CASE STUDIES

Built this portfolio as a controlled publishing platform, not a static site.

It’s both the showcase and a live architecture exercise.

Focus areas:

Why it matters:

• Proves I can design a system and operate it with discipline
  
• Demonstrates reliability instincts (change control, environments, audit trail)
  

TacSA is my main Solution Architecture demonstrator: a tactical simulation + analytics concept designed to explore cloud trade-offs under real constraints.

Key themes:

• Public access (CloudFront frontend) vs private core logic boundary (VPC), protecting IP
  
• Identity/auth patterns, rate limiting, and cost guardrails
  
• API-driven interaction with authorised calls and structured outputs
  
• Scaling options from cheap baseline -> growth-ready architecture
  
• Separation of concerns by function (compute, data, queueing, analytics)
  

Why it matters:

• Shows how I frame systems, make trade-offs, and design for operability
  
• Acts as a consistent “sandbox” for architecture artefacts and decisions
  

A progressive data platform build focused on real-world patterns:

1. ingestion -> 2) storage -> 3) analytics -> 4) visualisation
   

Designed to demonstrate:

• Iteration from MVP (internal demonstrator for work) -> more robust AWS-native implementation (hobby/development)
  
• Operational guardrails (cost, reliability, observability)
  
• Identity boundaries and least-privilege data access
  
• Data quality thinking (outliers, drift, repeatability)
  
• Clear interfaces between pipeline stages and consumers
  

Early use case:

• Production/ERP-style interpretation (BOMs, PO/ECR-style change, KPIs)
  
• Later integration with TacSA for broader analytics patterns as a paid data layer
  

A deliberately constrained system to demonstrate architecture fundamentals: clean interfaces, traceable changes, and auditability.

Design focus:

• Explicit data model and versioned change events
  
• Clear boundaries between ingestion, transformation, and presentation
  
• Reliable “change handling” patterns (templates, analytics, continuous improvement)
  
• Evidence-first outputs (changes detail, timelines, summaries)
  
• Built as a small system with architecture-grade discipline
  

Why it matters:

• Shows how I design for correctness and maintainability
  
• Demonstrates that “small” doesn’t mean informal or fragile
  

Built Python analytics tooling to interpret the Dash 8 Nacelle build ERP data, removing outliers, surfacing underperforming product lines for targeted action.

What it did:

• Cleaned and shaped messy operational data into usable datasets
  
• Identified and removed outliers to avoid misleading conclusions
  
• Visualised performance trends and highlighted priority problem areas
  
• Enabled targeted remedial action instead of broad, unfocused effort
  
• Turned raw data into decision-ready insight for stakeholders
  

Why it matters:

• Evidence-led problem solving, not opinion-led reporting
  
• Practical analytics under real delivery constraints
  
• Demonstrated hands‑on capability in analytics and tooling
  

Created repeatable Excel automation for quotation and analysis workflows to reduce manual effort, improve consistency, and lower error rates.

What it enabled:

• Faster turnaround under bid/delivery pressure
  
• More consistent assumptions and less variability between users
  
• A structured approach to decision support (inputs -> logic -> outputs)
  
• Improved confidence in results through transparency and repeatability
• Improved margins by ~15 % while maintaining value for the customer
  

• Automation mindset applied to real workflows
  
• Demonstrated strategic use of data to shape commercial offerings
  
• Creating a pricing algorithm with adjustable parameters
  
• Pareto analysis to group repairs by severity and work scope
• Modelling supplier price breaks and fleet‑size toggles

Developed scripts to ingest and structure large customer drawing packs and tender datasets, turning unstructured inputs into organised artefacts.

• Automating classification and organisation of large file sets
  
• Reducing manual sorting effort and improving traceability
  
• Creating a consistent structure for review and downstream analysis
  
• Enabling faster technical assessment and delivery planning
  
• Supporting quality and repeatability under tight timelines
  

Why it matters:

• A strong example of reducing chaos with simple, effective tooling
  
• Demonstrates systems thinking applied to information management
  

Built a bid manager toolkit to improve bid/no-bid decision quality and accelerate early planning through repeatable structures.

Included:

• Rapid schedule builder for kick-off packs and early planning (Excel and MSP)
  
• Simplified PWin model for quick decision support (Excel)
  
• Competitor/partner analysis to identify capability gaps and strategy (Excel)
  
• Action tracking automation to reduce admin overhead (Excel)
  
• Supporting templates, guides, and governance artefacts (Various)
  

Why it matters:

• Shows how I design enabling systems that scale beyond one project
  
• Strong overlap with architecture: trade-offs, governance, decision flow
  

Designed scalable risk register templates that scale with project complexity while reducing administrative burden and improving decision quality.

What it covered:

• Proportionate structure based on project value/complexity
  
• Cleaner linkage between risks, mitigations, and delivery planning
  
• Integration into schedule risk thinking (Monte Carlo-style analysis)
  
• Improved realism in planning by modelling uncertainty explicitly
  
• Reduced “gut feel” costing by grounding assumptions
  

Why it matters:

• Strong governance and probabilistic thinking
  
• Architecture-adjacent capability: long-horizon decisions under uncertainty
  

Led operating model improvements across teams to make delivery more repeatable and less dependent on heroic effort.

Focus areas:

• Governance uplift and clearer ownership/accountability
  
• Jira/Confluence adoption and improved delivery rhythm; schedule focus; new tooling
  
• Standardising artefacts and ways-of-working to reduce friction
  
• Making work visible (priorities, risks, dependencies, decisions)
  
• Creating structures that survive team change and scale with complexity
  

Why it matters:

• Demonstrates leadership through system design, not just management
  
• Direct relevance to architecture operating models and delivery enablement
  

Contributed to / developed lifecycle frameworks supporting design, development, qualification and manufacture (DDQ&M) with appropriate assurance and governance.

What this involved:

• Structuring phases, gates, and evidence expectations proportionately
  
• Supporting traceability across requirements, verification, and delivery
  
• Embedding quality and assurance thinking into delivery workflows
  
• Enabling repeatable execution across multiple teams/projects
  
• Balancing speed vs assurance based on risk and context
  

Why it matters:

• Strong alignment with architecture in constrained, high-assurance domains
  
• Experience designing frameworks that enable safe, repeatable delivery
  

Built a lightweight VS Code extension to reduce branch mistakes via status-bar tinting based on repo/branch context.

What it does:

• Colour cues to prevent accidental work in the wrong branch
  
• Workspace-aware handling for multi-repo setups
  
• Quick visual confirmation of context before commits and PRs
  
• Designed as a pragmatic safety rail, not a complex tool
  
• Reinforces disciplined dev/prod habits during active development
  

Why it matters:

• Shows reliability instincts and developer-experience thinking
  
• A small, shippable tool that solves a real workflow risk
  

Capturing shop‑floor knowledge from Hawk canopy builds and supporting development into a structured, highly detailed, six‑folder manufacturing plan.

Focus areas:

• Documenting processes and validating between engineering and shop floor activities
  
• Measuring cycle times across ~50 builds to inform planning
  
• Introducing standardised steps to improve repeatability
  

Why it matters:

• Reduced build time and defects
  
• Enabled less‑experienced fitters to deliver consistent quality
  
• Demonstrated ability to identify gaps and implement process improvements
  

Built a method for analysing delivery vs receipt dates across millions of SAP records to challenge an OEM’s liquidated‑damages (LD) claim.

Focus areas:

• Analysing large datasets and removing duplicated/collaborated lines
  
• Calculating LD exposure based on actual receipt dates
  
• Building stakeholder alignment and gaining customer buy‑in

Why it matters:

• Reduced LD liability by ~70 % (saving ~US$15 m)
  
• Demonstrated analytical rigour and commercial acumen
  
• Established a repeatable monthly process for LD monitoring
  

Benchmarked Rough order of Magnitude (ROM) pricing, collaborating with stakeholders to streamline the early‑pricing process.

Focus areas:

• Comparing internal ROM definitions with industry and MoD guidance
  
• Analysing internal tender responses against MoD contract awards, ITTs, and RFQs; utilising the observable comparisons to calibrate expectations
  
• Building a stakeholder pack and securing agreement on new ROM workflow

Why it matters:

• Reduced confusion around ROM expectations and inputs
  
• Accelerated bid initiation by providing a clear, shared definition
  
• Showcased ability to build consensus and improve processes
  

Development and Implementation of a resource‑forecasting workbook (directly comparing baseline contractual commitments to ongoing delivery needs); and established a Kanban based delivery rhythm for engineering teams.

Focus areas:

• Building an Excel tool to compare planned vs actual hours by role and project
  
• Rolling out Kanban based Jira planning, mid‑sprint reviews and performance boards
  
• Making work, priorities and capacity visible to all stakeholders

Why it matters:

• Improved planning realism and early visibility of resource gaps
  
• Created predictable delivery cadence and consistent performance reviews
  
• Underpinned continuous improvement across multiple teams
  

Developed an array of artefacts; major re-structuring of teams; process development and tooling change; management structures and tooling updates; return to green programme; major overhaul on performance.

Focus areas:

• Major changes and updates to ways of working including all associated management plans (EMP, RAMP, CMP, etc.)
  
• Removal of sprints (replacing with Kanban), reduction of non-value adding tasking, meeting restructure and removal, reporting changes, tracking and metric implementation, automation
• Strategy re-alignment up director level including standing up and developing capabilities for a new design team, pushing for groups strategy and acquiring senior buy in, cross functional alignment and support
• Wide scale LFE gathering and standing up Continuous Improvement (CI) initiative; with associated Just Culture development to ensure error, mistake and issues are shared, and actioned - without fear of reprimand
• Clear roles and responsibilities development, RACIs, stakeholder maps
• Direct report (also flowed down below) 1:1 rotational pack development for specific, quantifiable, measurable, target team development, feedback and future planning.

Investigated a near miss at a test site, which followed with implementing corrective actions and updating Safe Systems of Work (SSoW).

Focus areas:

• Halting testing immediately, gathering information, filing a near‑miss report
  
• Immediate refresher course the following working day, full run through SSoW, hazards, risks and limitations
• Reviewing the risk assessment and SSoW with the Safety SQEP
  
• Support to the company's resultant investigation

Why it matters:

• Prevented recurrence of a potentially fatal hazard
  
• Demonstrated proactive safety leadership and compliance with standards
  
• Reinforced a culture of reporting and continuous improvement in safety
  

Led a 9 month “bridging phase” project covering design, development, qualification, manufacture and installation under tight deadlines.

Focus areas:

• Tailoring lifecycle gates (combining PDR/CDR inputs) for a compressed schedule
  
• Managing risks and contingencies with DAREO logs, bespoke risk register and Monte‑Carlo analysis
  
• Defining acceptance criteria and ensuring all requirements were verified before delivery
  
• Management of lacking dependencies/assumptions and agreement with customers on expectations in lieu of clarity/provision, implementation of interim solutions to enable platform progression

Why it matters:

• Delivered a critical capability despite schedule pressure
  
• Showcased ability to balance speed with assurance and governance
  
• Demonstrated full‑lifecycle leadership and stakeholder management
  

Designed a multi‑domain impact assessment form, with an associated suite of supporting aids. Established a Configuration Control Board (CCB) process.

Focus areas:

• Forcing teams to consider impacts on requirements, software, safety, quality, security, cost, schedule and through‑life support
  
• Separating internal vs external change approvals and automating document numbering
  
• Recording decisions and supporting evidence through a formal CCB with signatories
  
• Underpinning cost models, reference generator, tracker with metrics, what good looks like examples and associated guidance
• Tying the local processes for design change to the Manufacturing and ERP/SAP system processes

Why it matters:

• Reduced unmanaged technical risk and prevented scope creep
  
• Ensured traceable, auditable change decisions across stakeholders
  
• Reinforced disciplined configuration management in complex projects