James Fischer-Myall · Sign out
Assumptions and What Would Change the Plan
What the plan rests on, how I'd test it, and how I'd adapt
I've put this plan together from outside the business, so it rests on a handful of assumptions. Here's what they are, how I'd test each one in the first week, and what I'd do if one turns out to be wrong.
Why delivery comes first
The existing mandates are work the client has already won. The revenue, the client relationships and the reputation are already on the line. Changing how people work while they're delivering puts that at risk, so the order is deliver, then light controls, then strategic change. It's also how I've worked before: at SILK I stabilised the Victorian operations first, and the acquisition and integration work came after that.
My assumptions, and how I'd test them
| Assumption | How I'd test it | If it's wrong |
|---|---|---|
| There's an existing pipeline of committed mandates to deliver. | List every committed job with the owner in week one. | If the pipeline is thinner than expected, Level 1 shifts to working with the general manager on filling it, still without changing how the crews work. |
| The business wants stability, not dramatic change. | Ask the owner and general manager directly at the start, and confirm it at the end-of-week-1 review. | If they want to move faster, I'd bring Level 3 items forward, but still keep them out of peak. |
| Job cost, variation and cash information sits partly with individuals and in spreadsheets. | Walk each live job with the person running it and see what they use. | If good reporting already exists, I'd use it and not build anything new. |
| The season runs slow in January and February, heavy March to May, quiet in June and July, and peaks August to November. | Check against the last two years of revenue and crew hours by month. | Re-time when the Level 2 controls go in and when any Level 3 change is made. |
| Tickets, inductions and plant servicing are broadly current on live sites. | Check on every live site in the first fortnight. | Any gap goes straight to the top of the list, ahead of everything else. |
Where things aren't clear
How I'd approach it
- Work out what I need to understand first, and who already knows it
- Make the smallest decision that keeps live jobs moving
- Agree how we'll know whether it worked, and check back
- Test it against one question: does this help us deliver what we've already committed to?
An example
The general manager wins a large new job that would stretch the current crews. I'd welcome it, then do a quick capacity check with the general manager and owner before we commit to dates: crews, plant, subcontractors and the impact on jobs already promised. We'd agree a start date that protects existing clients, or what we'd need to bring in to take it on. Everything can be delivered; it's a question of cost and timing.
Disagreement
If the owner or general manager sees it differently at the end-of-week-1 review, I'd want to understand what they're seeing that I'm not, and test it against what I've found on the live jobs. It's the owner's business. My job is to give him the clearest picture I can and a recommendation, then back the decision once it's made.
What would change the plan
- A committed job in trouble. It goes to the top of the list straight away
- A safety gap on a live site. Fixed before anything else
- A cash issue. Invoicing and collections take priority over everything except safety
- The owner and general manager deciding a Level 3 change is more urgent. We'd agree how to do it without disrupting delivery, and time it outside peak