Skip to main content

Large Energy Operator – Delivery Capability Review

TL;DR​

I was engaged as an independent reviewer to assess and stabilise a struggling product delivery programme within a large publicly owned energy operator. My role was to evaluate delivery methods, product practices, and technical alignment, then guide improvements to restore confidence and cohesion across the teams. The work resulted in a full organisational review and a decision to rebuild their Agile Delivery capability from the ground up.

Overview​

During the summer of 2023, I was asked to independently review a high-profile data and AI programme within a large publicly owned energy operator. The project had strong technical ambition but was underperforming due to unclear product direction, fractured communication, and uneven capability across product, delivery, and engineering.

My role was to provide an objective assessment of the end-to-end delivery process, advise on practical improvements, and help leadership understand the systemic causes behind delivery risk.

My Role and Contributions​

I led a four-week independent review covering product management, delivery, and technology alignment. Working alongside a small consultancy team and client leadership, I focused on:

  • Assessing delivery maturity across product, engineering, and governance functions.
  • Reviewing key artefacts such as the backlog, RAID log, and story structure to identify inefficiencies and missing dependencies.
  • Improving ticketing and story generation, ensuring that product value and technical feasibility were properly linked.
  • Analysing the MLOps and data delivery approach, highlighting issues of maintainability and flow between data, model, and deployment layers.
  • Facilitating workshops with technical, delivery, and product leads to surface blockers, align objectives, and rebuild trust across disciplines.

Although my remit was primarily evaluative, I also provided hands-on guidance where appropriate, particularly in refining backlog structure and promoting cross-functional planning behaviours.

Findings​

The review surfaced several key issues:

  • Discovery was treated as requirements capture, not as risk reduction across value, usability, feasibility, and viability.
  • Product and delivery lacked alignment, with fragmented ownership and unclear accountabilities.
  • Team structures were siloed, limiting collaboration and making knowledge sharing difficult.
  • Technical practices were hampered by process, including slow access management, weak CI/CD adoption, and architectural bottlenecks.
  • Psychological safety and morale were low, with leadership uncertainty contributing to disengagement.

Despite this, the underlying technical capability was strong. There was clear potential to stabilise the programme by re-establishing trust, redefining ownership boundaries, and enabling the right team structures.

Interventions and Outcomes​

Following the review, I proposed a reset based on a product trio model - product, delivery, and technical leads empowered to collaborate directly and manage risk iteratively.

Key improvements included:

  • Assigning a clear technical lead with structured support to build confidence and authority.
  • Introducing consistent cross-functional planning, where technical and product leaders worked side-by-side to prioritise by value rather than output.
  • Reworking the RAID log and backlog to clarify dependencies, improve traceability, and link work to measurable outcomes.
  • Reframing delivery metrics away from velocity towards flow and quality.

The operator subsequently decided to undertake a root-and-branch rebuild of their Agile Delivery capability, engaging my organisation to lead a wider transformation and coaching effort. Team cohesion improved visibly within weeks, and the foundations for a sustainable product culture were established.

Reflection​

This engagement reinforced the importance of independent technical and delivery assessment early in programme lifecycles. By separating review from ownership, it became possible to address systemic barriers - particularly those rooted in misaligned incentives and unclear roles - without defensiveness or blame.

The combination of honest diagnosis, structured workshops, and clear follow-through created a path towards meaningful cultural and operational change, setting the stage for long-term capability improvement.