How an engagement runs
The promise is the job map. Establish the evidence. Redesign the workflow. Assure delivery. Verify the value.
Five stages, each with an exit
- Workflow Evidence Sprint
21 working days, in two stages, with a decision at day 10
Baseline
Establish what the workflow costs and how it performs today — turnaround, waiting, first-time-right and rework — and state the quality of the evidence behind every figure.
- Validated current-state map
- Measured baseline
- Unit cost-to-serve estimate
DecisionIs there a bounded workflow, a named owner, a live trigger and a credible evidence path?
Workflow boundary- Start
- End
- Volume
- Owner
- Included routes
- Excluded routes
This is the boundary the evidence is gathered inside: where the workflow starts, where it ends, who owns it, and which routes are excluded. Root cause
Test where delay, rework, exception handling and avoidable effort concentrate. Candidate hypotheses are kept separate from validated causes; nothing is asserted beyond the evidence.
- Ranked defect and exception analysis
- Quantified redesign hypotheses
- Written intervention recommendation
DecisionWhich causes are validated, and which remain candidate hypotheses?
KPI and Pareto strip- Turnaround
- P90
- First-time-right
- Rework
- Ranked defects
This is where repair work concentrates, ranked, so the largest defect classes are addressed first.
Your effort
Workflow Evidence SprintYour effort
- Nominate the process owner and make the people who run the workflow available for the scheduled walkthroughs.
- Provide the available operational evidence and procedure material at the start of the sprint; data quality remains the client’s responsibility.
- State the finance assumptions to be used in cost estimates, or nominate who can.
- Decide on the recommendation at the end of the sprint; adoption, volume mix and staffing decisions remain with the client.
- Cost-to-Serve Baseline
Fixed-scope proposal — scoped and priced after qualification.
£ value pool
Quantify the credible addressable economic opportunity with every assumption stated: cost-to-serve, released capacity, exception handling and rework. Calculated results stay separate from assumptions.
- Unit cost-to-serve model
- Agreed baseline document
- Decomposition of cost
- Measurement rules
DecisionIs the addressable value pool credible enough to justify change?
Value model- Volume (cases per year)
- Affected share (%)
- Reduction (%)
- Adoption (%)
- Time (hours per case)
- Rate (£ per hour)
- £ value pool
This is the arithmetic behind a value pool, with every input stated separately so finance can challenge any one of them.Every term carries its unit. Time is hours per case, not minutes, and Rate is per hour, so the result is money per year. The capacity calculation states the same demand and coverage in hours, before any rate is applied.
Your effort
Cost-to-Serve BaselineYour effort
- Provide finance data and a named contact with authority to agree the baseline.
- Agree the allocation and assumption choices where more than one defensible treatment exists.
- Record changes to volume mix or staffing during measurement rather than smoothing them into the baseline.
- Workflow Redesign & Delivery Assurance
Fixed-scope proposal — scoped and priced after qualification.
Right intervention
Choose the intervention on the evidence: Stop • Simplify • Standardise • Workflow • Automate • AI. Specialists deliver against documented requirements and acceptance criteria; unsuitable work is stopped early.
- Future-state workflow design
- Requirements, process definitions and data mappings
- Acceptance criteria and user-acceptance test
- Delivery governance
- Adoption plan and handover
DecisionIs this the lowest-complexity intervention that can materially move the target metric?
Intervention decision- Stop
- Simplify
- Standardise
- Workflow
- Automate
- AI
This is how the intervention is chosen: the lowest-complexity option that can materially move the target metric.
Your effort
Workflow Redesign & Delivery AssuranceYour effort
- Own adoption: the staffing, incentives and management routines that make the redesigned workflow the way work is actually done.
- Make subject-matter experts available for design sessions and acceptance testing at the agreed cadence.
- Approve supplier commercial arrangements; Leania’s role is specification, acceptance and quality control, independent of the build supplier.
- Benefit Realisation & Verification
Fixed-scope proposal — scoped and priced after qualification.
Verified value
Track the operational metric against the agreed baseline and report realised value by class — cash, cost avoidance, released capacity — never blended into one number.
- Quarterly verification review
- Realised benefit reported by class
- Variance account
- Standing record of evidence
DecisionIs the benefit evidenced, attributable and correctly classified?
Benefit register- Cashable saving
- Cost avoidance
- Capacity released
This is how realised value is reported: by class, against the agreed baseline, never blended into one number.
Your effort
Benefit Realisation & VerificationYour effort
- Supply the period data on the agreed rules; gaps are reported as gaps.
- Take the management actions that convert released capacity into cash or redeployed work; those decisions remain the client’s.
- Confirm or challenge each period’s realised-benefit statement; written client confirmation moves a figure from modelled to delivered, silence does not.
What has, and has not, been achieved
Leania separates delivered results, released capacity, identified opportunity and forecast value so leadership can see exactly what has — and has not — been achieved.
The classes are never blended. A forecast is never restated as a realised saving, and released capacity is never presented as cash.
- Realised cash benefit
- Delivered operational performance improvement
- Cost avoidance
- Capacity released
- Identified opportunity
- Forecast business-case value
Senior-led, specialist-delivered
Leania is founder-led, not founder-only. Senior practitioners and specialists are assembled around the work, and the proposed team is named before work starts.
Leania remains accountable from the economics and diagnosis through requirements, acceptance and verified value. Technical delivery can be performed by the client’s existing technology team or vetted specialist delivery partners under documented acceptance criteria.
The point of difference is senior accountability and independence from the build supplier — not the absence of leverage.
Internal tooling under senior control
Leania runs the sequence on internal tooling that compresses discovery and analysis.
Senior practitioners remain accountable for scope, interpretation, validation and decisions.
One engagement, two stages, one decision between them
21 working days to a Pilot Blueprint
- Stage 1 · Working days 1–10Establish, then Diagnose & Select
- Stage 2 · Working days 11–21Design, then Specify & Challenge
Stage 1 runs working days 1–10 and ends in a decision. If the evidence doesn't justify continuing, the engagement ends there: you keep the evidence and pay only for Stage 1. If it does, Stage 2 takes the selected intervention to a Pilot Blueprint by working day 21.
£7,500 to start. Stage 2 (£9,500) only if the evidence justifies it.
£17,000 — Total if both stages run, for one bounded workflow. Larger scopes are quoted.