HOW I'LL SUPPORT YOU

Three ways in, depending on what you need.

There are a number of product or service offerings that can be tailored to your needs.

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE RESULTS

• Read the Case Study

CLOSING THE GAP

"We knew parts were going missing; what we couldn't see was why. Pete built the picture from data we already had, put the handovers in the open and gave the teams numbers they trusted. On-time delivery went from 40% to over 90% in six months, with no new systems. The weekly rhythm is still running now he's gone, and that's the bit that matters."

• Book a Discovery Call

MY PROCESS - STEP BY STEP

ENGAGEMENT MODELS

CLOSING THE GAP

"We thought we had daily management. Pete showed us we had a weekly review with a different name on it. Rebuilding the boards to look at the next 48 hours instead of yesterday, and getting leaders on the floor to clear blockers, changed our mornings completely. Escalations to my team have more than halved and the tiers run themselves. It took persistence, and it stuck."

• Book a Discovery Call

REAL RESULTS

"Pete is an ambassador, champion and encourager of all things continuous improvement. Focusing on collaboration between teams. His aim has always been to connect c-suite executives to their colleagues at all levels of the business, providing businesses with the ability to capitalize on the network of ideas provided by the talent of it's operators with the decision making and strategy of it's leadership" -- Cameron Calvert, Business Improvement Manager - David Brown Defence

CASE STUDIES

WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING

COMPANIES I'VE WORKED WITH

CLOSING THE GAP

"We had a capex case ready for new machines. Pete asked us to prove we needed them first. He found the one work centre setting the pace for the whole factory, and within six months we'd taken over 20% out of cost on tooling and discipline alone, ahead of a competitor who'd already caught us. The board backed the investment after that, to double the capacity rather than replace it. We're now running the same approach in other departments."

• Book a Discovery Call

CLOSING THE GAP

“Pete delivered not only an immediate impact, but a process and change in thinking that has been sustained long since him completing this project.”

• Book a Discovery Call

Cable Laying Equipment

On-Time Doubled, Losses Designed Out — and Not a Penny on New Systems

Parts were vanishing between the warehouse, the assembly bays and the road in between — and with them, the confidence that the next build would have what it needed.

The Situation

A specialised engineering business — a designer and builder of underwater cable-laying equipment — was losing parts across its operation. Components went missing inside the warehouse, on the assembly areas, and in transit between sites. For a business building complex, high-value equipment to exacting requirements, missing parts meant delayed builds, duplicated spend and mounting uncertainty about what was actually on hand. The losses were real — but the bigger problem was that no one could see where, or why, they were happening.

The Diagnostic

The work began alongside the COO, in the data. Rather than impose a new system, the diagnostic gathered the metrics that already existed and defined new KPIs for each step of the process — built on systems the C-suite already used and trusted, so the numbers carried weight from day one.Conversations across the business, with operators and managers alike, exposed the root issue: the teams were siloed.Parts were handed from one team to the next with no acknowledgement and no record — accountability evaporated at every boundary.To find the root cause rather than chase symptoms, the new measures were framed as a balanced scorecard covering safety, response time, on-time delivery, cost per pick, and stock losses and gains. Reviewed with the teams, it turned a vague sense that “things go missing” into specific, evidenced findings:

On-time delivery from the distribution centre was known to be poor — but what hadn’t been communicated was that distribution was given just 48 hours to pick and pack to the build requirement, with no forecast of what was coming.Categorising stock losses and gains against an ABC/XYZ matrix showed the worst offenders weren’t the expensive items — they were low-value nuts, bolts and washers, managed in the same systems and with the same ceremony as parts costing more than £10,000.Benchmarked against best in class, the cost per pick was running at over £100 — roughly 50 times higher.

The Solution

The data pointed at process, but the fix was about ownership. Where parts crossed between teams, no one had owned the handover — so the first moves were about making accountability visible and giving everyone the same picture to work from.A quick-hit accountability fix: an inventory log on the transport lorry, with every part checked in and out and signed for by a named receiver.
The balanced scorecard made live — safety, response time, on-time delivery, cost per pick and stock losses and gains, visible to the teams week by week.A weekly review that brought operators and leaders around the same numbers to agree and own the improvement actions.
Focused workstreams across systems, material handling, organisation design, planning and daily management — each aimed at a root cause the data had exposed.Those workstreams turned the headline themes into concrete change:
New store-keeper roles were created at each material-receipt location, responsible for accurately accounting for stock and moving it to the right place on every production site — and, mindful of the cost pressure, funded entirely from existing headcount.A dedicated C-class parts workstream tackled the biggest source of losses head-on: rather than routing low-value parts through the distribution centre, they would be purchased and vended at the point of use. Working with the purchasing team, a full list of parts was built and scoped for formal commercial enquiries and negotiation.To lift productivity, a process-mapping exercise — run through a high-volume customer — laid bare the physical and transactional workload on the teams. From it, a cell-layout concept was designed with the distribution staff to cut out unnecessary movement while keeping everything needed to pack and despatch within reach.
With the measures trusted and the handovers finally visible, the teams stopped pointing across the gaps and started closing them.

The Impact

The numbers moved, and they moved hard. On-time delivery climbed from 40% to comfortably above 90%.Inventory accuracy improved by more than 500%, lifting overall accuracy to 95% — the untraceable losses that started the engagement all but designed out. And a productivity improvement of over 30% was identified and built into the budget, delivered through people and process alone, with no new systems or automation.Cost per pick was on the same path — down from over £100 and tracking toward the programme’s sub-£50 target, with a longer-term ambition of under £20.Just as important was what stuck. Accountability was now built into every handover, the teams worked to shared KPIs they trusted, and the operating rhythm carried on after the engagement closed. The business didn’t just recover its parts and its productivity — it learned how to hold on to them.

The Results

1) On-time delivery from 40% to > 90%2) Inventory accuracy improved by over 500% — overall accuracy now 95%3) 30%+ productivity improvement banked in budget — people only, no systems or automation4) 6 months from project start to phase 1 completion, handed over to internal team

Customer Feedback

“We knew parts were going missing; what we couldn’t see was why. Pete built the picture from data we already had, put the handovers in the open and gave the teams numbers they trusted. On-time delivery went from 40% to over 90% in six months, with no new systems.The weekly rhythm is still running now he’s gone, and that’s the bit that matters.”
— COO

The Bigger Picture

Missing parts, slipping on-time delivery and runaway picking costs are rarely a warehouse problem — they are an accountability problem hiding in the gaps between teams.Whether you sit in finance, operations, improvement or the chief executive’s chair, if the trend is heading the wrong way, let’s talk.

Engineering and maintenance

Are you controlling the day — or just reviewing it?

Every issue used to land on a senior leader’s desk. Now it’s surfaced, owned and solved on the floor — before the day even begins.

The Situation

A complex, highly regulated aerospace parts supplier. Operations started every day on the back foot. Work got done through effort and heroics, not a system — problems surfaced late, escalated upward, and pulled senior leaders into issues the front line could have owned. There was no shared, forward-looking view of what the day actually demanded.

The Diagnostic

On the floor the pattern was clear: fragmented boards that looked backward, huddles that recapped yesterday, and problems held in people’s heads rather than a system. Capability and commitment were never the issue.The real problem was subtler, and it catches out even experienced leaders. The team was running a performance-management routine — a weekly review of red/green trends — under the banner of daily management. They are two different systems, and one of them was missing.Daily management is short-interval control. At every tier, from the bottleneck work centre up to site, it asks whether the next 24 to 48 hours of schedule will be achieved, what puts it at risk, and what recovery action is needed now — with blockers escalating the same day.Performance management is the weekly cadence above it: working red/green trends, getting to root cause, and driving structured improvement and strategic priorities. The two are linked — daily management surfaces and recovers; whatever it can’t resolve escalates into the weekly problem-solving.The client had the weekly review but had mislabelled it as daily management. So nothing was truly controlling the day.

The Solution

We embedded a tiered daily management system from the front line up:
Boards rebuilt to look forward — today’s plan, what’s at risk, and where help is needed.A real huddle cadence, work centre to site, so problems surface and get owned at the right level — and escalate the same day when they can’t.
Leader Standard Work that put managers on the floor coaching and unblocking, not chasing reports.It didn’t all land first time. The first boards slipped back into reporting, so a second phase reworked them into forward-looking scheduling points — focused only where they mattered, at bottlenecks and critical work centres.Throughout, the real lever was leadership behaviour, not the boards themselves. Full embedding took around 12 weeks of focused effort across six months, to let acceptance build.

The Impact

Mornings changed first. Problems surfaced early and got solved at the right level, escalations to senior leadership fell away, and leaders shifted from firefighting to coaching.Because the teams owned the rhythm, it stayed when we left — and that’s the real prize: not a tidier board, but an organisation that now solves its own problems, day in, day out.

The Results

1) >50% fewer issues escalated to senior leadership2) Daily management embedded across 2 tiers and self-sustaining after handover3) 12 weeks to embed and hand over

Customer Feedback

“We thought we had daily management. Pete showed us we had a weekly review with a different name on it. Rebuilding the boards to look at the next 48 hours instead of yesterday, and getting leaders on the floor to clear blockers, changed our mornings completely.Escalations to my team have more than halved and the tiers run themselves. It took persistence, and it stuck.”
— Operations Director

The Bigger Picture

What makes daily management stick has little to do with the boards — it’s rigour and leadership behaviour. It has to run every single day, with leaders genuinely there to take an escalation the moment a team has exhausted its options: to clear the blocker, not to collect the excuse.That takes real time and relentless consistency to embed — get the behaviours robust and it holds; let them slip and the whole thing quietly fails. If your daily management needs to survive a busy week, that’s the work. Let’s talk.

Blade machining

Are you competing on cost — or just hoping you still are?

A European blade machining factory found its Chinese competitor had already matched its cost. It got more than 20% cheaper in 6 months — with no new capex — by fixing one work centre.

The Situation

The site — sales over £50M — machined turbine blades in a country chosen for its lower cost base. That advantage was gone: a Chinese competitor had reached cost parity and was still improving. Leadership's target: more than 20% cheaper, to unlock further investment in the site.Their initial plan was a multi-million-pound capex on new machine tools. We were engaged by the global leadership team to test whether the same capacity could be found without that spend.

The Diagnostic

Rather than a broad cost-cutting drive, we mapped the flow of blades to find where capacity was actually being lost — not where costs looked highest. A machine utilisation analysis identified the constraint: one work centre setting the pace for the whole factory, where every lost hour was output the site could never recover.
The loss fell into three categories: waiting material, waiting operator, and set-up downtime.

The Solution

We set a strategy to uplift the constraint's capacity by 30% — the ceiling before another work centre became the new bottleneck. Site leadership needed convincing, having backed the capex plan; the data made the case. Each category was tackled directly:Waiting material: buffers were planned at the machine itself so it was always fed, protecting its pace from variability elsewhere in the flow.Waiting operator: breaks were re-timed so an operator was always available on the constraint, within the existing shift pattern — running hours held at 24/5, preserving time for breakdowns and maintenance.Set-up downtime: the main source of downtime, cut two ways — true set-up time reduced using SMED (single-minute exchange of dies), and tooling switched to zero-point fixturing (same datum every time — lock and go). SPC (statistical process control) established the first-off failure rate, giving confidence to start the second component while the first was being inspected.None of this required new machines or capital spend — just knowing which work centre mattered, and being relentless about protecting its running time.

The Impact

Output from the constraint rose sharply within weeks, flowing straight through to whole-factory capacity — no new machines, headcount or floor space needed. Every extra part cost only consumables, not fixed or overhead cost, and demand to fill it was already there waiting — turning the gain straight into cost reduction, past the Chinese competitor's position.Leadership used the evidence to secure further investment — not to replace the capacity freed, but to double it, since demand was abundant and the team had proven they could get the most from their equipment first.

The Results

1) >20% cost-out — decisively ahead of the new lower-cost competitor2) Constraint utilisation up from 60% to - 85%; downtime cut across all three categories3) Additional capacity unlocked with a small investment in tooling4) Delivered over 6 months, within existing shift patterns and overheads5) Approach now being replicated in other departments — further margin expansion in train

Customer Feedback

“We had a capex case ready for new machines. Pete asked us to prove we needed them first. He found the one work centre setting the pace for the whole factory, and within six months we’d taken over 20% out of cost on tooling and discipline alone, ahead of a competitor who’d already caught us.The board backed the investment after that, to double the capacity rather than replace it. We’re now running the same approach in other departments.”
— Site Leader

The Bigger Picture

Most factories cut cost everywhere at once, spreading effort too thin to move the number that matters. Real cost-out means finding the one work centre that sets the pace for everyone else, and staying disciplined about protecting it — a discipline, not a one-off exercise, because the constraint moves once you fix it.Get it right and the factory doesn't just match the next low-cost competitor, it stays ahead. If your cost base needs to survive the next comparison, book a call and we'll talk about where to look first.

Products

Fixed scope. Fixed duration. A price you know before we start.

Six products, in price order, from a one-day workshop to a board-level review. The bars show how much of the organisation each one reaches.Most clients start with the Diagnostic Week and go from there.

• Book a Call
• See Case Studies

MAKE AN ENQUIRY BELOW

MAKE AN ENQUIRY BELOW