Source · OIDA Cloud

# ClearPath Solutions Inc. – Interim Findings Presentation **Meridian Labs LLC** --- ## Slide 1: Title **ClearPath Solutions Inc.** **Process Optimization Engagement – Interim Findings** Meridian Labs LLC Marcus Webb, Nora Chen, Yuki Tanaka October 3, 2025 Week 6 of 12 --- ## Slide 2: Agenda 1. Engagement Overview and Process 2. Summary of Current-State Operations 3. Process Maps: Key Workflows 4. Bottleneck Identification 5. Data Findings 6. Root Cause Hypotheses 7. Data Gaps and Next Steps 8. Timeline and Key Milestones --- ## Slide 3: Engagement Overview **Objective:** Diagnose operational bottlenecks constraining growth and design target-state processes enabling scaling. **Timeline:** September 8 – November 28, 2025 (12 weeks) - **Weeks 1–4:** Diagnosis phase (completed) - **Week 6:** Interim presentation (today) - **Weeks 5–9:** Design phase (in progress) - **Weeks 10–12:** Roadmap development and handoff **Activities completed (Weeks 1–6):** - 38 team interviews (all staff levels: C-suite, managers, individual contributors) - 12 process observation sessions - Review of project documentation (15 sample projects) - Data collection: Project intake, hours tracking, team utilization - Competitive benchmarking research (10 comparable firms) --- ## Slide 4: ClearPath's Core Workflows Three primary workflows identified: 1. **Onboarding & Project Setup** - New client engagement through team allocation and project plan - Average duration: 6–8 weeks - Quality variance: High 2. **Audit & Compliance Documentation Delivery** - Client audit request → scope assessment → documentation preparation → delivery → approval - Average cycle time: 5–8 days - Quality variance: Moderate; inconsistent across audit types 3. **Reporting & Analytics** - Project hours tracking → invoice preparation → client reporting - Average cycle time: 4–6 days per invoice - Pain point: Manual processes; limited analytics capability --- ## Slide 5: Onboarding Process – Current State **Current workflow:** ``` Client Win ↓ Initial Scoping Meeting (1–2 days) ↓ Legal/Contracting (5–10 days; significant variance) ↓ Resource Assignment (3–5 days) ↓ Team Kick-off Meeting (1–2 days) ↓ Project Plan Development (5–10 days) ↓ Tool Setup & Access Provisioning (3–7 days) ↓ Team Onboarding & Knowledge Transfer (7–14 days) ↓ First Delivery Ready ``` **Average cycle time:** 36–55 days (5–8 weeks) **Key findings:** - Legal/contracting process is bottleneck (5–10 days; no published SLA) - Resource assignment dependent on single person (Head of Ops); no backup - Tool setup (VPN, email, document access) takes 3–7 days; ad hoc process - Knowledge transfer done via unstructured 1:1 conversations; inconsistent - Onboarding considered "ramp-up" activity; team utilization low during first 2–3 weeks --- ## Slide 6: Audit Process – Current State **Current workflow:** ``` Client Audit Request ↓ Intake Meeting (1 day) ↓ Scope & Budget Assessment (1–2 days) ↓ Documentation Review & Gathering (1–3 days) ↓ Analysis & Finding Summary (2–5 days; HIGH VARIANCE) ↓ Report Draft (1–2 days) ↓ Client Review & Feedback (1–3 days) ↓ Final Report Delivery ``` **Average cycle time:** 7–16 days **Key findings:** - Analysis and finding summary is bottleneck and high-variance step - Quality and thoroughness depends heavily on assigned auditor expertise - Junior auditors require significant supervision from senior staff - Limited templates or standardized approaches; largely bespoke per client - Client feedback loop extends cycle time (and sometimes causes rework) **Speaker Notes:** This is where we're seeing the most pain from the team. Senior auditors are stretched thin; they're doing the complex audits AND reviewing junior auditor work. When a junior gets assigned an audit outside their expertise, cycle time extends significantly. We've observed cases where audits took 14+ days because the assigned person was unfamiliar with the client's sector or specific regulatory domain. --- ## Slide 7: Reporting Process – Current State **Current workflow:** ``` Project End or Invoice Trigger ↓ Hours Consolidation (1–2 days; manual; multiple systems) ↓ Time Entry Review & Correction (1–2 days) ↓ Invoice Template Population (1 day; manual data entry) ↓ Client Report Preparation (1–3 days; manual document creation) ↓ Management Review & Approval (1–2 days) ↓ Client Delivery ``` **Average cycle time:** 5–10 days per invoice/report cycle **Key findings:** - Hours data captured in multiple systems (manual timesheets, separate project management tool with data not syncing automatically) - Significant manual data entry and reconciliation required - No real-time dashboard or analytics; management visibility limited - Client reporting template-based but heavily customized per client - Rework common due to data entry errors or incomplete time entry **Speaker Notes:** The finance/ops team is telling us this is one of the most time-consuming manual processes. Hours aren't flowing automatically from the project management tool to the billing system; someone has to manually pull them out, reconcile, and re-enter. We're seeing errors about 18% of the time that require corrections and rework. --- ## Slide 8: Bottleneck Summary – Top 5 | Rank | Process | Bottleneck Step | Estimated Impact | Root Cause Category | |------|---------|-----------------|------------------|-------------------| | 1 | Onboarding | Knowledge transfer (7–14 days) | High: Delays project start; impacts utilization | Organizational: Unstructured; dependent on individuals | | 2 | Audit | Analysis & summary (2–5 days; high variance) | High: Inconsistent quality; schedule variance | Capability/Process: Limited standardization; expertise dependent | | 3 | Reporting | Hours consolidation & reconciliation (3–4 days; 18% rework) | Medium: Team time; client frustration | Systems/Process: Multiple manual systems; no integration | | 4 | Onboarding | Resource assignment & tool setup (8–12 days) | Medium: Delays start; poor experience | Organizational: Ad hoc; no SLA; no backup | | 5 | Audit | Client feedback loop (1–3 days) | Medium: Extends cycle time; uncertainty | Process: No structured feedback mechanism | --- ## Slide 9: Key Data Findings **Project Intake & Utilization:** - Average utilization rate: 68% (benchmark: 75–80%) - Onboarding period averages 2–3 weeks at <50% utilization per team member - Projects with poor intake scoping have 12–15% rework (vs. 3–4% for well-scoped projects) **Team Distribution:** - Senior staff (10 FTE): 72% billable - Intermediate staff (35 FTE): 71% billable - Junior staff (35 FTE): 58% billable (onboarding + supervision overhead) **Project Duration:** - Small audits (<40 hours): 8–12 day average cycle time - Medium projects (40–160 hours): 25–40 day cycle time - Large engagements (160+ hours): 45–65 day cycle time **Quality Metrics:** - Audit rework rate: 8–12% (client feedback requiring revision) - Invoice errors: 18% (requiring rework before client delivery) - Project scope changes: 22% of projects (indicating intake quality issues) --- ## Slide 10: Data Gaps **Data not yet available (as of Week 6):** 1. **Team turnover and tenure distribution** - How many staff exits in past 2 years? - What is tenure distribution? - Expected to gather: Week 7 2. **Client satisfaction and feedback** - Client NPS or satisfaction scores? - Common feedback themes? - Expected to gather: Week 7–8 3. **Knowledge infrastructure inventory** - What documentation/templates exist? - Where are they stored? (we've observed: shared drives, email, individual computers) - Expected to gather: Week 6 4. **Competitive positioning** - How does ClearPath pricing compare to competitors? - Time/fee per audit vs. comparable firms? - Expected to gather: Week 7 [CHART: Audit queue wait times — data pending] This chart will show the audit request intake rate, current queue, and average wait time. Data still being compiled by the operations team. --- ## Slide 11: Root Cause Analysis – Preliminary Hypotheses **Onboarding Bottleneck – Root Causes:** 1. **Organizational:** No published process; dependent on Head of Operations; no backup coverage - Implication: Scaling will require process formalization and team expansion 2. **Knowledge Management:** No structured knowledge base; new team members learn via 1:1 conversation - Implication: Each onboarding customized; variable quality 3. **Tool Integration:** Multiple systems not connected (CRM, project management, document storage) - Implication: Manual handoffs; delays in tool provisioning **Audit Bottleneck – Root Causes:** 1. **Process Standardization:** Limited templates or standardized audit procedures - Implication: Each audit approached from first principles; variance in quality 2. **Expertise Distribution:** Audit quality/speed dependent on assigned person's sector knowledge - Implication: Junior staff unable to deliver independently; supervision overhead 3. **Quality Control:** Feedback loop unstructured; client revisions common - Implication: Cycle time extends; rework **Reporting Bottleneck – Root Causes:** 1. **Systems Integration:** Time entry exists in 2+ systems; manual reconciliation required - Implication: Data accuracy issues; rework 2. **Process Automation:** Invoice and reporting generation largely manual - Implication: Time-consuming; prone to error --- ## Slide 12: Themes Emerging Across Workflows Three cross-cutting themes: 1. **Knowledge Silos** - Critical regulatory and process knowledge resides with individuals - Limited documentation or templates - Scaling constrained by need to build expertise in new people individually 2. **Process Informality** - Most critical processes (intake, onboarding, audit) lack published procedures or SLAs - Ad hoc approaches; variance in quality and timing - Scaling difficult without standardization 3. **Systems Fragmentation** - Key workflows span multiple systems without integration - Manual handoffs; data entry errors; delays **Implication:** These themes suggest ClearPath is at an organizational inflection point. Current model (small, expert-dependent team; informal processes) works at ~80 people but does not scale to 150–200 people. --- ## Slide 13: Next Steps – Weeks 7–12 **Design Phase (Weeks 7–9):** - Complete root cause analysis (fill remaining data gaps) - Develop target-state process designs addressing bottlenecks - Identify tool/system requirements - Design organizational structure and roles for scaled operations **Design Presentation (Weeks 8–9):** - Present recommended processes, tools, and organizational changes - Gather feedback and refinement requests **Implementation Roadmap (Weeks 10–12):** - Prioritize recommendations by impact, effort, and dependencies - Estimate effort and timeline for each initiative - Define implementation sequencing and resource requirements - Develop metrics to track progress and success --- ## Slide 14: Timeline – On Track | Phase | Weeks | Status | Key Milestones | |-------|-------|--------|-----------------| | Diagnosis | 1–4 | COMPLETE | Interviews, process maps, initial bottleneck analysis | | Interim Presentation | 6 | IN PROGRESS | Week 6 (today) | | Design | 5–9 | IN PROGRESS | Target-state process designs; tool requirements; org design | | Design Presentation | 8–9 | SCHEDULED | Week 8 detailed design recommendations | | Roadmap | 10–12 | SCHEDULED | Implementation roadmap; effort estimates; handoff | | **Engagement End** | **12** | **SCHEDULED** | **November 28, 2025** | **Status:** On schedule. No significant delays or scope issues to date. --- ## Slide 15: Questions and Discussion Open discussion: 1. Do these findings align with your experience? 2. Are there bottlenecks we've missed or mischaracterized? 3. Are there specific process areas you'd like us to focus on in design phase? 4. Data gaps: Are there sources or team members we should contact to fill gaps? 5. Timeline/approach feedback: Is this pace working? Any adjustments needed? --- ## Slide 16: Thank You **Contact:** Marcus Webb, Senior Managing Director Meridian Labs LLC Next presentation: Week 8 (October 24) – Design recommendations

Interim presentation — findings to date

What was taken from it