Work That Moved Capital, Built Governance, and Delivered Outcomes

Key Challenge

Multi-party stakeholder environments where DFI appraisal teams, infrastructure operators, governments, and private co-investors each had different risk tolerances, reporting requirements, and decision timelines. Cross-border infrastructure added sovereignty dimensions that standard feasibility frameworks do not address. Maintaining rigorous appraisal standards while keeping multiple parties aligned through months of review cycles required structured governance that adapted to each funder's accountability norms.

Approach

Structured each feasibility study around the specific appraisal criteria of the lead DFI, while building a parallel stakeholder alignment process that surfaced objections early rather than at submission stage. Designed risk modelling frameworks that spoke to both technical and financial audiences, and maintained consistent project governance across all four studies simultaneously.

Key Challenge

25 companies across different sectors, each at different maturity stages, with real-time capital allocation decisions depending on performance visibility that did not exist. Investment committee members were making decisions from financial statements alone, with no operational or programme data. The governance gap was creating lag between performance deterioration and intervention — a costly delay at portfolio scale.

Approach

Designed a tiered PMO framework that distinguished between operational reporting (company-level) and portfolio reporting (investment committee level), with KPI architectures appropriate to each sector. Built dashboards that surfaced leading indicators, not just financial results, and structured appraisal cycles that gave investment managers a consistent language for portfolio conversations.

Key Challenge

Investor-grade pitch preparation requires more than a well-designed slide deck. The financial model had to withstand scrutiny from Airtel's corporate finance team, the market analysis had to be defensible against sector knowledge the investor already had, and the narrative had to present a compelling growth case without overreaching on projections. Coordinating across multiple internal teams while maintaining pitch coherence under a compressed timeline added execution pressure to the intellectual challenge.

Approach

Structured the engagement as a programme rather than a one-off deliverable: separate workstreams for financial modelling, market analysis, competitive positioning, and executive presentation — each with their own review cycles before integration into the final pitch. Maintained a single narrative thread throughout to ensure the investor's key questions were answered at every level of detail.

Key Challenge

Traditional consulting delivery environments carry structural resistance to agile methodology. Billable hours culture, client-facing delivery pressure, and the unpredictability of advisory engagements all push against the sprint structure and ceremony discipline that Scrum requires. The specific challenge here was not convincing people that Scrum was good in theory — it was proving that it could work with live client obligations, without creating a new layer of administrative overhead that displaced the delivery work itself.

Approach

Introduced Scrum incrementally rather than as a full-practice transformation. Started with a single team, adapted ceremony formats to consulting reality (shorter stand-ups, client-facing sprint goals), and built the case through demonstrated improvement before expanding. Used PSM I certification as the credibility anchor for internal sceptics.