Corporate LiveWire is an established awards publisher, and its current Global Awards site describes an actual evaluation process: nominees can submit supporting material, the research team reviews public information, case studies, testimonials and third-party reviews, and judging considers service, branding, industry recognition, ethics and employee satisfaction. The organizer also explicitly states that there is no compulsory fee to win or accept the award. Paid packages are optional promotional products offered after selection.
That distinction matters. The email is not simply “pay us and we will give you an award.” They have already named City Shift Finance the winner of Corporate Management Consultancy of the Year – USA, and the free package exists independently of whatever they are now trying to sell you.
At the same time, I would not overstate the exclusivity. Corporate LiveWire runs a very broad awards program across numerous industries, countries and highly specific categories. Their 2023/24 Global Awards reported more than 31,000 nominations, and their site contains numerous consultancy-specific winners across different geographic and specialist categories. Their commercial business also clearly includes selling winners upgraded magazine placements, trophies, advertisements and other promotional packages.
I would take everything included for free and spend $0 on the promotional packages. The award itself gives you third-party recognition. Buying a front cover, trophy package, enhanced feature, or advertising does not make the underlying award stronger.
One thing I particularly like here is the category. “Corporate Management Consultancy of the Year – USA” is directly connected to what CSF sells. That makes it substantially more useful to you than some vague “business excellence” or “entrepreneur of the year” badge.
Companies selected by City Shift Finance for specific areas of business need. We feature one company within each category based on our assessment of its capabilities and relevance to the executives we serve. Selection is independent. Companies cannot purchase inclusion or placement.
Companies selected by City Shift Finance for specific areas of business need. We feature one company within each category based on our assessment of its capabilities and relevance to the executives we serve. Selection is independent. Companies cannot purchase inclusion or placement.
Aviva, the UK’s largest general insurance company, had a simple goal, but one that would have profound implications for its business. It set out to build the country’s leading claims operation using artificial intelligence (AI) to improve outcomes at every step in the process, from the first notification that a customer suffered a loss to the final settlement of the claim.
It’s not hard to see why Aviva focused on claims. Servicing a claim is the most important interaction an insurer has with a customer. It occurs when the customer has suffered a loss, sometimes a catastrophic loss that can include bodily harm. The stakes are high for both sides, and the customer may be in distress. At the same time, the industry cost of settling claims has been rising faster than the Consumer Price Index since before the start of Covid and the trend is accelerating. In 2019, claims costs were rising at a rate of 6% above the CPI; by 2023, they were on track to reach 11%.
Despite this, the industry has been relatively slow to apply AI to claims, choosing instead to target other domains like pricing and retention. Finding a better way to serve customers during these difficult moments could have enormous impact.
Uncovering The Hidden Engagement Gaps
“City Shift Finance helped me put structure around how staffing decisions impact the budget over time. It changed how I evaluate FTE decisions before they’re made.”
The Chief came away from the engagement with a more precise framework for evaluating budget and FTE decisions during periods of financial pressure. The change was not in the department’s systems or operational processes. It was in how the financial information those systems produced was interpreted and applied before decisions were finalized.
Staffing requests were no longer evaluated in isolation, they were reviewed in the context of future flexibility, long term cost durability, and broader budget exposure over time. Requests that appeared manageable against current headcount and budget totals often looked different when viewed against the department’s financial position 12 or 24 months forward under different funding conditions. That additional perspective changed which requests advanced and how approved requests were ultimately structured.
The ability to distinguish between decisions that preserved flexibility and decisions that reduced it gave the Chief a more deliberate basis for stakeholder discussions. Conversations around staffing and budget became more forward looking and more closely tied to actual financial conditions rather than assumptions carried over from prior budget cycles. Requests could be supported, modified, or deferred with reasoning tied to their longer-term financial impact rather than topline budget availability alone.
