
• Stakeholder Communication: Adapted communication across three executives with different priorities and technical levels
• Staffing Recommendation: Distinguished between contractor-appropriate tactical work and internally-owned strategic governance, recommending they be staffed as two separate functions

Outcome & Executive Response

I provided an honest assessment that prioritized the institution’s long-term success over the consultant’s short-term engagement. The EVP/Chief Administrative Officer responded in writing:

“I appreciate the clarity, professionalism, and candor with which you’ve articulated your experience and perspective. Your insights highlight important considerations around role definition, alignment, and transparency — especially in engagements that require both strategic vision and hands-on expertise. I recognize the depth of experience you bring, and your commitment to integrity and excellence is quite evident. Please know that your feedback has been heard and will be taken seriously.”

— Melissa Feeney, EVP/Chief Administrative Officer

What This Demonstrates

• Requirements elicitation and scope definition under ambiguity
• Gap analysis that surfaces problems leadership hasn’t named
• Risk identification grounded in platform expertise, not assumptions
• Stakeholder communication calibrated to executive, technical, and operational audiences
• Professional integrity — advising what the client needs, not what benefits the consultant

Tools & Expertise

Platform: Qualtrics (Certified), Snowflake (data warehouse assessment)
Technical: API integration planning, Okta/SSO authentication, legacy platform migration strategy
Advisory: 30/60/90 implementation planning, enterprise governance design, staffing and role definition