CASE STUDY - 4 MIN READ
When an administrative role unlocks capacity
How small changes freed up time and increased sales
Context
This was an established and well-regarded business operating in a fast-growing niche market, with a highly skilled and experienced project delivery team.
Demand for work was so strong that some projects were reluctantly turned away.
Despite this, delivery felt unmanageable.
Each project manager was responsible for multiple, fast-moving projects in an industry known for operational complexity.
Good people were working hard, but pressure was the default state.
What leaders and staff were experiencing
There was a widely held belief that this was simply how the industry worked and any improvements would make little difference.
Workloads were uneven and unpredictable.
Project managers constantly received new enquiries, client requests, and internal questions.
Extended working hours and sustained pressure had become an accepted part of day-to-day operations, and over time people had become understandably sceptical that further changes would make much difference.
Attempts had been made to improve control, including investment in upgraded CRM and project management software. Despite its cost, this didn't reduce pressure or restore confidence in how work was being managed.
Based on what was visible at the surface, a complete resolution did not feel realistic.
The initial aim therefore was simply to relieve some pressure.
What was actually causing it
Four underlying factors were identified.
First, work allocation was largely accidental.
New enquiries were handled by whoever happened to answer the phone, and repeat clients contacted individual project managers directly. As a result, work accumulated unevenly, without regard to existing commitments.
Second, the industry itself was genuinely complex.
External factors beyond the business’s control meant priorities could change rapidly.
Third, there was low trust in the CRM and project management system.
Years of inconsistent use, limited software support, and unclear configuration had led staff to rely on manual workarounds. The system was updated retrospectively, duplicating effort and offering little useful visibility.
Finally, a significant volume of routine administration sat with project managers.
This was driven by the software limitations, lack of alternative support, and a finance process that unintentionally added friction to project delivery.
What changed
The focus was on addressing these issues methodically, starting with administrative load.
The time that project managers spent on routine administration was quantified, along with the associated cost.
It was clear that a substantial number of hours were being spent on work that did not require project management expertise.
A dedicated administrator was appointed.
Administrative tasks that did not require a project manager were reassigned, resulting in an immediate reduction in individual workloads within weeks.
Work allocation was then addressed.
The administrator took on a central coordination role, handling incoming enquiries and managing a shared view of capacity. Short daily check-ins were introduced to assign work deliberately, taking current commitments into account.
Where appropriate, overflow work was outsourced in a more controlled way.
The next stage was a review of the CRM system.
It wasn't replaced, but the impact of its limitations was reduced.
A standardised project tracking template was agreed and used consistently across all live projects, with files stored in a shared location. This created visibility, reduced duplication, and allowed anyone to understand project status quickly.
The finance process was also revised.
With the development of clearer, shared project information, invoice preparation no longer relied on repeated checks and clarifications.
The volume of back-and-forth between finance and project managers reduced significantly, as did customer invoice queries.
Finally, while the industry’s complex nature could not be changed, the business’s response to it could.
Better visibility, shared information, improved project allocation, and the reduced overload meant that sudden changes were absorbed more calmly and often anticipated earlier.
Outcome
The combined impact of these changes was significant.
Administrative pressure on project managers reduced quickly, easing stress and restoring capacity.
Existing projects progressed more smoothly and were completed more efficiently.
Once workloads stabilised, the business was able to take on additional project work without returning to a state of constant overwhelm.
Turnover increased as capacity was unlocked, not forced.
The creation of the administrative role also delivered cost savings as higher-cost project management time was redirected back to delivery, while the additional capacity supported revenue growth.
Importantly, the wider improvements were achieved within weeks through better alignment of roles, information and workflow, rather than by simply adding more delivery resources.
Reflection
In this case, the problem was not lack of demand, skill, or effort.
Pressure had built because highly skilled people were absorbing friction and routine work that did not require their expertise.
By separating coordination and administration from delivery, and restoring trust in shared information, the business was able to operate with far greater control even in a complex environment.
Progress came not from doing more, but from allowing the right work to sit in the right place.