Nathan Coleman

Competing business proposals were being evaluated on inconsistent assumptions. I introduced a shared investment framework that made strategic fit, cash requirements, downside exposure and decision ownership explicit. The board could compare opportunities on a common basis, and business sponsors retained responsibility for the assumptions that underpinned their cases.

Finance reporting had become a collection of local processes rather than an enterprise view. We redesigned the reporting calendar, reconciled key definitions and separated repeatable production work from commercial analysis. The programme brought finance and operating leaders into a shared discussion of performance, with clearer controls around the underlying information.

During a portfolio review, I worked with business leaders to distinguish reported growth from the quality of the economics behind it. We examined resource intensity, working-capital patterns and the capabilities required by each strategic option. The resulting conversation gave the board a more considered basis for deciding where management attention and capital belonged.