Problems we solve · Slow unpredictable delivery
You keep adding capacity. Nothing ships any faster.
Everything is urgent. Nobody can agree what to stop. Delivery dates move, and confidence in the next forecast is wearing thin.
What’s Really Happening
Slow delivery can reflect waiting, rework and competing priorities as well as insufficient capacity.
When everything is urgent, teams fail to understand what really is versus what isn’t. Adding more people usually increases the problem.
A 20-minute conversation. No pitch.
01 / Recognition
You may be hearing yourself say…
01
“We keep hiring engineers, and the backlog just gets bigger.”
02
“Decisions take too long, or never happen.”
03
“We can never agree on what to stop.”
04
“Every commitment becomes a burning platform.”
05
“We’ve tried frameworks, but delivery still isn’t predictable.”
Different symptoms. The same underlying question: where does the time between starting and finishing actually go?
02 / Diagnosis
Busy teams can still be part of a slow system
People can be busy being busy rather than delivering the outcomes the organisation really wants. This can lead to activity monitoring for monitoring’s sake, meetings with no substance and too many attendees, and people feeling like they’re constantly over-burdened.
The Central Problem
The organisation is set up to ensure everyone is busy all the time with too little attention paid to the value of work being done.
Starting work and completing work are different things. Local activity measures can conceal queues, interruptions and dependencies that determine elapsed delivery time.
01
Too much work in progress
Competing commitments divide attention. New requests enter faster than existing work can finish.
03
Priorities keep changing
Urgent requests displace agreed work without a visible decision about the cost of interruption.
04
Forecasts lack a reliable baseline
Dates are committed without enough evidence about variability, dependencies or the delivery system’s actual performance.
Additional capacity helps only if it addresses a limiting constraint. Otherwise it can feed more work into an existing system, eventually overwhelming it to the point of inertia.
03 / Intervention
Measure the flow, find the constraints, improve completion.
We don’t arrive with a framework, a reorganisation, or a replacement programme. We start by establishing what is actually happening, then put the evidence in front of you.
01
Establish a usable picture
We examine work in progress, completion rates, elapsed times, blocked work and rework using available records and conversations. We identify data gaps before treating any measure as reliable.
02
Test what limits delivery
We distinguish capacity constraints from approval delays, dependencies, priority changes and quality problems. Constraints can shift as the system changes; we review the evidence rather than assume one permanent bottleneck.
03
Improve and forecast in context
We agree fortnightly outcomes, such as reducing avoidable starts or resolving a recurring queue. We might use Kanban, Cost of Delay or Theory of Constraints where useful. Where data supports it, forecasts express a range and likelihood, with assumptions about scope and system stability made explicit.
The objective is a leadership team that can understand its delivery system and make credible commitments from it, and a working system that gets predictable results.
04 / Typical Engagement
What working with us looks like
Clear expectations. Defined outcomes. Accountability on both sides.
01
Diagnostic first
We start with a short, structured assessment. We agree scope, duration and executive involvement upfront. Complex work may need a longer assessment; we explain why before you commit. Executive involvement is kept as light as possible but will be more for more complex scenarios and may be front-loaded.
02
Two-week outcomes
We agree a three- or six-month direction, but commit to specific outcomes every fortnight, working with the people sponsoring and delivering the change.
03
Commercial alignment, not just day rates
We combine a baseline fee with payments linked to agreed outcomes. We take responsibility for our delivery, and put our mistakes right at our cost. Your commitments and dependencies are agreed upfront, so accountability works both ways.
04
Senior on every engagement
Every engagement is founder-led, with direct senior involvement throughout. Where specialist expertise or additional capacity is needed, we bring in trusted people with the right capabilities. You retain a single point of accountability.
05
Your strategy stays yours
We bring diagnosis, challenge, and intervention. Accountability for the strategic direction of your business remains with your leadership.
05 / Evidence
What this looks like in practice
Case Study
Making flow visible at Einride
Einride
At Einride, teams were busy, initiatives were numerous and metrics were extensive, but progress towards customer outcomes was limited. Making work visible and limiting work in progress formed part of the response.
The change led to a 320% increase in predictable delivery with a 50% uplift in quality in just 3 months.
Client Perspective
“Toby operates confidently at executive level while remaining grounded in operational reality.”
Martin Walsh
Chief Product & Technology Officer, Europe
Additional Sector Experience
Capital markets · Insurance · Fintech · EV charging · Telecoms · Data centres
06 / FAQ
Questions people ask
Not as such. We don’t force any specific framework or methodology on you. We recommend based on our diagnostic. Sometimes that will include one or more agile methods, but we’ve also been known to recommend Waterfall as a method where it made sense. The starting point is delivery across the system: intake, priorities, decisions, dependencies and completion. Team practices may be relevant, but we do not assume that changing ceremonies or coaching teams will address the constraint.
Yes. We examine the flow across organisational and supplier boundaries, including acceptance, decisions and contractual dependencies. The constraint may sit with your organisation, a supplier, or the interaction between them; that needs evidence.
Work records showing starts, finishes, work types and blocked periods are useful, alongside current priorities and commitments. We assess what your tools actually record and agree access and handling. Anonymised data from a tool such as Jira, Trello, Azure DevOps, Monday, Asana, or any work management tool can provide some deep insights at the individual team level too.
That depends on data quality, variability, work mix, the stability of the delivery system, and the willingness of the organisation to engage with new tools and methods. We establish a baseline and make forecast assumptions explicit. With more complex engagements it will take longer than with those that are more straightforward. Bear in mind that it is necessary to establish a baseline from which to measure, which itself can take time.
We may recommend stopping, deferring or narrowing work if current commitments exceed the system’s ability to complete them. Leadership makes those trade-offs using a shared view of value, urgency and consequences.
We combine a baseline fee with payments linked to agreed outcomes. This creates commitment on both sides while keeping the commercial focus on results rather than activity.
If we miss an agreed outcome through our own fault, we put it right. Where delivery depends on information, decisions, or commitments from your organisation, those dependencies and their commercial implications are agreed upfront.
We can also consider bespoke arrangements, including fees linked to measurable savings or other commercial benefits.
07 / Next Step
Tell us what’s stuck
A 20-minute call with Toby Corballis about your situation. Not a pitch, a demo, or a discovery call delegated to someone junior.
We’ll follow up with a short written view of what we’ve heard and where we’d look first.
There’s no proposal unless you ask for one, and “not now” is a perfectly good outcome.
Prefer email? [email protected]
Or call +44 (20) 8088-5705