Account for the whole window
Break the window into working, preparing, waiting, and deciding, so it becomes visible how much is governed by the equipment and how much by the plan.
SERVICE CAPACITY REDESIGN
Rethinking the turbine-overhaul sequence
Our client is an industrial maintenance business, overhauling turbines for the companies that own them.
Its revenue ceiling was arithmetic: however many overhauls a crew could complete in a year. Growth meant more crews or shorter jobs, and the job length was treated as a property of the machine that nobody questioned. Examining how the window was actually spent showed something else. Disassembly and reassembly ran strictly in series, work paused at every inspection gate while findings were assessed, and a large share of the window went on access, isolation, and permits before anyone touched the turbine. Bold Group worked through the window with the engineers who ran it, and designed a sequence that used only the crew and equipment already on site.
SCROLL FOR THE FULL CASE
— WHAT THIS CASE CAN SHOW
A business constraint, the decision it forced, and what Bold Group contributed to that decision.
The client operated the design. No measure of what it produced has been reported back.
01 THE BUSINESS CONSTRAINT
Start with the business condition, not the presumed answer.
How much work the business could take was bounded by how many overhauls a crew could complete in a year. The length of an overhaul was treated as a property of the machine.
02 THE ASSUMPTION THAT HAD TO BE CHALLENGED
The length of the job came from the schedule.
Disassembly, inspection and reassembly ran strictly in series: the parts of the job that did not depend on each other waited anyway, because the order had been inherited rather than designed.
03 THE DECISION BEHIND THE REDESIGN
How the question was worked.
How much of this window is the machine, and how much is the order we chose to do things in?
The decision was to re-sequence the parts of the job that did not depend on each other, rather than to shorten any individual step.
Unstack the sequence
Test which steps genuinely have to follow each other, and move preparation, access, and inspection decisions off the critical path where the work allows it.
Prove it with the crew
Walk the revised sequence with the engineers who perform it, and establish what has to hold true for it to be safe and repeatable rather than a one-off.
04 WHAT BOLD GROUP CONTRIBUTED
What we owned, and where this transfers.
Bold Group
Accounted for the whole window, separated what the equipment governs from what the plan governs, and designed a sequence that runs on the crew and equipment already on site.
The client
Held the operating and safety knowledge, judged feasibility, and owns whether shorter jobs are converted into more work.
This approach transfers when
- A duration is being treated as a technical property that nobody has actually tested.
- Growth is capped by how much work can be completed rather than by demand for it.
- The people who perform the work can be in the room while it is redesigned, because they hold the knowledge the redesign depends on.
05 WHAT THE CLIENT IMPLEMENTED
What is known, and its limits.
The client operates the revised sequence.
What this case does not claim
01No duration, throughput, or revenue figure is claimed for this engagement.
02The client operated the revised sequence. No measure of its effect has been reported back, so what is known is that the design was run, not what it produced.
03Capacity released is not the same as revenue earned. Turning shorter jobs into more work also depends on demand, scheduling and commercial decisions the client owns.