What Clients Say About the Work
These are accounts from organisations that have engaged Selasih Group across our three advisory formats. They are reproduced here in slightly condensed form, with identifying details adjusted where requested.
← Back to Home47+
Clients
4.8
Avg. Rating
9
Years Active
100%
Written Output
Client Testimonials
Ahmad Hafizi
Head of Digital, Penang manufacturing group
"We came in expecting to be told we needed a programme immediately. Ruzaini spent two sessions with our team, reviewed what we had attempted in the previous two years, and wrote a note recommending we hold off — with a clear account of why. That note has been more useful than any programme we might have launched badly. We returned six months later for the Programme Advisory, and by then the conditions were actually right."
April 2025 · Posture Conversation, then Programme Advisory
Suraya Mahzan
Innovation Manager, KL-based financial services firm
"The Experiment Review Workshop gave our team a proper occasion to look at the work we had been doing. We had six experiments running simultaneously — none of which had been formally reviewed in over a year. After two days with Selasih Group, we had clear decisions on all six and a written record we could table with our leadership committee. The only thing I would note is that preparation on our side took longer than anticipated, but that was a reflection of our own disorganisation, not theirs."
March 2025 · Experiment Review Workshop
Lim Kok Peng
CTO, Penang-based professional services group
"What I valued most was the absence of any pressure to expand the scope. We engaged for the Posture Conversation. The note we received was honest about our limitations in a way that, frankly, I had not expected from an external adviser. It named specific organisational patterns that had caused earlier informal experimentation to stall. That kind of candour is not common."
April 2025 · Innovation Posture Conversation
Nazira Zulkifli
VP Technology, Penang-based industrial group
"We had tried to build an innovation function twice before, both times unsuccessfully. The Programme Advisory from Selasih Group gave us a charter that was specific to how our organisation actually works — not a generic template adapted with our name on it. The intake criteria alone have saved us from at least three projects that, in previous years, would have consumed six months each before being quietly abandoned."
May 2025 · Innovation Programme Advisory
Rajendran Nair
Director, technology education institution, Penang
"The workshop moved through our portfolio methodically — no theatrics, no unnecessary frameworks. By the end of day two we had retired four experiments that had been consuming attention without clear learning, and extended two others with better-defined endpoints. The written review gave our board a clear picture of where the programme stood. The fixed fee model also suited our budget cycle well."
April 2025 · Experiment Review Workshop
Tan Yee Ming
COO, retail and logistics company, northern Malaysia
"We had a lot of enthusiasm for generative AI among our technology team and a lot of scepticism from operations. The Posture Conversation helped us articulate — in writing, for the first time — what we were actually willing to invest and what we were genuinely uncertain about. It became a shared document that both teams could read. The note did not take sides; it simply named the situation clearly."
March 2025 · Innovation Posture Conversation
Three Engagements, in Some Detail
Case Study 01 · Manufacturing · Programme Advisory
A Programme That Was Started and Stopped Twice
The Situation
A manufacturing group in the Northern Corridor had twice attempted to run an innovation programme around analytics and edge computing. Both efforts had stalled — the first within four months, the second after eight. Leadership was reluctant to commit to a third attempt without a clearer account of what had gone wrong.
The Engagement
We conducted a Programme Advisory, spending five weeks interviewing the teams involved in both previous attempts and examining the records that existed. The programme charter we produced included a diagnosis of the two failure modes — insufficient intake criteria in the first, and an undefined relationship with the engineering team in the second — and operational practices designed to address both.
The Outcome
The third programme has now been running for eleven months. Three experiments have been reviewed. One was retired at week eight with a clear written record of what was learned. One has been extended with modified scope. One has graduated to a full production initiative. No experiment is currently running past its agreed endpoint.
Duration: 5-week engagement · Completed January 2025
"The diagnosis of the previous attempts was the most valuable part. We had the same conversation internally a dozen times and never quite named it correctly."
— Technology Director
Case Study 02 · Financial Services · Posture Conversation
When the Answer Was 'Not Yet'
The Situation
A regional financial services firm was under internal pressure to establish a visible innovation programme. Senior leadership was uncertain whether the conditions were right. They engaged Selasih Group for a Posture Conversation to form an external view.
The Engagement
After two sessions — one with technology leadership, one with the relevant business unit heads — we delivered a posture note recommending the organisation not establish a formal programme for at least two further quarters. The note identified three specific conditions that would need to be in place before a programme could function without constant senior intervention.
The Outcome
The firm used the posture note to manage internal expectations and to set a clear timeline for revisiting the question. Seven months later they returned for a Programme Advisory, by which time two of the three conditions had been met and a plan was in place for the third. The programme launched in a more favourable position than it would have done previously.
Duration: 2.5-week engagement · Completed February 2025
Case Study 03 · Education · Experiment Review Workshop
A Portfolio That Had Grown Without Being Tended
The Situation
A higher education institution had been running informal experiments with generative tools across five faculties for eighteen months. No formal review had taken place. Seven experiments were listed as 'active' in an internal tracker, but the team leading them could not say with certainty what any of them was trying to learn.
The Engagement
The two-day Experiment Review Workshop was conducted on site. We reviewed all seven experiments in sequence: purpose, method, evidence gathered and remaining questions. By the end of day two, four had been formally retired with written records, two had been reframed with clearer questions and tighter scope, and one had been graduated to a full programme of study integration.
The Outcome
The portfolio review was circulated to the institution's academic board. Three months after the workshop, the two reframed experiments were delivering evidence the team could discuss. The workload on the innovation team reduced by roughly a third, as they were no longer maintaining experiments that were not producing useful learning.
Duration: 2-day workshop · Completed March 2025
Contact Details
Telephone
+60 4 538 9217Address
22 Jalan Bukit Mertajam
14000 Bukit Mertajam, Penang
Office Hours
Mon–Fri
9:00 am – 5:30 pm MYT
Tell Us About Your Situation
If what you have read here reflects the kind of advisory you are looking for, we are happy to have an initial exchange. No commitment required at that stage — on either side.
Begin the Conversation