Independent review

Digital and AI investments are usually approved on evidence assembled by people who benefit from approval. The supplier wants the contract. The delivery team wants the programme. The adviser wants the follow-on. An independent review gives you the one thing none of them can, a written opinion from someone with no stake in the outcome.

When it applies

The review lands at a decision point, usually one of four.

• A supplier's proposal for a digital or AI system, before you accept it.
• A digital twin or data platform, before you fund it, or fund it again.
• A digital asset, before you accept handover into operation.
• A business case, before it reaches an investment committee and someone has to say whether the evidence supports the claim.

What is reviewed

The material that already exists. The business case, the supplier's proposal, the stated information requirements, and whatever assurance evidence has been produced. A small number of interviews across owner, supplier and operator, agreed and named before work starts.

The decision is then tested against four questions.

• What decision does this evidence actually support.
• What would have to be true for the claim to hold.
• What breaks it.
• What does it cost to keep true after year one.

What you receive

A single written opinion, short enough for a board to read and specific enough to act on. It states what the evidence supports and what it does not, the conditions under which the investment is defensible, and the risks that matter, with their severity. One session presenting it to the sponsor or the board. A one-page summary you can lift into your own paper.

Every opinion carries a reliance statement on its front page, bounding it to the decision reviewed, the material examined and the date it was issued. That is not small print. An opinion, like a digital twin, is worth relying on only within stated limits.

How it runs

Fixed scope and a fixed end date, agreed before work starts. Typically three to four weeks from kickoff. A fixed fee, proposed within two working days of a first call. No time and materials.

The independence rule

On any review, I take no delivery work, no supplier-side work and no stake in the system being reviewed. Any interest is declared before the engagement starts. If a conflict cannot be cleanly separated, I decline the engagement.

Out of scope

No implementation and no delivery resource. No running the supplier selection, though a completed selection can be reviewed. No certification and no regulatory sign-off. The supplier's technical work is examined, not redone.

Common questions

Is this an audit?

No. An audit tests compliance against a standard. This is an opinion on whether a decision is supported by its evidence. That evidence is usually a familiar set. A business case, a supplier's proposal or solutions material, a pilot's results, an integration or handover plan, and a set of benefits claims. The review tests whether those documents answer the questions the decision actually turns on. It carries no certification, and it can sit alongside formal assurance rather than replacing it.

Can a decision that has already been made be reviewed?

Yes. A completed supplier selection, a platform already funded, a system approaching handover. The question changes from whether to commit to what must now be true for the investment to pay back, but the method is the same.

Can you review a procurement before it goes to market?

Yes, and it is one of the most valuable moments to look. By the time bids arrive, most of the outcome has already been decided by what the tender asked for and how it will be scored. A review at this point examines the technical scope, the evaluation criteria, the contract shape, bundled or decoupled, and whether what is being bought fits the architecture and data it has to live with. It is far cheaper to fix a tender than to manage a wrong award.

You spent years on the supplier side. How is the review independent?

That history is why the review works. For sixteen years I helped build the evidence that sellers put in front of infrastructure owners. I know what that material is written to show, what it is written not to show, and which questions it is not built to answer. The independence is structural rather than personal, and it is written into each engagement. No stake in the outcome, no delivery work behind the opinion, and any interest declared before work starts.

Do you take supplier-side work?

Not on anything under review. If a conflict cannot be cleanly separated, I decline the engagement rather than manage it.

What does it cost?

A fixed fee, proposed within two working days of a first call. There is no published rate because scope is agreed per decision, but the fee is fixed before work starts and does not change. No time and materials.

Why one person rather than a firm?

Because the opinion is the product. A firm reviewing a proposal is usually also positioned to sell what comes after it, the implementation, the programme office, the follow-on advisory. I have watched that arithmetic from the inside. Here there is no delivery team to sell on and no follow-on the review is priced to win. What you buy is the judgement, and the judgement has nothing riding on your answer.

Beyond the review

Continuing independent advisory to owners often follows a review. Non-executive, speaking and writing work sits alongside the practice. If the review is not the shape of what you need, say so in the same message.

Start here

Tell me the decision you are facing and when it has to be made.