Millissa Flanagan

In this interview, Sam Yates speaks with Millissa Flanagan, who’s C-Suite career has spanned Chemicals, Oil & Gas and Start-Up environments. Millissa shares wisdom around the topic of hyperscaling value chains, drawing on her experience within companies such as Johnson Matthey, SABIC and ConocoPhillips.

Sam: You mentioned successfully scaling a patented technology to a semiworks facility. What specific steps did you take to ensure the technology’s scalability, and how did you manage the risk of untested processes at this stage?

Millissa: Let me take a step back for a second—there are two main approaches to deploying technology. The first is a fast-paced 80/20 approach: upon confirmation of the technology at a pilot scale, confirmation it is safe to operate, meets the general requirements and is achievable – move forward to push it to scale. This will require course adjustments during the scaling process but with new technology it will always be a learning curve. Changes will always arise – whether in how you procure materials, a tweak in manufacturing, a regulatory requirement, or a new processing need. But if you don’t move fast and deploy early, you risk falling behind.

The second approach is to perfect the technology 100% first – cross all the T’s, dot all the I’s – and then begin to scale. In my experience, if you follow this approach, it will often take years to deploy. The project energy will “fade and get lost” so to speak, and you will fail to beat competition. This is for sure the safer route but also the risky route from a timing and financing perspective.

With either approach – Partnership with your customer base is always key.  Work together to finalise the technology, join forces to scale the industrial footprint and value chain and allow flexibility to manufacture a robust product mix to optimise your portfolio, at the start.

Sam: Futureproofing: How do you ensure that hyperscaling frameworks remain flexible enough to accommodate emerging technologies or shifts in market dynamics?

Millissa: This is why I keep coming back to the 18-month rule—I just can’t let go of it. Projects often fail because they take too long, and the world doesn’t wait. Markets, country dynamics, and strategic needs can shift dramatically during the execution of a slow-moving project. I’ve seen it happen: sites shut down, projects abandoned, financial losses and new facilities locations moved across countries, all because the market or the environment changed mid-project.

If you’re pursuing a project, you must ask yourself: why are you doing it? Typically, it’s because you need to enter a new region, launch a new product, improve profitability, enhance efficiency by optimising one site and building another, or meet specific goals, such as ESG and renewable energy components. Whatever the reason, move quickly to capture original project benefits because if you don’t deploy fast enough, the circumstances that justified the project in the first place may no longer exist.

And then there are geopolitical factors to consider. Country dynamics can shift overnight, and I’ve seen profitable sites become worthless due to these changes. When a country’s political and economic situation changes, it puts the business and talent at risk, in country. Stay alert and make adjustments quickly in this situation to secure the best path forward.

Political instability has a ripple effect on neighbouring regions, as well. These dynamics create massive uncertainty for ongoing projects including things like securing equipment, logistics, talent availability and energy stability. Companies caught in the middle of multi-year capital projects could face the daunting task of pivoting their strategies.

When the environment changes mid-project, you either adapt quickly, or you lose money. That’s why slow-moving projects are so risky. I hate to call it failure, but that’s exactly what it is: spending millions on a project that ultimately never deploys because the world moved on while you were still planning.

Sam: When hyperscaling brownfield projects, how do you approach integrating legacy infrastructure with new technologies to optimise efficiency and minimise disruptions?

Millissa: Great question – the most effective approach is to keep to the standard blueprint, do not customise and deploy in a phased approach.  Customisation has its place and is needed but not in the first phase, it just brings complication and delays. Again – keep it simple, consistent and repeat. I use a simple roadmap with 5 phases: Build strategy with the team, communicate to all stakeholders (clear mission and platform), develop a straw model organisation and leverage their knowledge to build the details, launch the standard business excellence framework and course correct.

Sam: In greenfield projects, you’ve overseen startups in countries like Poland, India, and China. What are the essential elements of building an operational strategy from scratch in a new region or country?

Millissa: Right sizing your strategy, communications, organization, business excellence framework with fast deployment and course correction capability are key.  This has to be supported with strong values and integrity. Variables like – country requirements, country talent, customer proximity, industrial parks with a high occupancy rate & similar industrial network, renewable-accessible-available energy with growth incentives are a few examples that are needed to jumpstart the project.

Sam: Hyperscaling requires cross-functional collaboration across regions and departments. What strategies do you use to align diverse teams and stakeholders toward a common goal?

Millissa: Common platform, common mission, clear communication, clear objectives – Winning Together. Make the win very clear, very relatable and engage your team members with passion for the mission as ambassadors to support/adjust/obtain feedback along the way. Course correcting via feedback is critical. I am a huge fan of constant feedback and input from across the organisation.

Sam: Sustainability is increasingly becoming a priority in hyperscaling efforts. How do you integrate ESG considerations into greenfield and brownfield projects without compromising on speed or efficiency?

Millissa: Sustainability is a core value – it is baked into the business so no differentiation – it is a must do.  However – optimisation of critical components will support costs, efficiency and speed – specifically renewable energy.  Look to partner with the region, country, IP. For tiered energy programs – methods to bring your own renewable with you, look for new technology or technology advancement that improves energy and resource use across all Tiers 1,2,3.

Sam: Looking ahead, what trends do you see shaping the future of value chain hyperscaling, and how should companies prepare to adapt to these changes?

Millissa: Large scale projects are surfacing: AI, digital twin, excellence programs. etc but do leaders really know what they include, cost and the best method to deploy the programs? Conduct due diligence to evaluate what is needed, keeping it right sized and maintaining cost, resilience and speed are the key.

Sam: You touched on the potential of AI and technology in value chains. Could you provide a specific example or vision of how AI might simplify hyperscaling or address challenges like supply chain disruptions?

Millissa: The potential for robotics and AI is enormous—almost indescribable. To give just a glimpse, robotics is already improving safety with innovations like full-body exoskeletons that assist with heavy lifting. These have an immediate and tangible impact. In my experience, I’ve worked with various robotic systems like robotic arms and AI analysis support, but I see even greater advancements on the horizon.

For example, exoskeletons are a brilliant safety tool, but robotics also have potential applications in entirely new ways. I find myself increasingly relying on AI tools for tasks that used to take me hours. Things like drafting job descriptions, procurement contracts, letters of intent, or legal documentation are now streamlined. AI provides the initial framework or “shell,” and then I fill in the gaps. It’s become a habit for me to ask AI to generate a draft first, even for areas where I have extensive experience. It’s all about leveraging the tools we have to work smarter.

In supply chain management, the need for disruption is especially urgent. We need to fundamentally rethink how the supply chain operates, whether through digital twins, process optimization, or inventory management systems. AI brings a new lens to these problems, highlighting inefficiencies or opportunities we may not see with traditional methods. I constantly challenge my teams to think differently and explore how AI can address inventory planning, equipment procurement, and overall system optimisation.

And of course, Venture capitalists operate in a similar high-risk, high-reward environment. Their approach is straightforward: they will get behind projects that can move quickly. They have a high tolerance for risk and adapt as needed to maximise returns. This can be a fun and very rewarding experience for the right unicorn business.

The contrast lies in the longer standing, more traditional companies. They’re often slower, with entrenched processes and ways of working. This isn’t necessarily a good thing. Many of these companies struggle to manage change effectively. One trend I’ve observed is that some of the larger, legacy companies are breaking up into smaller entities—splitting into twos and threes—because they’ve become too big and slow to keep up with the pace of change.

This shift is a key driver of transformation in the industry. If a company is not constantly evolving and changing, they will be forced to adapt or restructure to survive. For many, transformation isn’t a choice; it’s a necessity to remain competitive in an environment that demands agility.

Sam: Thank you very much for taking the time to have this conversation today.

Millissa: You’re welcome.