This is what a Flow Map looks like.

Lead qualification is working well. The sales team uses a consistent qualification framework and the CRM is populated accurately. No significant friction identified at this stage.

One minor observation: qualification criteria were last reviewed 3 years ago. As the market has shifted, there may be a case for updating the criteria — but this is a low-priority improvement.

Proposal creation is efficient. The template-based approach produces consistent output and the BD team is experienced. This stage is not a bottleneck.

However, the proposals contain significant assumed scope — assumptions that are not formally communicated to the operations team during handoff. This is not a problem here; it becomes a problem downstream.

Every proposal above £5,000 requires MD sign-off before submission. The average approval wait is 2.8 working days. The MD is frequently unavailable during this window.

In a 12-month period, 14 proposals were delayed at this stage. Two were submitted after the client's stated deadline.

There is no formal handoff process between sales and operations. When a proposal is won, the account manager sends an email. Sometimes this includes the proposal PDF. Sometimes it does not. The operations team then spends an average of 4.2 days trying to understand what was sold before they can begin planning.

In 6 of the 22 projects mapped, the operations team worked from an outdated proposal version. Three of those projects required significant scope rework mid-delivery.

Because proposals are written in commercial language for clients, the operations team cannot use them directly for planning. Every project requires 2–4 hours of scope re-interpretation before work can be scoped internally. This is entirely duplicated effort.

In several cases, the re-interpretation led to different assumptions than the sales team intended — creating downstream rework when the client raised issues against the original proposal.

Resource scheduling is managed via a physical whiteboard in the operations office. The system works when the ops manager is present. When they are on leave or off-site, nobody else can access or update the schedule — creating a single point of failure.

Three scheduling conflicts were identified in the previous 6 months, each requiring same-day reallocation. Two impacted delivery timelines.

The technical execution of projects is the strongest part of this business. The team is experienced, capable, and well-regarded by clients. This is not where the problems are.

The problems found at other stages — scope interpretation, change control, resource conflicts — all flow downstream into execution, creating pressure that the team absorbs without anyone upstream seeing it.

There is no formal change control process. When clients request changes mid-project — which happens in approximately 60% of projects — the changes are agreed verbally and absorbed by the operations team. In 8 of 22 projects, changes were delivered without a corresponding commercial adjustment.

The account managers are aware this is a problem. They feel uncomfortable raising it with clients. The operations team resents absorbing costs that the business is not charging for.

Project status reporting is informal and reactive. Reports are produced when clients ask, not on a set cadence. The MD has no real-time visibility of project health across the portfolio without asking the ops manager directly.

This is not currently causing project failures — but it is a decision-visibility gap that creates risk as the business grows. At current scale, it is manageable. At the next headcount threshold, it will become a significant problem.

Client delivery and sign-off is handled well. Relationships are strong and client satisfaction scores (from the post-project reviews that exist) are consistently high. This is a genuine strength of the business.

The only friction here flows upstream from the change control problem — occasionally clients push back on delivery scope because verbal change agreements were not formally documented. This is a symptom, not a root cause.

Invoices are raised an average of 11 working days after project delivery sign-off. The delay sits in the gap between the operations team confirming completion and the finance team being notified. There is no automated trigger — it relies on an email that is often delayed.

On a portfolio of 22 projects at average values, this creates a working capital drag that is real but not catastrophic at current scale.

There is no formal lessons-learned capture at project close. Knowledge from each project — what worked, what did not, what the client specifically needed — lives in the heads of the account manager and project lead. When either person leaves, that knowledge leaves with them.

This is currently low-cost because the team is stable. It becomes high-cost the moment a key person departs or the business tries to replicate a successful project approach.