​
The Art and Method of Making Sense
​
My consulting practice grows out of a trajectory that is both technical and humanistic.
I studied Naval Engineering and completed a PhD in Statistical and Actuarial Sciences; I write about technology and the philosophy of work; I play the piano and have always seen in music a discipline of clarity, intention and structure.
These experiences form a single way of thinking: analytical yet reflective, rigorous yet curious.
I am interested in how systems behave, how uncertainty shapes decisions, how models illuminate (or distort) reality, and how complex ideas can be translated into structures we can reason with.
Consulting, for me, is an extension of this intellectual posture — not a commercial offering, but a space for study, dialogue and meaningful work.
​
What I do
​
Most of my work takes place in the in-between spaces:
where engineering intuition meets probabilistic structure,
where data is incomplete but decisions cannot wait,
where the question itself needs to be framed before it can be solved.
I am often asked to engage when a problem resists easy categorisation:
when it requires thinking simultaneously in physical, statistical, actuarial and conceptual terms;
when standard methods need to be adapted rather than applied;
when teams need someone who can move across disciplines without diluting their depth.
My role is rarely to “apply a model”.
More often, it is to understand the structure of the phenomenon,
clarify what is knowable and what must remain uncertain,
and help shape a line of reasoning that is technically sound and intellectually honest.
This sometimes results in building a model —
for a physical process with uncertain dynamics,
for a long-horizon risk structure,
or for a research project needing methodological integrity.
Other times it means questioning the model itself, or reframing a problem that has been posed incorrectly.
I work closely with researchers, engineers, clinicians, quantitative teams, and thesis authors who need a counterpart capable of combining different forms of knowledge — mathematical, physical, inferential, philosophical — into a coherent understanding of the problem at hand.
The common thread is simple:
I help people think rigorously about systems, decisions and phenomena that do not fit neatly inside a single discipline.
How I work
​
A selective, non-commercial ethos
I choose the projects I take on.
Not based on scale or industry, but on whether the question carries depth, seriousness, and the possibility of producing understanding rather than noise.
Methodological rigour without theatrics
Engineering taught me structure;
statistics and actuarial science taught me humility before uncertainty;
research taught me patience;
philosophy taught me perspective;
music taught me intention.
I try to bring these strands together in a way that clarifies rather than complicates.
A collaborative, reflective approach
I do not work as an external advisor handing over deliverables.
I work with people — researchers, technical groups, institutions — as a counterpart in thought, someone who shares the responsibility of interpreting complexity with care.
​
Who I collaborate with
​
-
Research groups and academic institutions
-
Engineering departments and technical teams facing complex modelling questions
-
Organisations dealing with uncertainty, long-horizon dynamics or risk-driven decisions
-
Clinical investigators and scientific researchers needing methodological clarity
-
Independent researchers, PhD candidates, thesis authors
-
Anyone who values depth over appearance, robustness over slogans, and meaningful work over speed
References
​
Reference letters, pitch materials, and case insights are available upon request.