Consulting that produces a document, not an impression

What our consulting work actually delivers

Technology consulting has a poor reputation, largely deserved. Too much of it consists of expensive presentations full of terminology, delivered by people who will not be responsible for anything that follows. We work in the opposite direction. Every consulting engagement produces a document you can act on, written in language your whole management team can read, and the person writing it is somebody who builds systems for a living.

Written specifications

The most requested piece of work. You know roughly what you need but not precisely enough to ask for quotes, and every supplier you speak to interprets the request differently, so the numbers you receive are impossible to compare.

We spend time with the people who do the work, map the real process including the exceptions, and produce a document describing the software in plain language. Every screen, who can reach it, what it shows, which rules apply, what happens in awkward cases, what reports exist and what is deliberately excluded from the first version.

You then own that document and can send it to any supplier, including us, and receive quotes that are genuinely comparable because everyone is pricing the same thing. Clients frequently tell us this is the single most useful thing they bought during a project, and it costs a small fraction of the build.

Technical reviews of existing systems

Software you already depend on, and nobody can tell you what condition it is in. Perhaps the original developer has moved on, perhaps you are considering an acquisition, perhaps things keep breaking and you want to know whether that is normal.

We review the code, the database design, the dependency versions, the security posture, the server configuration and the backup arrangements, then give you a written assessment in plain language. What is sound, what is risky, what would cost money to fix and what could be left alone. Crucially, the assessment is honest even when the honest answer is that what you have is fine and somebody has been overselling you a rebuild.

Second opinions on quotes and proposals

You have a proposal from another supplier and no way to judge whether the price is reasonable, the approach sensible or the timescale plausible. We read it as a technical reader and tell you what we see, including where the scope is vague, what has been excluded, what will likely become a change request later and which questions to ask before signing.

We do this even where the answer is that the proposal is good and you should proceed with them. Undercutting a competent supplier by criticising their work would make our opinion worthless, and the opinion is the entire product.

Direction and planning

Longer engagements cover the broader question of where technology should take a business over the next few years. Which processes deserve automation first, in what order, and which should be left alone. Whether to buy or build. How to sequence work so each stage funds the next. What skills you need internally. Where you are exposed if a single supplier or a single employee disappears. This work suits organisations that have grown quickly and accumulated systems without a plan, which describes a great many successful companies.