Nobody counts the hours your best people spend bringing everyone else up to speed.
I do. One day on your site, 2 weeks end to end, and a report that puts a number on the 5 biggest time losses at your own labour rates. £950, fixed.
Manufacturing and chemical sites of 50 to 500 people.
Free. No slides, no deck. It ends 1 of 3 ways: you book the visit, you go and count the problem for 4 weeks and then decide, or I tell you this needs a decision outside your role and I will not sell you something that cannot be used responsibly.
The problem
Procedures change. People leave. The training schedule does not move, so the only way to hit it is to take your most experienced operator off the floor and have him walk somebody through it again. That happened last month, and the month before. It is not in any report, so it has never been costed, so nobody has ever decided whether it is worth doing differently.
Meanwhile your people have been told not to put company information into ChatGPT, and nothing approved has arrived to replace it. 71% of UK employees already use AI tools their employer has not approved (Microsoft/Censuswide, 2025). Only 2% of small firms that do not use AI actually prohibit it (OECD, 2025). A warning is not a workflow. The gap between the 2 is where your hours are going now.
The visit
£950
Fixed. 2 weeks. 1 day on your site.
One day on your site, with remote work either side. 2 weeks from start to the report landing.
I walk the process, I talk to your people, and I find the 5 biggest time losses. Each one is costed at your own labour rates, with your own people's words attached and anonymised. You get 10 to 15 pages and I present them to you live, so you can argue with me while I am still in the room.
2 things are true of every report I write:
- At least 1 finding is fixable by your own team inside a week, for under £100. No purchase order, no me.
- At least 1 finding is written so you can repeat the measurement at another site without me.
£950 is the founding price and it holds for the first 3 clients. In return I ask for honest feedback and permission to write up an anonymised before and after.
After the report
£1,850
The fix
I take 1 finding from the report and build the working version. 1 site, 1 workflow, tested against examples you agree with me in advance. Go or stop, decided in 10 working days.
£5,800–8,500
The trial
For a site that wants proof before it relies on anything. 6 weeks, real users, real records, supervised throughout, ending in a clear pass or stop.
Both are optional. Plenty of people take the report and do the work themselves, which is a fine outcome and one of the reasons the report is written the way it is.
Safe to use
How I test whether this is safe to use
Before anyone on your site relies on something I have built, it passes a set of checks written down in advance: tested against examples you agreed beforehand, answers traced to the approved document and its revision status, and a measured failure rate you see rather than take on trust.
There are decisions I do not hand to a machine, on any site, at any price:
- process safety
- batch release
- deviation classification
- competence sign-off
Those stay with your supervisors, your QA and your competent persons, where they already sit.
No document, record or file of yours goes into any AI account without your written approval. Demonstrations run on material I wrote myself. Every engagement comes with a 1-page map of what data moves where.
Who I am
25 years running operations in chemical distribution and manufacturing, in the Czech Republic and in Scotland. General manager and operations roles, real sites, real people, the actual mess.
I also published a study of 136 chemical SMEs across the Visegrád region. It found no direct relationship between adopting AI and how a firm performs. That is my own finding and it argues against the thing I sell, which is exactly why I lead with it: performance moves when a named process changes and somebody measures the change. Nothing else does it.
Fit
This works if
You run a manufacturing or chemical site of 50 to 500 people, you have procedures and training records in some state, and you can name 1 thing that eats hours every week.
This does not work if
You want an AI strategy, a transformation programme, or a body at a day rate. I do not sell any of those and I will say so on the call rather than after the invoice.
Questions I get asked
Do you need access to our systems?
No. The visit needs a day of my time on your floor and a few conversations. Nothing is connected to anything.
Who has to approve this?
£950 usually sits inside an operations manager's own limit, which is deliberate. Anything after the report will need whoever signs above you, and I would rather that person is in the room for the presentation than hears about it second hand.
What if the report tells me nothing I did not already know?
Then you have the number, which you did not have, and you can use it to argue for something. Most people know where the time goes. Almost nobody has costed it.
We work in Czech on the floor. Is that a problem?
No. The site day runs in whatever language your people speak. The report is written in the language the second signature reads.
Is this a sales call?
The 20 minutes is 20 minutes. 1 of the 3 ways it ends is me telling you not to buy anything.
Start here
Name 1 problem. I will tell you honestly whether I can help.
Or write to me directly: vince@vincehruby.com
Newsletter
The Shift Report
Fortnightly. What AI is actually doing on industrial sites, what it is not doing, and what it costs to find out. Written for people who run sites.
Join and get the prompt card: 5 prompts tested on real site jobs.
Get the prompt card →SOPwise
SOPwise turns approved site procedures into something that trains people, instead of a document they sign to say they have read. It is mine, it is early, and there is a page about it here.