They were about to hire a fourth person. The problem was the first three.
82% of capacity was going to work that generated zero revenue — visible for the first time in three weeks.
Three weeks. First interview to finished deliverables. No pilot phase, no proof of concept — operational outputs the team used the week they received them.
The challenge
610 hours of monthly work. Three people. Only 18% of those hours were generating revenue.
The team was absorbing 3.8 FTEs of work across three people. Property sourcing consumed 150 hours a month. Post-letting issues consumed another 130. Neither function generated revenue. Together they accounted for 280 hours — 1.75 FTEs — of pure operational load. Revenue-driving work (sales, BD, closing) got 110 hours. That is 18% of total capacity. The bonus structure made it worse: it paid the same rate for chasing a broken boiler report as for closing a six-figure advisory deal. Without this analysis, the fourth hire would have been absorbed into the same 82% of non-revenue work — at a higher headcount cost.
What we did
The approach
We mapped every hour across the team for three weeks — not by job title, but by what each person actually did. Nine function categories, each classified by revenue impact. One workload model that answered two questions at once: what to automate and who to hire.
Key findings & actions
Bottom-up workload model
610 hours mapped across nine function categories, each classified as revenue-generating or operational
The 18/82 split
the single number that changed the hiring decision — only 18% of team hours were driving revenue
Role-overlap map
three people independently doing the same sourcing and presentation tasks, each assuming the other would finish
Bonus framework rebuilt around four measurable categories tied to revenue impact — replacing a structure that rewarded firefighting
Growth trigger model
the specific workload thresholds that justify a fourth and fifth hire, with role specs ready to use
How we worked
Scope
Three structured interviews, one workload model, role-clarity documents, a rebuilt bonus framework, and growth scenario planning.
Timeline
Three weeks. First interview to finished deliverables. No pilot phase, no proof of concept — operational outputs the team used the week they received them.
Operating model
The founder now runs a monthly capacity review using the workload model we built. Role boundaries are documented. The bonus structure is aligned to revenue activity. The team maintains and updates every framework independently — no ongoing dependency on us.
Outcomes
What changed
82% of capacity was going to work that generated zero revenue — visible for the first time in three weeks.
280 hours per month in two functions (property sourcing and post-letting issues) identified as zero-revenue work
making the case for a dedicated rental care role and targeted automation unambiguous
Double-work ended
for the first time, every function had a single owner with explicit handoff points, replacing the 'whoever is free' pattern that had been silently duplicating effort across sourcing, presentations, and client coordination
The bonus structure stopped rewarding firefighting
four measurable categories, each tied to revenue impact, replaced a model that had been paying the same rate for admin as for closing deals
Lead qualification gap surfaced: 1 in 10 inbound leads was reaching close
not a volume problem but a filtering problem, flagged as the single highest-ROI fix for the sales function
Fourth hire defined before the job ad was posted: specific workload triggers, a clear function spec, and a timeline
avoiding a premature hire that would have cost six months and a salary
“We were three weeks from posting the job ad when we saw the model. We cancelled it the same day.”
Governance
Trust, collaboration & governance
Nothing said in any interview appeared with a name attached — candour was protected by design, not by promise
The bonus framework was built so the team maintains and updates it without us — no dependency, no retainer
Growth scenario outputs are thresholds and triggers, not recommendations — the hiring decision stays with the business
Reframe
Without this work, the fourth hire would have been absorbed into the same pattern — 82% of their time on operational work that generates no revenue. Six months and a salary later, the team would still feel overstretched, with no clearer understanding of why.
Across every engagement, the goal is the same: engineer a system that makes better decisions — faster, more consistently, and at scale — than the process it replaces.
Start a discovery
Most engagements begin with a conversation about context.
We do not send a proposal before we understand the problem. Start by telling us about your decision context — we will identify the highest-leverage intervention areas before any scope is agreed.