Streamlining Consulting Workflows

Don’t Automate Complexity... Simplify and Error-Proof Instead When problems arise, it’s tempting to think automation is the magic fix. But automating a broken or complex process just means you’re speeding up the production of errors. The smarter approach? Simplify the process and error-proof it (Poka Yoke) before thinking about automation. Here’s why simplification often beats automation and how you can apply it. Why You Should Simplify Before Automating: 1️⃣ Faster, Cheaper Improvements Simplifying a process through standardization and removing unnecessary steps often solves problems more quickly and at a lower cost than automation. 2️⃣ Avoid Automating Waste If your process is full of waste (like waiting, overprocessing, or rework), automating it only speeds up inefficiency. Fix the process first, then think about automation. 3️⃣ Built-In Error Proofing With Poka Yoke solutions (like jigs, fixtures, or guides), you can design processes to prevent errors from happening in the first place—without needing expensive sensors or software. 4️⃣ Flexibility and Adaptability Simplified processes are easier to adjust and improve, while automated systems can be rigid and costly to change once implemented. How to Simplify and Error-Proof a Process: 🔍 Map the Current Workflow: Identify unnecessary steps, bottlenecks, and areas prone to errors. ✂️ Eliminate Waste: Remove any steps that don’t add value to the product or service. 📋 Standardize Work: Create clear, repeatable instructions that everyone can follow. 🔧 Introduce Poka Yoke: Physical Error-Proofing: Use jigs, fixtures, or alignment guides to prevent incorrect assembly. Visual Cues: Use color-coded labels or visual templates to guide operators. Sensors or Alarms: Only when needed, use low-cost technology to detect errors in real time. Example of Simplification and Poka Yoke in Action: A warehouse team was dealing with frequent errors when picking products for orders. Instead of implementing a costly automated picking system, they: 1. Introduced a color-coded bin system (Poka Yoke) to help operators select the correct items. 2. Simplified the picking route to reduce unnecessary walking and waiting time. Result: Picking errors dropped by 80%, and productivity increased by 15%—all without expensive automation. When to Consider Automation: Once the process is simplified and stabilized with minimal variation, automation can enhance speed and efficiency. But it should support an optimized process, not mask its problems.

As systems grow more complex, choosing the right architectural style becomes crucial. Here's a categorized overview of key software architecture styles: Monolithic vs. Distributed 1. 𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗰 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲    - Single, tightly-coupled unit    - Simple for small apps, challenging for large systems 2. 𝗠𝗶𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲    - Loosely coupled, independent services    - Scalable but complex to manage 3. 𝗦𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲-𝗢𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 (𝗦𝗢𝗔)    - Services communicate via standard protocols    - Promotes reusability and interoperability Layered Approaches 4. 𝗟𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲    - Organizes code into functional layers    - Clear separation of concerns 5. 𝗢𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲    - Core contains business logic, outer layers for infrastructure    - Enhances maintainability and testability 6. 𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹-𝗩𝗶𝗲𝘄-𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗿 (𝗠𝗩𝗖)    - Separates logic, UI, and control flow    - Popular in web applications 7. 𝗛𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗴𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 (𝗣𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝗱𝗮𝗽𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀)    - Isolates core logic from external concerns    - Enhances flexibility and testability Event-Driven and Reactive 8. 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁-𝗗𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲    - Components communicate through events    - Highly decoupled and scalable 9. 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲    - Focuses on responsiveness and resilience    - Ideal for real-time systems Cloud and Serverless 10. 𝗦𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲    - Cloud provider manages infrastructure    - Pay-per-execution model 11. 𝗖𝗹𝗼𝘂𝗱-𝗡𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲    - Designed to fully leverage cloud capabilities    - Emphasizes scalability and automation Specialized Architectures 12. 𝗦𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗲-𝗕𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲    - Uses in-memory data grid for high scalability    - Suited for specific high-concurrency scenarios 13. 𝗣𝗲𝗲𝗿-𝘁𝗼-𝗣𝗲𝗲𝗿 (𝗣𝟮𝗣)    - Decentralized, nodes act as both clients and servers    - Used in file sharing and blockchain 14. 𝗗𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻-𝗗𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗗𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 (𝗗𝗗𝗗)    - Aligns architecture with business domain    - Emphasizes ubiquitous language and bounded contexts 15. 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗤𝘂𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗦𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 (𝗖𝗤𝗥𝗦)    - Separates read and write operations    - Optimizes for complex domains with high performance needs 16. 𝗣𝗶𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲    - Processes data through a series of stages    - Common in data processing and ETL workflows Each style has its strengths and challenges. Real-world applications often combine multiple styles to meet specific requirements. What's your experience with these architectures? Which ones do you find most effective in your projects?

In April I sent a company-wide note with the subject line “I hate meetings.” Unsurprisingly, it’s our most-read internal communication to date. My message was simple: meetings can be incredibly effective when done right, but we’ve all adopted some bad habits when it comes to using our time – and our colleagues’ time – wisely.   After soliciting feedback from colleagues around the world through polling, group discussions and direct outreach, I shared our first round of meeting-focused updates:   ✔ Default meeting lengths in Outlook would now be 20- and 40-minute blocks, as opposed to 30 and 60 minutes. ✔ Pre-reads should be utilized more, prepared in a thoughtful way and sent at least 24 hours in advance. ✔ Even when the purpose of a meeting is clear, agendas matter! We should get in the habit of creating clear and concise agendas for all meetings, regardless of length. ✔ Less technical, but just as important: when considering a meeting, ask yourself – can this be done another way (e.g., e-mail, phone call, walk down the hall for an in-person discussion)? If a meeting is required, when considering participants ask yourself who really needs to take part. In the first month, total meetings per week dropped by ~1,800, and total audio minutes per week dropped by ~15%; that’s 282,280 minutes, or more than 4,700 hours. Stating the obvious, that’s rapid culture change. And while things have normalized a bit (at least, until our next round of updates), we’re still seeing a downward trend. Are these groundbreaking ideas for how to become a more efficient and effective organization? No, but they don’t have to be. Sometimes it’s as simple as 1) reminding people that we don’t have to operate a certain way because “that’s how we’ve always done things,” and 2) encouraging ownership of our time, the most valuable commodity we have. #CompanyCulture #TimeManagement #WorkSmarter

I often think about how unnecessary communication hassles and competing interests can mess up teamwork between departments. Clearly, DESIGN THINKING could have been a significant help. Most times it’s due to misaligned objectives or expectations. And while Design Thinking isn't the only framework for this, it's the one I've had hands-on experience for facilitating cross-departmental collaboration. Unlike other problem-solving approaches, Design Thinking doesn't discriminate if you're from legal, sales, or other department. In a corporate world often focused on competition, Design Thinking workshops ensure everyone has a voice, fostering participation in both sharing and listening. You might be thinking, "How can the UX team introduce Design Thinking to departments that have historically been less open to such collaborative methods?" The key is customization and relevance. Here are some examples of how I pitched the idea to other departments: 1. Legal: Enhance contract quality, document management and legal compliance. 2. Risk management: Predict and mitigate risks with collective insights. Finance: Boost record accuracy and efficiency for better financial analysis. 3. Operations: Streamline processes, reduce bottlenecks, and optimize resources with process improvement workshops. 4. Human resources: Design employee-centric policies, benefits, and onboarding processes for a happier and more productive workforce. 5. Sales and marketing: Create buyer personas and develop marketing campaigns in workshops that enhance customer engagement. 6. IT: Uncover user pains and understand technical possibilities and limitations on how to address them. 7. Supply chain: Optimize logistics, reduce lead times, and ensure timely deliveries. What has been your experience when trying to collaborate across departments?

Let's be honest: extensive cross-team coordination is often a symptom of a larger problem, not an inevitable challenge that needs solving. When teams spend more time in alignment than on building, it's time to reconsider your organizational design. Conway's Law tells us that our systems inevitably mirror our communication structures. When I see teams drowning in coordination overhead, I look at these structural factors: - Team boundaries that cut across frequent workflows: If a single user journey requires six different teams to coordinate, your org structure might be optimized for technical specialization at the expense of delivery flow. - Mismatched team autonomy and system architecture: Microservices architecture with monolithic teams (or vice versa) creates natural friction points that no amount of coordination rituals can fully resolve. - Implicit dependencies that become visible too late: Teams discover they're blocking each other only during integration, indicating boundaries were drawn without understanding the full system dynamics. Rather than adding more coordination mechanisms, consider these structural approaches: - Domain-oriented teams over technology-oriented teams: Align team boundaries with business domains rather than technical layers to reduce cross-team handoffs. - Team topologies that acknowledge different types of teams: Platform teams, enabling teams, stream-aligned teams, and complicated subsystem teams each have different alignment needs. - Deliberate discovery of dependencies: Map the invisible structures in your organization before drawing team boundaries, not after. Dependencies are inevitable and systems are increasingly interconnected, so some cross-team alignment will always be necessary. When structural changes aren't immediately possible, here's what I've learned works to keep things on the right track: 1️⃣ Shared mental models matter more than shared documentation. When teams understand not just what other teams are building, but why and how it fits into the bigger picture, collaboration becomes fluid rather than forced. 2️⃣ Interface-first development creates clear contracts between systems, allowing teams to work autonomously while maintaining confidence in integration. 3️⃣ Regular alignment rituals prevent drift. Monthly tech radar sessions, quarterly architecture reviews, and cross-team demonstrations create the rhythm of alignment. 4️⃣ Technical decisions need business context. When engineers understand user and business outcomes, they make better architectural choices that transcend team boundaries. 5️⃣ Optimize for psychological safety across teams. The ability to raise concerns outside your immediate team hierarchy is what prevents organizational blind spots. The best engineering leaders recognize that excessive coordination is a tax on productivity. You can work to improve coordination, or you can work to reduce the need for coordination in the first place.

Over the years, I've discovered the truth: Game-changing products won't succeed unless they have a unified vision across sales, marketing, and product teams. When these key functions pull in different directions, it's a death knell for go-to-market execution. Without alignment on positioning and buyer messaging, we fail to communicate value and create disjointed experiences. So, how do I foster collaboration across these functions? 1) Set shared goals and incentivize unity towards that North Star metric, be it revenue, activations, or retention. 2) Encourage team members to work closely together, building empathy rather than skepticism of other groups' intentions and contributions. 3) Regularly conduct cross-functional roadmapping sessions to cascade priorities across departments and highlight dependencies. 4) Create an environment where teams can constructively debate assumptions and strategies without politics or blame. 5) Provide clarity for sales on target personas and value propositions to equip them for deal conversations. 6) Involve all functions early in establishing positioning and messaging frameworks. Co-create when possible. By rallying together around customers’ needs, we block and tackle as one team towards product-market fit. The magic truly happens when teams unite towards a shared mission to delight users!

There's a gap between digital transformation and operational excellence. A gap that can be narrowed with a lean approach. For true operational excellence, we need technologies to work seamlessly across departments and functions. But...companies are investing and 'going digital' without fully aligning new technologies with existing systems, processes and people! So people are often spending more time figuring out how to use a new tool or duplicating efforts across disconnected systems 🤷♀️ Done right...a lean approach can provide a structured framework for integration that takes into account organizational culture and people.  Here's how it can help: 1️⃣ Sets clearer goals for the technology 💠 Lean thinking and tools help you figure out what problem the technology should solve and how it will make things better. 💠 Discussions about the technology involve the people doing the work so people feel involved from the start and are more likely to support the changes. 2️⃣ Improves processes before adding technology 💠 Lean thinking and tools encourages cleaning up messy or inefficient workflows first, so you don’t end up using technology to automate bad processes. 💠 Streamlining things first ensures the technology works smoothly and brings real improvements. 3️⃣ Builds a mindset for ongoing improvement (not once-off solutions) 💠 A Lean approach shapes a culture where change is the norm and people are always looking for ways to do things better. 💠 It encourages small, manageable changes and pilot programmes that build trust and confidence in new technologies. 4️⃣ Helps people adjusts to change 💠 A lean approach emphasizes people development, good communication and training so that everyone understands how to use new technology and why it’s helpful. 💠 Leadership development is part of a Lean approach (it is in my book anyway) so leaders are coached and trained to address concerns and enable smooth transitions. 5️⃣ Supports data management 💠 Advanced technologies produce a LOT of data, and a lean approach helps teams focus on what’s important and use that data to improve processes. 💠 People then feel empowered when they see how data can help them work smarter, not harder. 6️⃣ Standardizes how the technology is used 💠 A lean approach ensures new technology works across different teams and locations by standardizing how it’s used. 💠 It provides a framework for scaling up successful changes so the pace of change is not overwhelming for people. Basically...a #lean approach helps us to invest in technologies that can actually fix problems. It ensures that we involve people along the way and make work easier for everyone. Any thoughts on the topic? Leave your comments below 🙏

My Two Cents on Operational Excellence After working with teams on Operational Excellence, I have realized something simple: it’s not about doing more with less…it’s about creating lasting value. Here are five mistakes I often see and what to do instead: 1. Focusing Only on Cost-Cutting - Chasing savings alone rarely builds excellence. What to do: Focus on value creation. Instead of reducing staff, redesign workflows to speed up delivery and enhance customer experience. 2. Overlooking the People Factor - Processes guide, but people drive change. What to do: Involve employees early and make them part of the solution. Run brainstorming sessions with frontline teams and implement their best ideas. 3. Overloading with Too Many Tools - Adopting every methodology at once leads to confusion. What to do: Choose tools that solve specific problems. Use Lean to reduce cycle time before investing in advanced automation. 4. Limited Leadership Commitment - OpEx thrives when leaders walk the talk. What to do: Make leadership involvement visible. Spend time on the production floor weekly to identify challenges and improvement opportunities. 5. Missing Data-Driven Decisions - Assumptions limit progress. What to do: Use data to guide actions and measure impact. Example: If defect rates rise, analyze patterns and adjust processes immediately. I believe OpEx succeeds when efficiency, innovation, and people work together. It’s about small, consistent improvements…exactly the spirit of Kaizen. #OperationalExcellence #LeanSixSigma #AIGPE

Utilizing 100% of capacity seems efficient, but isn't. When something is at 100% utilization, it's actually the bottleneck. Bottlenecks can't withstand increases in demand. If an unexpected issue arises, the whole system suffers as a result. It's best to aim for ~80% utilization. This principle applies to any process. Applying it to people, it's important to work at a sustainable pace and to build routine cooldowns into cycles. Be mindful when assigning and scheduling work to not use all available capacity. Doing so will lead to burnout, delays, and less efficient work.

𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗼𝘀, 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗵 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 After supporting multiple MedTech firms over the last 24 months, one painful trend keeps surfacing: Companies spend tons in remediation costs and face market delays when Marketing and Regulatory aren’t aligned In one recent engagement, we helped a client reduce the amount of non conformities they got io past audits/inspections by aligning their marketing and regulatory functions under a single cross-functional framework Here are 6 hard-earned lessons that can save you time, money and headaches whether you're preparing for CE Marking, a 510(k) or planning post-market surveillance: 1. 𝗘𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗮 𝗖𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀-𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀 𝗥𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗲 • Include Marketing, Regulatory, Clinical and Legal • In our experience, these teams reduce claim rejections • Meet at least bi-weekly, quarterly is far too late in today’s regulatory climate 2. 𝗖𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺 𝗗𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 • Every marketing claim should be logged with supporting evidence • Clearly classify claims (e.g., general wellness vs. therapeutic) • We implemented a modified JIRA-based workflow that cut internal approval time from 21 to 7 days 3. 𝗔𝘃𝗼𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 “𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗻” 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗽 Real Case: A client used the phrase "clinically proven to reduce recovery time" in EU marketing materials. The evidence? A single uncontrolled pilot study. Result? MHRA got in touch (you can imagine how that went!) 4. 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗧𝗲𝗮𝗺𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗕𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 • In a Q4 2024 internal audit, I found marketing staff had never received formal MDR, IVDR or FDA training • We rolled out quarterly micro-trainings (30 minutes) • Result? Non-compliant draft claims dropped significantly within 6 months • Bonus: Create a "red flag" glossary of risky phrases like “clinically proven,” “safe,” “instant relief” 5. 𝗟𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗘𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 Bring regulatory in before the campaign is drafted, not just at the sign-off stage. • We saw a 60% increase in first-time-right approvals when regulatory reviewed marketing claims pre-brief 6. 𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀 𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗗𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗖𝗼𝗽𝘆 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝗕𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗹𝘆 • Just because a competitor says it, doesn’t mean it’s compliant • In one case, a client mimicked a competitor’s claim which turned out to be unsupported and triggered an FDA warning letter ✅ Always validate with your own evidence base 💬 If you’re a MedTech founder, marketer or regulatory lead navigating these challenges drop me a message. Happy to share frameworks, examples or just talk through your current approach