What we've built.
What we found by stopping to look.

Hillary has spent 14 years at the level where a misaligned demand signal is not a math problem. It is production commitments, customer experience, and financial performance. As Director of Integrated Business Planning and Analytics inside a Fortune 500 medical device manufacturer, she ran the systems that flag when supply and demand start diverging early enough to actually do something about it.

The patterns she has fixed are consistent across businesses of every size. Inventory decisions built on lagging data. Allocation plans based on last year's assumptions. Demand forecasts that nobody has challenged in years. Seasonal businesses that discount aggressively because they never built the planning system that would let them optimize instead.

The fixes are often smaller than the pain suggests. The hard part is being willing to look at the whole system, not just the part that is obviously broken. That is what a diagnostic gets you: the real problem, not the symptom that walked in the door.

The existing leadership development model was built for a different era: residential, centralized, and capped at roughly 60 participants per year. For a global organization with operations across 19 countries, that math didn't work.

We redesigned the program from the ground up. New delivery model. New curriculum architecture. New technology infrastructure to support synchronous and asynchronous learning across time zones. The result: 376 participants per session across 19 countries — a 6x increase in reach without sacrificing program quality.

Over two years, the program delivered 12,944 training hours across 191 sessions, with participants from 33 countries. NPS scores consistently landed in the mid-80s — 84.4 for Emotional Intelligence, 81.6 for Effective Communication, 80.5 for Development Tools.

The engagement impact was measurable: organizational Learn & Grow scores moved from the 43rd to the 67th percentile. Not from a single program — from building a system that compounds.

Enterprise software solves generic problems. The interesting work happens when the problem is specific to your organization and no vendor has a checkbox for it.

Over 18 months, we designed and deployed six custom applications inside a Fortune 500 manufacturer — each one solving a workflow problem that had been duct-taped together with Excel spreadsheets and tribal knowledge.

The Product Transfer Catalog launched to 500+ users on day one. It replaced a manual process that required people to know who to call, where to look, and which version of which spreadsheet was current. The Early Talent Onboarding Platform streamlined the first 90 days for new hires across manufacturing sites. The Engineering Fundamentals App put technical competency tracking into a single interface instead of scattered across SharePoint folders and email chains.

Each application was built to the same standard: solve the real workflow, deploy it where people already work, and instrument it so you can measure adoption and impact from day one.

Deploying an enterprise learning platform is not a technology project. It's a change management project that happens to involve technology. Most organizations get this backwards, which is why adoption rates are dismal.

We led the enterprise deployment of LinkedIn Learning across a global manufacturer — not just the technical integration, but the communication strategy, manager enablement, and analytics infrastructure to track whether people were actually using it. Within the first cycle: 3,262+ hours of self-directed learning.

Separately, we built a custom Learning Experience Platform (Development Portal) when the existing LMS couldn't support the content architecture we needed. The platform served as the central hub for development programs, competency tracking, and learning pathways — purpose-built for the organization instead of adapted from a vendor template.

We also deployed and administered SkillsBase, a competency management platform connecting skills assessments to development planning across multiple manufacturing disciplines. Not a one-time assessment — an ongoing system that connects individual development to organizational capability gaps.

Most competency frameworks fail for the same reason. They were built to be comprehensive, not useful. By the time an employee sits down for an assessment, they are rating themselves against dozens of behaviors that may or may not have anything to do with their actual job. Managers dread the conversations. HR cannot act on the data. The whole thing becomes a compliance exercise that nobody takes seriously.

The work starts with roles, not competencies. Which capabilities actually predict performance in this job, at this level? How do you assess them in a way that feels relevant to the person doing it and takes a reasonable amount of time? What does the output need to look like for a manager to actually use it in a development conversation?

For one global manufacturing function, that meant taking an overly constructed model and mapping it intelligently to roles — so assessments reflected real job requirements, the data that came out was specific enough to act on, and employees and managers both got time back. The result was not fewer competencies for the sake of it. It was a working system grounded in industry best practice, connected to development pathways, and built to surface the gaps that actually matter.