In most engagements the brief we are handed and the problem we find are not the same thing. These are three where the gap between them was the whole story.
A regional freight operator was losing tenders to competitors who simply answered first. Quoting required three systems and two people. We consolidated pricing logic into one internal tool with an approval path.
| quote turnaround | 5 days → 4 hrs |
|---|---|
| tender win rate | +31% |
| to delivery | 11 weeks |
The client was ready to spend heavily on a second production line. Process mapping showed throughput was constrained by a scheduling handoff, not capacity. The line was not needed.
| throughput | +22% |
|---|---|
| capex required | $0 |
| to delivery | 6 weeks |
Eleven years of accumulated logic lived in one workbook only two people understood. We rebuilt it as a documented internal system without a freeze on trading.
| single points of failure | 1 → 0 |
|---|---|
| admin per week | −14 hrs |
| to delivery | 9 weeks |
In all three the client had correctly noticed something was wrong and incorrectly diagnosed why. That is normal — you cannot easily see a system you are standing inside.
Two of the three were about to spend heavily on the wrong thing. The intervention that worked cost a fraction of the one originally budgeted.
Every one ended with the client’s own people maintaining and extending the work. None of them are still paying us to keep it alive.
Start here
Half an hour on a call is usually enough to tell whether the thing you are worried about is the thing that matters.