I have never been a very academic person. I haven’t studied at university, and I haven’t published an academic paper before. Then again, until five months ago I also had never started my own company either.
But what I have always done is reflect on what I’m doing — thinking about the methodology, the patterns, and the lessons hidden inside the experience. So when a good friend invited me to join VikingPLoP, a conference on architectural patterns, an idea clicked: what if I turned the lessons from launching BilboConsult into a proper pattern language paper? My learning becoming something other people can use too, and I also dig into the world of academic writing and pattern languages.
From reflection to framework
Pattern languages — a method originating from architecture — describe recurring problems and their solutions as interconnected patterns. Instead of writing a business plan or a how-to guide, I chose to document what I was learning as nine interdependent patterns, each with the forces that pull in different directions, the solution I found, and honest reflection on what worked and what didn’t.
The core problem the paper tackles is the Consulting Credibility Bootstrap: you need a track record to win clients, but you can’t build a track record without clients. That paradox defined my first months as an independent consultant — and it became the thread running through the entire paper.
The nine patterns
The paper presents nine patterns organized in three phases:
Establishing Foundations — Signal the Market, Listen to Market Gravity, Narrow Your Beachhead. These form a feedback loop: your signal generates market responses, those responses reveal where your real pull is, and that sharpens your positioning.
Building Evidence — Be Your Own Customer, Harvest Your History, Join Forces, Connect with Brokers. Different strategies for building credibility when you don’t yet have consulting references.
Converting to Revenue — Conduct a Warm Rehearsal, Land the Anchor Deal. Moving from conversations to contracts.
The patterns aren’t a checklist. They work as a toolkit — you weave between them based on your situation.
Signal types and what I learned
One of the most concrete findings: three distinct signal types produced measurably different responses. Authenticity beats self-marketing for building relationships, but mentioning a specific, urgent market problem is what converts attention into potential revenue. Both signal types matter — authenticity opens doors, but the problem-specific hook is what pulls prospects through them.
The journey
What makes this paper unusual for the academic world is that it’s a live field report. I’m not looking back on a successful journey — I’m writing from the middle of it. The paper documents real mistakes (like marketing to the wrong beachhead for two months because of confirmation bias), real pivots (narrowing from broad SIAM transformation to AI governance advisory), and patterns where the outcome is still unknown (I haven’t closed my first client yet, and the paper says so).
Why I’m sharing this now
The paper will be presented at VikingPLoP 2026 in April. The conference version deadline is March 26. Before submitting, I want to do something the academic process doesn’t always allow: open the paper to broader peer review.
I’ve been fortunate to work with Rebecca Wirfs-Brock as my shepherd throughout the process. Her feedback has been invaluable. But a paper about consulting practice deserves feedback from other practitioners — people who’ve started practices, navigated the credibility gap, and built client relationships from scratch.
The paper
You can read the full paper here:
Download: Finding Your First Client — A Pattern Language for Early-Stage Consulting Startups (PDF)
Share your perspective — or join the peer review group
The paper includes ten reviewer questions embedded throughout the text, designed to guide feedback on the patterns, the honesty of the narrative, and whether the framework resonates with real experience. But you don’t need to follow those — any perspective is welcome.
If something rings true, tell me. If something feels off, I want to hear that too. A quick comment is just as valuable as a detailed review.
For those who’d like to go deeper, I’m forming a small peer review group of practitioners willing to read the paper and share structured feedback. This isn’t a formal academic review — it’s a conversation between people who’ve navigated similar terrain.
What’s involved:
- Read the paper (~8,000 words, 30-minute read)
- Share your thoughts — on the embedded questions, or in your own way
- Feedback by March 24 (so I can integrate it before the March 26 conference deadline)
- You’ll be acknowledged in the paper’s acknowledgments section
Interested? Send me a message at martin@bilboconsult.com or comment below. I’ll share the paper with commenting access so you can mark up directly.
I’ll also be reaching out to a few trusted sparring partners directly, but the more diverse the perspectives, the stronger the paper becomes. If you’ve started a consulting practice, navigated a career transition into independent work, or simply have a practitioner’s eye for what rings true — I’d value your input.
Martin Kallenbach is an independent IT management consultant at BilboConsult OY, Helsinki. He brings four decades of transformation leadership across Cognizant, Tieto, HCL, Nokia, and AXA Tech to help organizations navigate complex IT governance challenges.
Leave a Reply