How a Risk Control Matrix Improves Audit Readiness
A risk control matrix maps each business risk to the specific control that mitigates it, names the control owner, states how the…
Assess the delivery team, not the firm
The gap between the people who present and the people who deliver is the largest single source of disappointment in consulting engagements. A firm’s overall track record tells you what its best teams have achieved; it tells you nothing about the team you will be assigned.
Ask for named individuals for the key roles, with CVs, current commitments and start availability. Ask what happens if one of them becomes unavailable, and whether replacement requires your approval. A partner confident in its bench answers this straightforwardly.
- Named consultants for each key role, with relevant project history
- Their current commitments and genuine start availability
- Whether replacement of a named person needs your approval
- Ratio of senior to junior time in the proposed staffing
- Whether any work is subcontracted, and to whom
- Who from the pitch team remains engaged during delivery
References that tell you something
A reference from a very large client tells a mid-sized business little, because the team, governance and attention applied were different. Ask for a client of comparable size and complexity, and ask to speak with them directly rather than reading a case study.
The questions that produce useful answers are specific: what went wrong and how was it handled, did the named team stay for the duration, how were change requests priced in practice, and would you engage them again for the same work. General satisfaction questions produce general answers.
Scope, exclusions and change
The exclusions list is more informative than the inclusions list. Common exclusions that surprise clients later include data cleansing, end-user training, third-party licence costs, integration with systems not explicitly named, and post-go-live support beyond a short window.
Change pricing needs to be agreed before signature, when you have leverage. A rate card for change work, a threshold below which minor changes are absorbed, and a stated turnaround for change estimates all prevent the pattern where a project becomes progressively more expensive through unpriced additions.
| Term | What to specify |
|---|---|
| Exclusions | Written list, not inferred from silence |
| Change pricing | Rate card plus absorption threshold |
| Named staff | Approval required for substitution |
| Escalation | Named contact and response commitment |
| Acceptance | Objective criteria per deliverable |
| Exit | Handover contents, format and transition support rate |
| IP and documentation | Client ownership stated explicitly |
Comparing proposals fairly
Day rates are not comparable without knowing the seniority mix behind them. A lower blended rate delivered by a junior-heavy team can cost more in elapsed time and rework than a higher rate applied to an experienced one.
Compare on total cost to a defined outcome, with the same scope and the same assumptions, and require each proposal to state its assumptions explicitly. Where two proposals differ substantially in effort, the difference is almost always in what each assumed the client would do.