April 2026
Where the month stands against plan — RAG
Ahead of plan
Watch
Behind plan
Revenue in context — the year so far
Plan £710k/mo
Selected month · Other months · Plan £710k. Click a bar to jump to that month.
Actions to Hit Target
— what to do, in priority orderWhat it takes to close the gap to the £8.5m plan. Each move is tied to the number it shifts — and recomputes as new actuals land.
Action 1 — biggest lever
Standardise pricing — one rate card
≈ +£170k/yr margin
Two estimators price the same job ~8% apart. A single rate card with agreed margins on every line removes the leak without winning a single extra job.
Action 2 — speed + consistency
AI estimating assistant
faster, priced right
Quotes take ~3 days and miss fast-turnaround bids. An assistant that drafts a priced quote in hours, off the rate card, wins more work at the right margin.
Action 3 — make it visible
Track win-rate & margin by estimator
control
You can't manage what you can't see. Report win rate and margin per estimator monthly so discounting-to-win shows up before it eats the year.
Patterns & Signals
— where this is heading if nothing changesThe trajectory, and the signals behind it. Four months in — they sharpen as more land.
If nothing changes — the trajectory
On today's run-rate the year lands at ~£7.7m, £0.8m short of the £8.5m plan. The signals below show why: demand is fine — it's deal size and pricing that are leaking.
Forecast vs plan — where today's numbers land us
Projected year-end (run-rate)
£7.7m
£644k/mo carried forward
Plan
£8.5m
£710k/mo · full-capacity model
Gap to plan
−£0.8m
≈ £100k/month more needed over the remaining 8 months
Metric trends — what each number is doing
Quotes sent
31/mo
▲ Rising
Top of funnel is healthy; April hit 31, the year's high.
Win rate
35%
Steady ▲
Comfortably ahead of the 30% target — Reynolds wins the work.
Avg deal value
£62k
▼ Falling
Against an £85k target — the metric dragging revenue down.
Revenue
£681k
Volatile
Tracks deal size — swings month to month, no clean direction.
Gross margin
26.4%
▼ Slipping
Down from 31.8% in Feb to 26.4% — the pricing leak, in one line.
Quote turnaround
3.0 days
Slow
Against a 1-day target — fast-turnaround bids are being missed.
Cash
£585k
Steady
Healthy and rising; comfortable headroom to invest in the fix.
What they reveal together
1 · More wins ≠ more revenue
7 → £734k
February · fewest wins, most revenue
11 → £681k
April · most wins, less revenue
The month with the most wins earned less than the month with the fewest. Win count doesn't predict revenue — deal size does. The lever is bigger jobs, not more of them.
2 · The same job, priced two ways
| Estimator | Avg margin | Win rate |
|---|---|---|
| Estimator A | 33% | 28% |
| Estimator B | 25% | 38% |
| Spread | 8 pts | — |
Two estimators, the same kind of work, 8 margin points apart. B wins more — by discounting. That spread is roughly £170k of avoidable margin a year, and it's invisible until you put it in one table.
Where the chain breaks — funnel vs plan
Quotes sent
27/mo
▲ on plan
target 28
Win rate
32%
▲ ahead
target 30%
Jobs won
8.7/mo
▲ ahead
target 8
Avg deal value
£76k
▼ −11%
target £85k
Revenue
£644k/mo
▼ −9%
target £710k
Left to right: the chain holds — quotes, win rate and jobs won all on or ahead of plan — until average deal value, 11% under target, drags revenue 9% below plan. Reynolds is winning enough work; it's winning it small, and lightly priced.
Strategic Read
— the AI's interpretation: what the numbers mean, and what to doEvery point below is tied to a number in the data. No evidence, no entry — this is the judgement layer, not another chart.
Strengths
- Demand is healthy. Quotes sent (27/mo) and win rate (35%) both run ahead of plan — the top of the funnel isn't the problem.
- The model works at scale. February's larger jobs delivered £734k at 31.8% margin. When Reynolds lands big specified work, the economics are strong.
- Financial headroom. £585k cash and rising — room to invest in the fix rather than firefight.
Weaknesses
- Deal size. The average job is £62k against the £85k the plan needs — Reynolds is winning small (April: 11 wins, just £681k).
- Pricing discipline. Gross margin slipping 31.8% → 26.4%; two estimators price the same job 8 points apart.
- Revenue 9% behind plan — and it's a deal-value gap, not a demand gap.
Opportunities
- One rate card. Standardised pricing recovers ~£170k of margin a year without winning a single extra job.
- Quote faster. An AI estimating assistant turns 3-day quotes into hours and captures fast-turnaround bids.
- Trade up the work. Steering toward larger specified jobs fixes the deal-size gap at source.
Threats
- Margin erosion as you scale. If bigger jobs keep being discounted to win, more volume could lower profitability — a trap built into the growth plan.
- Key-person pricing risk. Pricing lives in two estimators' heads — no rate card, no backup if one leaves.
- The gap compounds. The longer deal size and margin stay soft, the wider the shortfall to plan grows — hardest to claw back late in the year.
What to stop & what to watch
Stop
- Treating quote count as success — April had the most wins and nearly the least revenue. Count is masking the problem.
- Letting each estimator price off judgement — that's the 8-point spread and the margin leak.
Watch
- Average deal value and gross margin — the two numbers that actually move the year.
- The margin spread between estimators — the difference between a system and a leak.
Open questions — the data can't answer these; the meeting should
- Is the discounting deliberate (to win volume) or drift? One is a lever; the other is a leak.
- Why are deals small — the wrong jobs, under-scoping, or the wrong buyers? Each points to a different fix.
- Was February repeatable, or a one-off? Determines whether "more Februaries" is a real strategy.