An architecture firm cuts the work behind project reporting.

A multinational architecture and design firm needed a consistent view of project costs, staffing and fees across its studios. Project leaders needed current client requirements and decisions; group finance needed to understand how those changes affected delivery and collections.

Individual tasks were faster, but reporting still took too long.

The firm had better software and access to AI, but reporting still meant finance exporting numbers, project managers assembling updates and principals chasing explanations across offices.

Teams gathered the same information for different reports. Associates and principals searched project files for current requirements, client requests and decisions, while finance reconciled fee and staffing records from different studios.

Mason was asked to remove that work, not just write the final report faster.

Start with the reporting cycle.

Mason walked through completed reports with finance and project leaders, tracing each number to its project records, fee approvals and staffing plans. The team mapped repeated checks, handoffs and the people responsible in each studio.

Mason clarified how projects were identified, how reporting figures were defined and who owned each forecast. It prioritized recurring tasks with clear owners and reliable source records before expanding to more studios.

A company brain connects project knowledge with reporting.

Mason connected project costs, staffing forecasts and commitments with current client requirements and decisions. The company brain made that information easier to find across files. The reporting workflow then gathered the inputs, checked totals and prepared reports for review.

Project managers reviewed changes, studio leaders resolved issues and group finance brought the results together. Principals kept responsibility for fee and staffing decisions, with supporting evidence beside each issue.

When a client requirement changed, the review connected it to the agreed scope, fee and staffing plan. The principal could decide whether to seek approval for additional fees or adjust staffing if the extra work came from an internal delivery issue.

The accounting system remained the financial record, with actuals kept separate from forecasts. When an explanation was missing, the workflow flagged it for review rather than filling the gap.

Remove old steps before expanding.

Mason tested the workflow alongside the existing process across participating studios. When teams kept a second spreadsheet or repeated a check, Mason investigated why and removed the extra work without removing required approvals.

Teams spent less time preparing reports and searching for project information. Reports reached approval sooner, giving leaders more time to address fee and staffing changes.

ROI

Estimated annual value totals $4.64M: $1.7M in additional-fee contribution and reduced outside spending, plus $2.94M in staff capacity. Implementation and ongoing costs still need to be deducted.

Staff capacity is time returned to the team, not reduced spending. Additional fees are counted after delivery costs, and no hours or benefits are counted twice.

Reporting fell from five business days to one

The firm reduced the time needed for a complete, approved project report by 80%, from five business days to one. Source checks and principal approval remained in the cycle, while connected information reduced preparation and cross-studio follow-up.

Four fewer hours of project research per person each week

Fifty associates and principals saved four hours each week by retrieving current project information instead of searching across files. Across 48 working weeks, that returned 9,600 hours of annual capacity, valued at $1.44M using $150 per hour.

Fee write-offs fell 40%

Fee write-offs fell 40% across the project portfolio as teams acted earlier on scope and staffing changes. This is reported separately, not added to the financial total, because it can overlap with the fee and delivery benefits above.