Connect attention, lead, sale, fulfilment, retention and cash using one shared funnel.
Revenue and value creation
Growth Leakage Diagnostic
Locate lost demand, conversion, retention, margin and accountability across the path from attention to cash.
The decision first
A clear answer before a larger commitment.
Direct answer
A growth leakage diagnostic identifies where commercially valuable demand is lost between acquisition, qualification, conversion, fulfilment, repeat and cash. It combines funnel, customer, process and economic evidence so the business can distinguish a demand problem from a handoff, offer, service or ownership problem.
Questions that must survive scrutiny
The work is built around a small number of consequential questions.
Each question is tied to evidence, confidence, commercial consequence and a decision action.
Where is value being lost?
Map leakage by stage, segment, channel, geography, product and customer cohort.
Why are customers dropping?
Separate proposition, price, trust, experience, process, capacity and follow-up causes.
Which leakage matters economically?
Prioritise gaps by value pool, recoverability, cost and strategic consequence.
Who owns the repair?
Clarify handoffs, decision rights, measures and cross-functional accountability.
Evidence architecture
Use the evidence stream that can change the answer.
Existing information is reviewed first. New research is commissioned only where uncertainty is material and evidence can alter the decision.
Evidence stream
Funnel and cohort analysis
Conversion, cycle time, drop-off, repeat, churn and revenue progression.
Evidence streamCustomer and lost-customer evidence
Reasons for non-conversion, abandonment, dissatisfaction and defection.
Evidence streamProcess and handoff review
Lead routing, sales, fulfilment, service, collections and decision delays.
Evidence streamCost-to-serve and margin view
Discounting, rework, service burden, channel cost and value by customer type.
Working method
A disciplined route from ambiguity to decision.
Every stage produces an explicit artefact, not merely progress activity.
Size the lost value and identify where averages hide segment or channel differences.
Combine data, customer evidence and process observation to explain the loss.
Prioritise fixes, owners, experiments, metrics and a 90-day value plan.
What the client receives
Executive answers first. Evidence and working detail behind them.
Growth leakage heatmap
Leakage by stage, segment, channel and economic value.
Root-cause diagnostic
The customer, process, offer and ownership causes behind each major gap.
Value-recovery portfolio
Prioritised interventions by impact, effort, confidence and speed.
90-day governance dashboard
Owners, leading indicators, tests and review cadence.
Methods that may be used
The method follows the risk, not the other way around.
Scopes may combine several methods. The final design depends on the decision, evidence already available and the cost of being wrong.
Frequently asked questions
When should an organisation use Growth Leakage Diagnostic?
Demand or leads are growing but revenue is not keeping pace. It is most useful when the cost of a weak assumption is materially higher than the cost of testing it.
What evidence does Ninth Atlas use?
The evidence mix follows the decision and may combine internal data, primary research, market intelligence, customer or expert interviews, commercial analytics and scenario analysis.
What does the client receive?
The engagement ends with a concise decision answer, a transparent evidence trail, practical outputs and clear actions rather than a research report that leaves the decision unresolved.
Can the scope be adapted to an urgent decision window?
Yes. The scope can be staged around the highest-risk questions first, with deeper work added only where it can change the answer.
Related decisions and capabilities
Leakage in practice
Value can disappear between the operating record and the owner report.
This case documents how recurring fee, tenant-ledger and income-control failures accumulated into a material ownership exposure.
How a multifamily review documented USD 1.1M in value leakage
A 31-unit Phoenix property, four years of source records and an owner-side reconstruction of manager-controlled reporting.
Read the case study