What teams say after working with us
Riverlith does not publish case studies in the usual sense — client work stays private. What follows is a selection of perspectives shared with permission.
Back to Home12+
Years of experience
80+
Engagements completed
4.8
Average satisfaction (out of 5)
SG
Singapore-based practice
Selected perspectives
Tan Wei Lin
Head of Product, Singapore
We came in with what felt like a clear initiative. The discovery sprint revealed that about half of what we assumed to be true had never actually been verified. The assumption summary was uncomfortable reading, honestly — but it saved us from building in the wrong direction. The discovery plan we got out of it is still in use three months later.
Discovery Sprint · April 2025
Priya Lakshmanan
Senior Product Manager, Singapore
The roadmap review was useful in a way I did not expect. I thought we had a sequencing problem. It turned out the bigger issue was that several items on the roadmap did not have a clear owner for the decision to proceed. The clarity gap note was the most directly actionable thing we received, and we shared it with the leadership team directly.
Roadmap Review · March 2025
James Ong Beng Kiat
Product Lead, Singapore
I have been using the sounding-board arrangement for four months. The value is not in getting answers — it is in having someone ask questions that force me to be clearer. The written notes are the main thing I come back to. They are not lengthy, but they tend to capture the thing I was dancing around in the call rather than what I said directly.
Sounding-Board · April 2025
Siew Ming Hui
Co-founder, Singapore
We used the discovery sprint before a significant build. Two weeks, S$190 — we were a bit sceptical about what that could actually produce. The output was more structured and more useful than reports we have paid significantly more for. The stakeholder interviews alone surfaced a disagreement within our own team that we had been talking around for months.
Discovery Sprint · February 2025
Aditya Rajan
VP Product, Singapore
The roadmap review took three weeks. The process required us to hand over our roadmap in whatever state it was in, which felt exposing at first. The alternative sequencing options were worth it on their own. We ended up adopting a version of Option B, which had not previously occurred to us. I would use this again at our next planning cycle.
Roadmap Review · March 2025
Nadia Khoo
Product Director, Singapore
I was looking for something between a coach and a consultant. The sounding-board arrangement is that. The calls do not follow a script — I bring whatever is on my mind, and the conversation goes from there. What I value most is that the notes push me to be precise about things I have been leaving vague, even in my own thinking.
Sounding-Board · April 2025
How some engagements developed
Case study 01 · Discovery Sprint · February 2025
A team building a feature before the problem was clear
The situation
A small product team at a Singapore-based software company had started scoping a significant new feature. They had a timeline and rough technical requirements, but no written statement of what problem the feature was solving or who would use it. Different stakeholders had different mental models of both, though this had not become visible yet.
What happened
The discovery sprint included structured interviews with four stakeholders — two on the product side, one from sales, and one from customer success. The interviews surfaced six significant assumptions, three of which contradicted each other. The assumption summary presented these in order of risk, with enough context for the team to hold a single productive conversation about them.
The outcome
The team paused the build and spent three weeks on targeted customer conversations identified in the discovery plan. They found that the primary user group they had assumed was substantially smaller than anticipated, which shifted the scoping of the feature significantly. The revised feature took the same time to build but addressed a more specific and verified need.
"The assumption summary was the thing. Not because it was bad news, but because it was clear. We finally knew what we were arguing about." — Product Lead, Singapore
Case study 02 · Roadmap Review · March 2025
A roadmap weighted entirely toward short-term delivery
The situation
A product team in a financial services firm had a detailed roadmap covering the next twelve months. It was primarily composed of committed deliverables — regulatory requirements, customer-requested fixes, and integration work. There was no space visible in the roadmap for exploratory or investment-horizon items. The product lead was concerned but had not framed the concern clearly enough to raise it.
What happened
The review categorised all roadmap items across three types: committed, opportunistic, and longer-horizon. The balance analysis showed 94% of items were committed, 6% opportunistic, and nothing in the longer-horizon category. The written assessment provided this framing with language the product lead could take to the leadership team, and two sequencing alternatives that created capacity for exploratory work by deferring certain committed items.
The outcome
The product lead used the assessment in a planning meeting two weeks later. Leadership agreed to defer two items that had been on the roadmap primarily through inertia, creating eight weeks of capacity. A small exploratory stream was introduced for the first time. The clarity gap note, which identified three items with unclear decision ownership, also prompted a governance discussion that had been overdue.
"I had the numbers in my head, but not the language. The assessment gave me a document I could actually walk people through." — Senior Product Manager
Case study 03 · Sounding-Board · Ongoing from January 2025
A product director navigating a restructure
The situation
A product director at a mid-sized Singapore technology company was navigating an internal restructure that changed her reporting lines and the scope of her team. She had no one inside the organisation she could speak to without the conversation becoming political. A coach felt too formal; a peer outside the company did not understand the context closely enough.
What happened
The sounding-board arrangement began with a call in which she described the situation without preparation. Over the first two months, the calls shifted from situation management to more forward-looking questions: what she wanted the team to look like, what she was willing to negotiate on, and where she was making assumptions about how the restructure would settle. The written notes after each call gave her a record she could return to.
The outcome
The restructure concluded after three months. The director has continued the arrangement into its fourth month, now using it primarily for roadmap and team decisions. She describes the value as being primarily about the notes rather than the calls — having a written record of how her thinking has changed over time has been something she did not expect to find useful but now considers essential.
"I expected to feel heard. I did not expect to end each call with something I could read the next morning and disagree with." — Product Director
Contact information
Phone
+65 8964 3175Address
30 Cecil Street, #19-08
Prudential Tower, SG 049712
Hours
Mon–Fri: 9:00 am – 6:00 pm
Saturday & Sunday: Closed
Professional standing
PDPA Compliant Practice
Client data handled under Singapore's Personal Data Protection Act. No retention of documents beyond engagement close.
Singapore-Registered Entity
Registered and operating from the central business district, Cecil Street, Singapore 049712.
No referral arrangements
Riverlith holds no financial relationships with third parties that could influence engagement outputs or recommendations.
Ready to begin a conversation?
A short message about your current situation is all it takes. Riverlith responds within two working days.
Request a Quote