Practices

Five towers. Five numbers that move.

One card per tower: what is broken, what changes, and the metric your board already tracks. Open a card only if you want the workflow, the screen and the delivery detail underneath it.

01 · Operations

One resignation, and a capability leaves with the person.

illustrative of the design
Procedures only one person can run
8 of 321 of 32
New joiner productive after
31 days9 days-22 days
Answers backed by a cited clause
noneevery one

The same question, before and after

ASKED OF THE TEAMSame question, three desks, Tuesday morning
Credit note above 50,000Ask the desk lead
Where the answer came fromMemory
If the usual owner is on leaveIt waits
Time to a defensible answer40 minutes, if found
ASKED OF THE SYSTEMSame question, one answer, 1.9 seconds
Credit note above 50,000Second approval, regional controller
Where the answer came fromSOP-AR-014 §3.2, version 6
If the usual owner is on leaveGap logged as work item OPS-238
Time to a defensible answer1.9 seconds, with the clause
✓ improved
31 → 9days for a new joiner to be productive

Eight of thirty two procedures currently run on one person's memory, which is a resignation risk no dashboard shows. Every answer now carries the clause it came from, and any question with no clause behind it becomes a work item for the process owner instead of a shrug. illustrative of the design

The grid of procedures becomes an operating risk register that shared services has never actually had, and it moves month to month because the procedures are generated rather than remembered.

The workflow, the screen and what we deliver

Where it breaks today

Process knowledge lives in people. The written procedure is out of date the week after it is written, every exception becomes a conversation, and when someone resigns the team loses a capability rather than a pair of hands.

What we do

  • Process discovery and mapping, with the control points named
  • Shared service design, migration waves and transition governance
  • A process knowledge agent that answers from your current procedure and cites it
  • Standard operating procedures that stay current because they are generated
  • Intelligent ticket routing across the service catalogue
  • Productivity baselining and a defensible cost per transaction
Thirty two procedures in one towerillustrative of the design

What happens to this operation the week your best person resigns?

documented, more than one owner written but stale beyond 90 days lives in one person's head
Procedures with a single owner8
Written but stale beyond 90 days9
Days to make a new joiner useful31

Every red square is a resignation risk you cannot see on a dashboard. The agent answers from the current procedure and cites the clause, and every question it cannot answer becomes a work item for the process owner. The grid is the operating risk register that shared services never had, and it moves because the SOPs are generated rather than remembered.

Process knowledge agent · query 4471

Credit notes above 50,000 need a second approval from the regional controller, and the original invoice must be referenced on the credit note. Below that threshold the desk lead can approve alone.

SOP-AR-014 §3.2version 6, currentanswered in 1.9s
Gap logged. The procedure does not state what happens when the regional controller is on leave. Queued to the process owner as work item OPS-238.
02 · Order to Cash

The invoice goes out, and then it gets corrected.

illustrative of the design
When a billing error is caught
after issuebefore issue
Days added to a balance by one credit note
about 40none
Value at risk on this single invoice
1,036on an 18,352 order

Billing accuracy, checked before issue

THE CONTRACT, CLAUSE 4.2Signed 12 Jan, current version
Rate per unit12.40
Quantity, per proof of delivery1,480 units
Freight recoveryRecoverable, clause 9.1
Net value of the invoice18,352.00
THE INVOICE AS DRAFTEDSO-40218, due to leave today
Rate per unit13.10
Quantity, per proof of delivery1,480 units·
Freight recoveryNot billed
Net value of the invoice19,388.00
✗ costs money
1,036.00at risk on this one invoice

Issued as drafted, this becomes a customer query, a credit note, and forty days added to the age of the balance. The check runs before the invoice leaves the building, so the correction is an internal matter rather than a dispute. reason code RATE-VAR

Contract terms are served to the check as live tolerances, so the rate on a draft invoice is compared with clause 4.2 before it is issued, not after the customer disputes it. A credit note is a failure that has already reached the customer.

The workflow, the screen and what we deliver

Where it breaks today

The invoice goes out, and then it gets corrected. Credit notes clean up what the process should have caught, days sales outstanding drifts, and no one can separate the customers who are genuinely late from the ones sitting on a disputed line.

What we do

  • Order capture, amendment and eight rule validation before release
  • Credit and stock release, allocation, shipment and proof of delivery gating
  • Billing accuracy checked before the invoice is issued, not after
  • Collections cadence management with a collector desk
  • Remittance matching and cash application
  • Deduction and dispute management, with reason codes that report
Receivables ledger, 4.9millustrative of the design

Which of these customers is late, and which is simply in dispute?

Current0k
1 to 300k
31 to 600k
61 to 900k
Over 900k
Collections effortchased in list order
Days sales outstanding62
Cash pulled out of the tail0k
Ledger in dispute, not late12.2%

The hatched portion of every bar is disputed value. Chasing it does not collect it, it manufactures a complaint, so it leaves the collections queue and enters deductions with its reason code. Move the slider and effort stops following the sort order and starts following value, age and whether the customer kept the last promise they made. The number a chief financial officer cares about is on the left, and it moves.

Billing accuracy check · pre issue · SO-40218
Contract rate, clause 4.212.40 / unitsource
Rate on draft invoice13.10 / unit+5.6%
Quantity, proof of delivery1,480 unitsmatch
Freight recoveryNot billedmissing
Held before issue. Rate exceeds the contracted rate by 5.6 per cent and agreed freight recovery is absent. Value at risk 1,036.00. Routed to the billing desk with reason code RATE-VAR, not to the customer.
03 · Procure to Pay

Cost per invoice is fixed to headcount, so volume is hired for.

illustrative of the design
Three way matchPer supplier toleranceTwo human gatesReason coded exceptions

What the match actually compares

PURCHASE ORDER PO-77310Raised 04 Jun · 1,180 units at 4.00
Supplier10442
ItemA-22 assembly
Quantity1,180 received
Unit price4.00
Net value4,720.00
SUPPLIER INVOICE INV-88421Received 28 Jun · supplier 10442
Supplier10442·
ItemA-22 assembly·
Quantity1,296 billed
Unit price4.00·
Net value5,184.00
✗ costs money
464.00billed above what was received

That is 9.8 per cent over, against the 5 per cent tolerance agreed with this supplier. Held before payment, not after it, routed with reason code QTY-OVER, and the note back to the supplier is drafted from these two columns for a person to read and send. the payment gate never fires

AI reads the document, a deterministic rules engine does the match, and two human gates hold the write and the payment. The ERP is unchanged.

The workflow, the screen and what we deliver

Where it breaks today

Invoices are keyed by hand, three way match is done on a second screen, and the payment run depends on somebody remembering which lines are in dispute. Volume is carried by headcount, so cost per invoice never falls.

What we do

  • Intake from mailbox or portal, hashed and de-duplicated
  • Header and line extraction with a human verification gate before posting
  • Purchase order and receipt retrieval, read only, from your own system
  • Deterministic three way match with per vendor tolerance configuration
  • Exception routing with reason codes, and drafted vendor replies a person sends
  • Payment proposal with a final human approval gate, and freight audit
Procure to pay, live AI, read only Human decision System of record 8 steps · 2 human gates
SystemInvoice arrivesMailbox or portal, hash de-dupe
AIRead and extractedHeader and lines, structured
Gate 1Reviewer verifiesOne click push, nothing posts before it
SystemPre bookedYour ERP, unchanged
AIPO and receipt foundRead only retrieval
RulesThree way matchSupplier, quantity, price, tax
Gate 2Finance approvesPayment decision stays human
AIVendor reply draftedA person reads and sends it
MATCH

Moves to the payment proposal. The approver sees the match evidence, not a green tick they have to trust.

BREAK

Routed to exceptions with a reason code, and a reply to the supplier is drafted from the actual variance.

Three way match · INV-88421 · supplier 10442
Purchase order PO-773104,820.00match
Goods receipt GR-512881,180 unitsmatch
Supplier invoice5,284.00+9.6%
Tolerance for this supplier5.0%
Match break, quantity. Invoice bills 1,296 units against 1,180 received. Variance 464.00, which is 9.6 per cent, above the 5 per cent tolerance set for this supplier. Reason code QTY-OVER. Nothing has been posted for payment.
04 · Customer Service

The angriest key account waits behind a password reset.

illustrative of the design
Contacts breaching service level, per 100
113-73%
Resolved on first contact
58%79%+21 pts
Average touches to close one contact
2.61.3-50%

One ticket, before and after routing

THE CONTACT AS IT LANDS TODAYOne queue, worked in order of arrival
Position in the queue9th, behind a password reset
What it is aboutUnknown until someone reads it
Linked toNothing
Service level4 hours, 41 minutes remaining
The replyWritten from scratch
THE SAME CONTACT, 200ms LATERClassified, linked and routed
Position in the queue1st, deductions desk
What it is aboutShort delivery claim, 0.94 confidence
Linked toOrder SO-40218, proof of delivery attached
Service level4 hours, agent starts now
The replyDrafted: credit 56 units, clause 7.1
✓ improved
58% → 79%resolved on first contact

In one queue the skill that should own this ticket never sees it, and the angriest key account waits behind a password reset. Classified on arrival and routed by intent, value and service level, so the agent opens it with the evidence and a draft already attached. illustrative of the design

What is learned then goes back upstream. A short delivery claim is a fulfilment defect wearing a customer service costume, so it joins the fulfilment trend instead of closing quietly as a satisfied customer.

The workflow, the screen and what we deliver

Where it breaks today

Everything lands in one queue and is triaged by whoever is free. The same forty questions are answered from memory every month, and none of what is learned finds its way back into the process that caused the contact.

What we do

  • Classification and entity extraction on arrival, before a human sees it
  • Routing by skill, language, value and service level rather than by order of arrival
  • Agent assist grounded in your own procedures, with the source shown
  • Closed loop customer feedback capture at the point of resolution
  • Root cause trending that feeds the upstream process, not a dashboard
  • Escalation and exception management with named owners
Service desk, one morningillustrative of the design

Who decided that the angriest key account waits behind a password reset?

Contacts breaching service level4
Resolved at first contact58%
Touches per resolution2.6

In one queue, order of arrival decides everything and the skill that should have taken the ticket never sees it. Classified on arrival, the same nine contacts sort themselves by intent, entity, value and service level, and the three hardest arrive with a drafted reply already attached to the order record. The agent edits and sends. What is learned goes back upstream, because a shortfall claim is a fulfilment defect wearing a customer service costume.

Intelligent routing · ticket 20-8814
IntentShort delivery claim0.94
Order matchedSO-40218linked
Customer tierKey accountSLA 4h
Routed toDeductions desk
Assist, with the source. Proof of delivery shows 1,480 units against 1,536 ordered. Draft reply proposes a credit for 56 units under clause 7.1 of the supply agreement. The agent edits and sends. Feedback is captured on close and the shortfall joins the fulfilment trend.
05 · FP&A

The month closes, then a week disappears explaining it.

illustrative of the design
Working days from close to signed commentary
83-5 days
Margin movement traced to a named driver
61%93%+32 pts
Movement reported honestly as unexplained
31kof 109k

The same month, explained two ways

COMMENTARY AS WRITTEN TODAYDay 8, by whoever had the time
Gross margin against planAhead of plan
Why it is aheadBetter volumes and cost control
What went the other waySome input cost pressure
The part nobody can explainNot mentioned
A challenge in the meetingAnswered next week
COMMENTARY AS DRAFTEDDay 3, the analyst edits and signs it
Gross margin against plan+109k against plan
Why it is aheadVolume +312k, of which 214k from two accounts
What went the other wayInput cost -264k, one resin grade at -11%
The part nobody can explain31k, reported as unexplained=
A challenge in the meetingAnswered from the driver, in the room
✓ improved= unchanged, deliberately
8 → 3working days to signed commentary

The left column is not wrong. It is unfalsifiable, which is worse in front of a board. Every sentence on the right points at a driver and a number, and the movement no driver explains is reported as unexplained rather than narrated. illustrative of the design

The pack reaches the board with the workings attached, and the thirteen week cash forecast rolls forward on actuals rather than being rebuilt by hand every month by the one person who understands the file.

The workflow, the screen and what we deliver

Where it breaks today

The month closes, and then a week disappears explaining it. Commentary is written by whoever has time rather than whoever has context, and the cash forecast is a spreadsheet only one person can open safely.

What we do

  • Driver based budgeting, so a plan change is a driver change
  • Period close with a balanced journal constraint that cannot be overridden
  • Variance analysis with a drafted narrative traced to the drivers that moved
  • Thirteen week cash forecast that rolls forward automatically
  • Intake to cash conversion, realised foreign exchange on settlement
  • Value added tax return preparation and inventory valuation
Gross margin, period 07plan 4,200k to actual 4,309k

You have five days to explain this to the board. Who writes the first draft?

+312kVolume
+188kPrice and mix
-264kInput cost
-96kFreight
-31kUnexplained
+109kNet
Working days to signed commentary3
Movement traced to a named driver93%
Presented as unexplained31k

The narrative is drafted only from the drivers that actually moved, so every sentence points at a number an analyst can defend in the room. The hatched column is the part no driver explains, and it is reported as unexplained rather than narrated. A finance function loses more credibility to one confident wrong sentence than to an honest gap, so the drafting rule is that silence beats plausibility.

Variance narrative · gross margin · period 07
Volume+312k
Price and mix+188k
Input cost-264k
Freight-96k
Unexplained-31k

Gross margin is 109k ahead of plan. Volume contributed 312k, of which 214k came from two key accounts recovering after the Q2 shortfall. Input cost took back 264k, concentrated in a single resin grade that moved 11 per cent. Freight absorbed a further 96k against a plan built before the carrier rate change.

31k remains unexplained and is presented as such rather than attributed. The drafting rule is that a driver with no movement behind it does not get a sentence.

Figures shown as modelled come from a fully costed programme design, and in an engagement every line is rebuilt from your own numbers so the saving can be verified rather than believed. Everything marked illustrative shows the shape of the design rather than a delivered result, and is labelled that way everywhere it appears.

Engagement models

Three ways to work with us

The tower decides what we work on. This decides how the commercial relationship is shaped.

FIXED SCOPE

Build

A defined system, a defined price and a defined date. Used where the scope can be written down honestly, which is more often than most vendors admit.

RETAINED

Build and run

We build the system and then operate the process on it, with a service level. You buy an outcome rather than a licence and a hope.

ADVISORY

Assess and architect

A short, senior engagement that produces an architecture, a control design and a business case you can take to your own board.

Which tower is costing you the most?

Bring the process and the monthly volume. We will show you the workflow we would put under it, and where the human gates belong.