Advisory service
Governance that decides, not a forum that reviews slides.
Modernization stalls when nobody can say who decides, in what order the work happens, or what would make the program stop. We put those answers in writing before the spending accelerates.
The problem
The plan is sequenced around people, not dependencies.
- Workstreams start where a team was free. The hardest migration waits until the budget is nearly spent.
- The steering forum receives status and approves nothing. The real calls happen in corridors and reach the board late.
- Progress is reported as milestones delivered. No measure connects the program to delivery speed, resilience or cost.
How the engagement works
A diagnostic sprint on the plan, then a retainer through the first gates.
Two to four weeks
Fixed scope on the plan, the dependencies and the decision record. See How We Engage.
Who we work with
The executive sponsor, the program lead, the architects who know where the coupling is, and the owners of the affected processes.
What we gather
The critical path, architecture dependencies, the change and incident record for systems in scope, and every decision still waiting on someone.
What the board sees
Named decision rights, gate criteria written so a gate can fail, a resequenced plan, and the measures the sponsor reviews monthly.
What you get
The documents a sponsor needs to run the program.
- A governance charter with decision rights and escalation paths
- Gate criteria and a continue or stop test for each stage
- A plan resequenced around dependencies and risk
- A short measure set for the sponsor and the board
- A decision memo for the next investment gate
Outcome
A regional financial services firm released on a quarterly train and kept missing product commitments. We mapped where work waited in a queue, cut the approval gates back to the two that reduced real risk, and moved environment provisioning out of the ticket system. Releases reached the market 23 percent faster.
A healthcare services provider hit capacity limits every enrollment period and answered each time with more hardware. We reviewed the architecture alongside their engineers, isolated the components that could not scale sideways, and put a sequenced fix into the capital plan. Peak throughput improved 26 percent.
Related reading
Start a conversation