Five ways in.

A program is red, slipping, or has quietly become un-plannable. The team is working hard; the date keeps moving anyway. That is almost never a motivation problem — it is a structure problem, and it is fixable.

We take accountability for getting it back to a date the business can commit to externally, and for the plan being one you can defend line by line.

What it involves

• Independent read on scope, sequence, capacity, and the true critical path
• Re-baselined plan decomposed into increments small enough to actually finish
• A single owner per increment, with the authority that implies
• Weekly delivery review that makes decisions rather than collecting status
• Honest re-forecast to the sponsor, including the parts they will not enjoy

What you get

• A defensible date, with the evidence behind it
• A live plan your own leads maintain, not a consultant artefact
• A governance cadence that survives our departure

You are between leaders, mid-reorganisation, or carrying a peak that your current structure was never sized for. We step into the seat and run it — with the same accountability as a permanent hire, and none of the twelve-week ramp.

We are equally comfortable holding the role and then handing it to the person you hire. In fact that is the preferred ending.

What it involves

• Day-to-day ownership of the program or delivery function
• Running the planning, escalation, and steering cadence
• Stakeholder and vendor management at executive level
• Coaching the delivery leads who will still be there afterwards
• An explicit succession plan from week one, not week thirty

A short, evidence-based read on whether the plan is real, what will break it, and what to do about it in the next ninety days. Designed to be commissioned quickly and to end with a decision rather than a debate.

This is the usual front door. It is deliberately small enough that you can commission it without a procurement cycle, and self-contained enough that you owe us nothing afterwards.

How the three weeks run

What you get

• A written assessment with the evidence attached, not just conclusions
• A ranked list of what will break the date, and the cost of each fix
• A 90-day plan your team can execute with or without us

Stand up a delivery function that did not exist, or repair one that has drifted into reporting for its own sake. The test we hold ourselves to: does the PMO make it easier to finish things, or only easier to describe them?

What it involves

• Intake and prioritisation that says no, in writing, with a reason
• Planning cadence and increment sizing appropriate to your delivery model
• Role clarity — who decides scope, who decides date, who decides trade-offs
• Governance forums with defined decision rights and a quorum that matters
• Reporting cut to what a decision-maker actually uses, and nothing else
• Capability build for the leads who inherit it

Where a systems integrator, platform vendor, or offshore partner is running the plan and you have lost the ability to challenge it. We rebuild the client-side muscle: what good looks like, how it is measured, and what happens when it is not met.

What it involves

• Independent review of vendor plan, estimates, and delivery evidence
• Statement of work and milestone structure that ties payment to demonstrable outcomes
• Scorecards and QBR structure that the vendor cannot comfortably game
• Portfolio-level view of commitments against real capacity
• Escalation and remediation paths agreed before you need them

A note on independence. We hold no reseller agreements, referral fees, or implementation partnerships with any software vendor or SI. When we assess a vendor's plan, nothing is riding on the answer except being right.