By Niles Christodoulidis · Cannabis Consult Pro
A consulting conversation can start with an observation or an unanswered question. Niles can help define the issue and identify what information would be useful. “The yield is low” or “production is slow” describes a concern, but does not yet identify where to investigate. A short summary and a consistent set of records help establish what can be assessed and what information is missing.
1. Define the problem and the comparison
Write down the expected result, the observed result, when the difference first appeared, and which batches or production stages are affected. Identify the business decision you need to make: investigate a recurring variation, locate a bottleneck, review documentation, or assess the need for further specialist work.
- For a yield concern: state what quantity you are comparing, the units, and the calculation used. Identify the input and output records behind the figures.
- For inconsistent results: identify the batches being compared and the records that describe their materials, processing history, and testing.
- For a delay: distinguish recorded processing time from waiting, handoffs, rework, maintenance, or missing information.
A comparison is easier to assess when each figure has a clear definition and source. Note assumptions explicitly rather than presenting estimates as measured results.
2. Gather a focused record set
When a review is being scoped, identify what information exists and what is missing. You can work through that step with Niles. Detailed files can follow once the scope and transfer method are agreed.
- Batch and material records: batch identifiers, dates, recorded inputs and outputs, material history, and relevant storage or handling records.
- Production records: the process sequence, batch logs, operator notes, deviations, and recorded start, finish, or waiting times.
- Testing information: available certificates of analysis, sample identifiers, and the records connecting samples to the batches being reviewed.
- Equipment context: equipment identification, operating and maintenance records, relevant vendor documentation, and known limitations.
- Procedures: the SOP versions used during the affected production runs and any recorded changes or departures.
- Change history: when materials, equipment, procedures, staffing, or workflow changed relative to the first observed problem.
Identify missing records and preserve the original files. An incomplete record set can still be discussed, but the gaps should be visible when defining the review.
3. Map the work as it actually happens
Sketch the relevant stages, who handles each step, and where materials or information wait. Include handoffs and rework that may not appear in the written procedure. Ask the people doing the work to check the sketch against their experience.
For a general manufacturing reference, NIST MEP’s overview of value stream mapping explains how mapping materials, process steps, and information flow can help identify opportunities for improvement.
4. Separate observations from possible explanations
For each concern, record what happened, the supporting record, a possible explanation, and what would be needed to evaluate that explanation. This keeps a review focused on what the evidence supports and makes unresolved questions easier to see.
A useful findings summary should identify the records reviewed, supported observations, information gaps, and prioritized next steps. Some questions may require additional records, an on-site assessment, equipment-vendor input, or a specialist outside the agreed scope.
5. Start with a short inquiry
Describe the issue at a high level, the outcome you expected, the records available, and your deadline. Use the initial form for a general overview; proprietary formulas and detailed production documents can be shared later through an agreed method.
Niles’s work includes cannabis processing, lab development, operating procedures, and business operations. Read about extraction and process consulting or explore an operational review.
The proposed engagement defines the question, deliverables, timing, and fees before work begins. A review does not guarantee a particular yield improvement or operating result.