Example output, in full

The current three-depot network was designed for a product mix the business no longer sells. Volume has shifted 41% toward chilled lines since 2023, but the network still optimises for ambient pallet throughput. The result is a cost base that rises faster than revenue and a service level that is respectable on average and poor where it matters.

What we found

• Chilled orders travel 2.3 times further per case than ambient, because only the northern depot is temperature-capable at scale.
• On-time-in-full is 96.4% overall but 88.1% for the top twenty chilled accounts, which represent 34% of margin.
• Third-party haulage now absorbs 18% of distribution spend, up from 7% two years ago, and is used reactively rather than by plan.
• Depot labour is not the problem: productivity is within 4% of sector benchmark at all three sites.

What we recommend

Convert the central depot to mixed-temperature operation rather than building a fourth site. The capital requirement is £2.1m against £6.4m for a new build, and the modelled service improvement is materially the same for the accounts that matter. Retire the reactive haulage arrangement in favour of two contracted lanes.

What it is worth

On the modelled case, £1.4m of annual distribution cost and a move to 95%+ OTIF on the top-twenty accounts within nine months. Payback falls in month eighteen. The principal risk is conversion downtime at the central site; section 6 sets out a phased approach that keeps 70% of capacity live throughout.

Purpose

To establish, with evidence, why first-contact resolution has fallen below 60% in the customer operations function, and to set out a prioritised, costed remediation plan the client can execute without further external support.

Deliverables

• D1 — Inception report and confirmed workplan (week 1).
• D2 — Current-state assessment: process maps, volume and handling-time analysis, systems constraints (week 4).
• D3 — Prioritised remediation plan with effort, cost and expected impact per intervention (week 7).
• D4 — Close-out presentation to the executive team and handover pack (week 8).

Explicitly out of scope

• Implementation of any recommendation, including system configuration changes.
• Individual performance assessment of named staff.
• Procurement or vendor selection for replacement systems.
• Any work relating to the EU entity, which operates a separate platform.

Acceptance

Each deliverable is deemed accepted on written confirmation from the client sponsor, or five working days after submission if no comments are received. One round of consolidated comments per deliverable is included in the fee.

Client responsibilities

• Read-only access to the contact-centre reporting environment by day 3.
• Sponsor availability for a 45-minute checkpoint each Thursday.
• Introductions to the eleven interviewees named in Annex A within week 1.

Where we are

On schedule. Data extraction completed Tuesday, ahead of plan, which has given us a fuller volume picture than expected. Nine of eleven interviews are done; the remaining two are booked for Monday.

What we have learned this week

• Repeat contacts are concentrated in three journeys, not spread across the estate as previously assumed. This narrows the remediation considerably.
• Average handling time is not the driver. Handling time is within 6% of target; the failures are in handoffs between the front line and back office.
• The reporting environment understates repeat contact by roughly 12% because reopened cases create new IDs.

What we need from you

• Confirmation by Wednesday of who owns the back-office queue policy — three people have been named and none of them think it is them.
• Sign-off on D2's proposed structure, circulated separately.

Risks

One open risk, unchanged: if the reporting defect above is systemic, the historical trend in the board pack is wrong and the executive team will need to be told before we present. We will confirm either way by week 5.

Decision sought

That the Board approves £2.1m of capital expenditure to convert the central depot to mixed-temperature operation, and authorises the executive to terminate the reactive haulage arrangement at the next break point.

Why now

The chilled mix shift is structural, not cyclical, and the cost gap widens by roughly £30k a month at current trajectory. The central site's cold-chain contractor has capacity in Q1 and has held pricing until 31 March; slipping past that date adds an estimated £180k and six weeks.

Options considered

• Convert the central depot — £2.1m, 18-month payback, recommended.
• Build a fourth chilled site — £6.4m, 41-month payback, marginally better service on non-priority accounts.
• Do nothing and expand third-party haulage — no capital, but £1.4m annual cost persists and worsens.

If the Board declines

The do-nothing case is not stable. Third-party haulage dependency continues to rise, and the two largest chilled accounts have service clauses reviewable in September. Management would return in Q3 with a narrower, more expensive set of options.

Engagement

Customer operations diagnostic — week 3 of 8. On track.

Deliverables

• D1 Inception report — approved by you on 4 February.
• D2 Current-state assessment — in progress, due 26 February.
• D3 Remediation plan — not started, due 19 March.
• D4 Close-out — not started, due 26 March.

Waiting on you

• Confirm the owner of the back-office queue policy (asked Monday).
• Approve the proposed structure for D2.

Invoices

Invoice 2026-014, issued 1 February, £18,000, paid 12 February.

Not shown

Internal tasks, time entries, rates, margin, the risk register and every draft that has not been published. The client sees the work, not the workings.