Results That Matter

Real outcomes from organizations that prioritized evidence over speed. Quantified, anonymized, and repeatable.

Every successful outcome followed the same sequence:

Orientation (Triage) to define the bottleneck
Evidence (Assessment) to establish operational truth
The Verdict: A decisive read on stability, ownership, and risk.

In many cases, the most valuable result was the decision not to implement fragile automation. We protect operations by stating the truth early.

About These Results

These examples are drawn from prior leadership roles and operational work. Details are anonymized and adjusted to protect confidentiality. Outcomes vary by organization, baseline maturity, and scope of engagement.

30–50% Typical reduction in manual steps

8 → 1 Monthly fire drills (typical reduction with monitoring)

10–14 Business days to clarity

4 Deliverables you keep (verdict, map, matrix, sequencing)

How to interpret these results

These outcomes came from stability + ownership + sequencing.
Tools were secondary.
We optimize for reliability, which creates speed as a byproduct.

Case Studies

What stability looks like in practice

Each engagement starts with a Workflow Stability Assessment. Some clients stop there — that's often the right call.

Want to know if these outcomes are realistic for your workflows? Start with a Stability Verdict →

01 Healthcare Operations 10-week engagement

Situation

Multi-location healthcare provider struggling with patient intake workflows. Exceptions handled differently at each site, leading to data inconsistencies and compliance risk.

Failure Point

No single source of truth. Staff relied on tribal knowledge. New hires took 6+ months to become effective.

What Was at Stake

Without stabilization: continued compliance exposure, potential audit failures, and mounting training costs as tribal knowledge holders leave.

What Changed

Mapped real workflows across 4 locations. Identified 23 undocumented exception paths. Created ownership matrix and standardized decision rules.

Measured Result

47% reduction in intake-related rework. New hire onboarding reduced to 6 weeks. No compliance incidents reported during the measured 12-month period.

These outcomes started with a verdict. Want to know if this is realistic for your workflows?

Start with a Stability Assessment →

02 Professional Services 6-week stabilization

Situation

Growing consulting firm with 'automation debt' — 40+ Zapier workflows, half undocumented. Systems frequently broke without anyone knowing until clients complained.

Failure Point

Silent failures. No monitoring. Critical handoffs depended on specific individuals being available.

What Was at Stake

Without stabilization: client-facing failures would have continued accumulating, eroding trust and creating cascading reputational damage.

What Changed

Audited all automations. Removed 60% as redundant or broken. Rebuilt core workflows with explicit failure handling and human fallback paths.

Measured Result

Eliminated 3 single points of failure. Reduced monthly 'fire drills' from 8 to 1. Automation now fails loudly when it fails.

03 Operations Team Stability Assessment only

Situation

COO inherited undocumented workflows after leadership transition. Team insisted 'everyone knows the process' but outcomes varied by person.

Failure Point

Implicit knowledge masked as explicit process. Documentation existed but didn't match reality (SOP drift).

What Was at Stake

Without stabilization: the next leadership change or key departure would have reset progress to zero. Institutional knowledge was one resignation away from disappearing.

What Changed

Conducted stakeholder interviews. Mapped actual vs. documented workflows. Identified 12 critical ownership gaps.

Measured Result

First complete workflow documentation in company history. Clear escalation paths. Team can now operate without 'the one person who knows.'

04 Scaling Startup Ongoing stewardship

Situation

Founder-led company growing from 15 to 45 employees. Processes that worked at 15 were breaking at scale. Exceptions were handled ad-hoc.

Failure Point

Speed prioritized over stability. 'Move fast and break things' actually broke things. No one owned exceptions.

What Was at Stake

Without stabilization: scaling would have introduced chaos, not growth. Automation layered on top would have accelerated the breakdown.

What Changed

Established workflow stability baseline before adding automation. Defined ownership before scaling. Sequenced changes safely.

Measured Result

Successfully scaled to 45 without the usual chaos. New processes documented from day one. Automation added only after stability confirmed.

The Common Thread

If these patterns feel familiar, implementation is not the next step. Diagnosis is.

Organizations usually start by determining if they even have the right ownership in place. That happens here:

Request the Stability Verdict

Options come after evidence.