Our approach
How we work
Three questions worth answering before you brief anyone: how a firm thinks, how it actually solves problems, and what it will refuse. Ours are below.
We start with the constraint, not the brief
The problem as written in the RFP is rarely the problem. A power cost turns out to be a tariff and load-profile question. A compliance burden turns out to be an evidence problem. A stalled AI programme turns out to be a governance problem that was visible before anyone wrote code.
So the first week of most engagements is spent finding what actually limits the outcome. It is the least billable and most valuable part of the work, and skipping it is why so many projects deliver exactly what was asked for and change nothing.
We model before we recommend
Every recommendation we make carries the analysis behind it, and we will walk you through the assumptions until you can break them yourself. If you cannot interrogate a model, you cannot rely on it — you can only trust the people who built it, which is a worse position to be in.
This has a consequence we accept: sometimes the numbers say no. We will recommend against a project we would have been paid to deliver. A feasibility study that always concludes "proceed" is a sales document, and everyone in the room knows it.
We deliver what we advised
Most consulting fails at the handover — the recommendation is sound, the consultants leave, and the organisation discovers the plan assumed things the plant, the balance sheet or the regulator will not permit.
We are built to remove that gap. The team that models the business case engineers the asset. The team that writes the AI strategy operates the software. Our ventures — Prakreon in applied AI and Srenergies in energy infrastructure — exist because delivery capability cannot be claimed, only demonstrated.
We write down when to stop
Every significant engagement carries falsification conditions: the observable states of the world under which we would recommend stopping. They are written at the start, when nobody is emotionally committed and no one's position depends on the answer.
Deciding whether to stop from inside the disappointment is a decision made by the wrong person at the wrong time. Almost nobody in this industry writes these down, because they make it harder to keep billing. That is precisely why they are worth having.
What we will not do
A firm that has never turned down work has no standards, only a pipeline. Ours are short and we apply them:
- Work whose principal effect is mass harm, or mass surveillance of populations.
- Engagements that require us to mislead the public, a regulator, or an auditor about what the work is.
- Assignments where the honest answer is already known and we are being hired to write it down differently.
- Projects that trade irreversible environmental damage for a commercial result.
Where a project sits close to one of these lines, the review is written rather than informal, and the burden of proof rests on proceeding rather than on stopping.
Why clients work with us
Usually because they have a problem that crosses disciplines and have watched it fail at the seams between vendors. Sometimes because they want an answer from people who will have to live with it. Occasionally because they want someone who will tell them the project is a bad idea before they spend the money.
We are not the largest firm available, and for genuinely commoditised work we are not the cheapest. What we offer is that the recommendation and the delivery carry the same signature.
How an engagement runs
-
Discovery
We spend the first weeks establishing what actually constrains the outcome, which is rarely what the brief describes. That means site visits, interviews below management level, and reading the data you already hold rather than commissioning new studies.
What you have at the end A written problem statement you agree with, or a documented disagreement about what the problem is — which is more useful than a false consensus.
-
Assessment
The current state, measured rather than described. Depending on the work this is a load-profile analysis, a process safety review, a data and systems audit, or an emissions inventory built from meters and invoices.
What you have at the end A baseline nobody in the room disputes. Every later claim of improvement is measured against it.
-
Strategy
Options, priced and compared, with the assumptions exposed. We present the case against our own recommendation as well as the case for it, because a board that only hears one side cannot govern the decision.
What you have at the end A recommendation with the model behind it, and the conditions under which it would be wrong.
-
Planning
Sequencing by dependency rather than by ambition. Procurement routes, regulatory approvals, long-lead items and internal capability gaps are identified here, when they are still cheap to solve.
What you have at the end An implementation plan with owners, dates, budget and the first ninety days specified in enough detail to start.
-
Implementation
Where most consulting stops and we do not. Depending on the work this is engineering and construction through our energy venture, software delivery through our AI venture, or hands-on programme management alongside your team.
What you have at the end The thing itself — commissioned, deployed, certified or reported, against the plan.
-
Governance
Running throughout, not bolted on at the end. A fixed reporting cadence, a named accountable partner, a live risk register, and a decision log so that in month nine anyone can see why a choice was made in month two.
What you have at the end A documented decision trail that survives staff turnover on both sides.
-
Handover and improvement
An engagement ends when your team can run the result without us. That means documentation, training, and a deliberate withdrawal — not an indefinite retainer for work you should own.
What you have at the end Operating documentation, trained staff, and a written view of what should be improved next.
How the work is governed
The same model applies to every engagement, whatever the discipline. These are commitments rather than intentions — a client should be able to hold us to each one by week three.
-
A named partner is accountable
Every engagement has one partner answerable for it end to end. They are in the room at scoping and still in the room at handover. Work is not sold by one team and delivered by another.
-
Fixed reporting cadence
Written progress reporting at an agreed interval — usually fortnightly — covering what moved, what did not, what is at risk, and what we need from you. Reporting continues in the weeks when there is little to report, because those are the weeks it matters.
-
A live risk register
Risks are logged with owner, likelihood, impact and mitigation, and reviewed at every checkpoint. Anything we consider a material threat to the outcome is escalated in writing rather than mentioned in a meeting.
-
A decision log
Significant decisions are recorded with the reasoning and the alternatives rejected. In month nine, anyone on either side can reconstruct why a choice was made in month two — including after the people who made it have moved on.
-
Stage-gate quality review
Deliverables are reviewed internally by someone who did not produce them before they reach you. For technical work — models, HAZOP studies, emissions inventories — that reviewer is qualified in the discipline.
-
Written falsification conditions
The observable conditions under which we would recommend stopping are agreed at the start, while nobody is committed. If they are met, we say so — even when continuing would be more profitable for us.
How risk is controlled
- Assumptions are tested before they are relied on. Every material assumption in a model is labelled as measured, benchmarked or estimated. Estimates are sensitivity-tested, and the ones that break the case are flagged rather than buried.
- Independent technical review. Engineering and safety-critical work is reviewed by a second qualified person. Where a discipline sits outside our depth, we say so and bring in a specialist rather than stretching.
- Staged commitment. Large programmes are structured so you can stop at a stage boundary without wasting what came before. We would rather be re-engaged four times than lock you into a scope that stops fitting.
- Conflicts declared. Where our ventures could deliver part of the work, that is disclosed at proposal stage and you remain free to competitively tender it. Advice is not a route to selling ourselves downstream work.
How we handle your information
- NDAs signed before commercial or technical detail is exchanged, including at first meeting where you prefer.
- Client data held only for the engagement and its agreed retention period, then returned or destroyed on request.
- Named-team access only. People outside the engagement do not have access to your material.
- We do not use client work as marketing without written approval — which is why our case studies will always be fewer than our engagements.
Questions we are asked before every engagement
Do you implement, or only advise?
Both, and that is the point. Strategy work can stop at the recommendation if that is what you need. Where you want it delivered, energy infrastructure is built through our EPC venture and software is shipped through our AI venture. The recommendation and the delivery carry the same signature.
Can you work alongside our existing consultants?
Yes, and it is common. We are frequently brought in for the technical or delivery half of a programme where a strategy firm is already engaged, or for an independent review of work already done. We will tell you plainly if we think the existing approach is sound — that is a useful answer too.
Can you work with government organisations and PSUs?
Yes. We can supply entity documentation, registration details and the technical credentials that procurement processes require. Ask and we will send them.
How do you protect confidential information?
NDAs before detail is exchanged, named-team access only, agreed retention and destruction, and no use of client work in marketing without written approval.
What does an engagement cost?
It depends on scope, and we will not quote a range before understanding the problem — a number without a scope is meaningless to both of us. What we will do is tell you early if the work is likely to be outside your budget, rather than discovering it at proposal stage.