Who We Serve

The discipline does not change with the size of the business. What changes is how much structure it needs to survive contact with the organisation. A governance framework that keeps a global programme honest will suffocate a company of forty people, and the informality that lets a scale-up move fast becomes the reason a mid-cap cannot explain its own decisions.

Startups and scale-ups

Lean, fast discovery and hands-on delivery when every decision counts.

At this stage the constraint is rarely ambition or talent. It is that every significant decision is being taken for the first time, by people already fully occupied, with no margin for a wrong one. The commercially destructive mistakes we see are not reckless — they are reasonable decisions made without visibility of what they commit you to two years out. A platform chosen for speed that cannot carry the data model. An integration built once by someone who has since left. Consumption pricing agreed without a modelled ceiling.

Our work here is deliberately compressed: short, senior, and specific. Often a few days rather than a programme. The most valuable output is frequently a decision not taken — and a written reason, so it does not get re-litigated every quarter.

We are also candid about when you do not need us yet. A consultancy engagement is a poor substitute for a first proper hire, and we will say so.

Mid-caps and growth businesses

Structured transformation and governance as you scale past founder instinct alone.

This is the centre of our practice, and it is where the most interesting failure mode lives. Mid-market businesses reach a size where the things that made them successful — speed, informality, decisions taken in corridors — become the things holding them back. Nobody notices the transition happening. It shows up later as margin nobody can locate, decisions that take three times as long as they used to, and an operating model still shaped like the business you were three acquisitions ago.

The hard part is not adding structure. It is adding only the structure that pays for itself, because the alternative is a business that moves like a large one without the balance sheet of one.

Mid-caps also sit in a genuine gap. Too large for the informality that worked at fifty people, too small to absorb enterprise-grade consulting fees or a written-off programme. There is no innovation budget to hide a failure in and no Big Four retainer to socialise the blame. That constraint is exactly why we work the way we do: discovery before programmes, instrumented baselines before benefit claims, and a willingness to recommend the cheaper answer.

Global corporations and enterprise

Board-level programme leadership and AI governance for complex, regulated, multi-market change.

At enterprise scale the problem is rarely capability — it is coherence. Multiple programmes, several jurisdictions, competing internal mandates, and a governance layer receiving activity reporting that it mistakes for progress. Our leadership has run large-scale transformation across 24 countries at board level, and the recurring value we add is not more delivery capacity. It is independent judgement in rooms where everyone else has a position to defend.

That includes the recommendation nobody in the room is incentivised to make: that a programme should be stopped. A programme with no failure condition has no success condition either, and continuing to fund one because stopping is embarrassing is the most expensive governance failure available.

AI governance sits heavily here too, because scale and regulation multiply the exposure. Where systems are placed on the EU market, the EU AI Act applies regardless of where the developing entity is incorporated, with high-risk obligations in full effect from August 2026. More on AI governance →