Case studies.

Speed under deadline · Where the practice started

317 packages, 60 days, three days to build the pipeline.

A national wireless carrier issued a relocation portfolio and gave 60 days to return feasibility and permitting recommendations across it. Assembling that by hand was not achievable in the time available.

The carrier’s site list was synthesised with spatial data: coordinates, ground elevation, and urban or rural classification driving how large each search area needed to be. Python generated a review radius per candidate on that logic, half a mile urban and one mile rural, and a macro-enabled Word template produced the folder structure and a pre-populated feasibility analysis for every site.

Each generated document arrived already carrying its site number and name, state and jurisdiction, coordinates, ground elevation, existing tower height and structure type, carrier centerline and height above ground, and review radius, plus structured sections for search-area feasibility, permitting paths split between raw land and colocation, feasibility maps, and the relevant zoning ordinance excerpts.

317 feasibility packages across 316 sites, delivered on schedule. The pipeline was built in three days by an operator with no prior programming experience, and the analyses were divided across the three people working the programme.

The analysis used four attributes. Coordinates, structure height, city, state. That was what the spatial logic required and it is all the pipeline ever touched, decided before the code was written rather than reviewed afterwards.

Stated as an estimate: the labor hours this removed run to several hundred. That figure is a considered estimate, not a measurement, and it is not presented as one. The delivery counts are exact: 317 packages, 316 sites, a 60-day window, a three-day build.

Read the full case study →

Influence

Documents that became the standard.

Two national carriers independently took documentation built for internal workflow and adopted it as their own enterprise standard.

One deployed the feasibility and site documentation forms across its national vendor base. The other adopted a site candidate information package as its internal standard. Neither was pitched a product. Both encountered a working document and made it the bar their other vendors had to meet.

The follow-on work proved the forms were doing real work rather than formatting it. Quality review of other vendors’ submittals against those same forms reached different feasibility conclusions, and recovered sites those reviews had ruled out.

Both carriers are named on request.

Standing in the room

Several hundred hearings. Three denials in twelve years.

Site development ends in public. Zoning boards, plan commissions, boards of adjustment. I have presented several hundred times and been denied three.

One of those three I called before we filed. The client wanted to proceed at a site that did not meet the ordinance and I told him we would lose. The other two were decided on political rather than regulatory grounds, at sites that met every published requirement.

That record comes from doing the jurisdictional work before anyone commits capital, and from not bringing a body a case it cannot approve.

Stated precisely: the denial count is exact, three. “Several hundred hearings” is a considered estimate rather than a counted figure.

All three denials, described →

Contested work

Two contested outcomes.

Two situations where the straightforward path had already been ruled out.

The blanket easement. A rural build parcel everyone had written off. A Canadian wind energy company had told the landowner its easement would cover fifteen feet on either side of its trunk line, then recorded a blanket easement across the entire eighty-acre parcel, rendering the property unleasable. Rather than move the search ring, the issue was worked across an international border until the developer agreed to re-survey and amend the agreement down to its actual footprint. Title cleared, ground lease secured, tower permitted and built.

The contested hearing. A national tower company learned a competing permit application was being filed and sent outside counsel to argue against it. Every hearing material, including decks, exhibits and supporting findings, was built in house. The application was approved over the objection of opposing counsel.

Both, in full →

A privacy-first communication and care-coordination system, built under pressure and since rebuilt as a fully synthetic public case study. It shows ambiguity being turned into clear roles, reliable workflows, risk controls, and a humane experience for people who had no capacity to learn a tool.

• Product strategy
• Program leadership
• Systems thinking
• Privacy by design
• Rapid execution
• Stakeholder communication

The origin was not a brief. My own family needed one private place to keep the people who cared about us informed, and the communication overhead had become its own operational problem: one person answering the same questions repeatedly, correcting information that had already gone stale, and coordinating offers of help across a large network while circumstances changed by the hour.

Social platforms were the obvious answer and the wrong one. They put delicate information where it can be misconstrued or reach people it was never meant for, and they set the terms of audience and permanence on your behalf. The alternative was to adapt the need to the tool.

The sequence mattered more than the feature list. Private access, dependable official updates, clear publishing confirmation and duplicate prevention came first, because reliability precedes novelty when people are relying on a single source of truth. Vague offers of help then became claimable meals, visits, rides and errands. Capability-scoped roles let trusted organizers coordinate without receiving contact details or administrative access. Navigation, unread badges, refresh behavior and notification preferences were changed later in response to observed friction, not anticipated preference.

A later revision removed visible photo descriptions from the interface while retaining meaningful alternative text for screen readers, because some of the people using it depend on that.

Risk was controlled structurally rather than editorially. The public case study and the private system are separate builds with no shared data plane: no production database, no real authentication, no messaging, no private media. The demonstration shows the method without asking a redaction filter to protect a live family system, which is the same judgment that produced the private application in the first place.

It reached a working private application in two calendar days on roughly six hours of hands-on time, and it is in daily use by the people it was built for, my family among them. It has kept changing as the need has changed.

The need has always directed the development. Not the reverse.

Presented publicly with no real identities, messages, photographs, or production connections.

Explore the case study →