Congratulations on the new role.
Here's the problem no one mentioned in the offer.
Your first job is knowing what you've inherited. We give you an evidence-based view of your programmes, before you're asked to sign off on them.
Fixed price. Contracted and started within 5 working days.
The go-live date reported to the steering committee assumes data migration is complete. Cutover testing shows three of five legacy ledgers are not yet reconciled, with no mitigation currently on the plan.
Sound familiar?
Most new tech leaders recognise at least two of these.
Every programme you've inherited is reporting green
Next month you chair a steering committee on a programme you didn't set up
The CFO has asked what you think of the ERP programme
The SI wants a change request signed
The board wants your 90-day plan
The business case doesn't match what's being built
Five questions every new tech leader has to answer.
We cover the delivery side of what you've inherited: the programmes, where the money sits and the reporting is least reliable.
What have I inherited?
The programmes you now own, scored on evidence rather than the status reports you were handed.
Where are the biggest risks?
A heat map across 13 delivery dimensions showing where the exposure actually sits.
Can I trust the plans and reporting?
Evidence tested against what's being reported up. The one thing self-reporting can't give you.
What needs my attention now?
A ranked set of actions, each with a named owner.
What's my 90-day agenda?
Yours to write. Ours is the evidence underneath it.
By day 90, this stops being their problem and starts being yours.
None of this is anyone's fault. It's how the clock works once you're in the chair.
The narrative is still theirs
Status reports and RAG ratings were written before you arrived. Someone else's story.
You start signing off on it
Steering committees, budgets and board updates start carrying your name.
It's fully yours by default
"I just got here" stops being a credible answer.
What you're holding at the end of it.
Not just a report. A defensible position on what you've inherited — and the cover to act on it.
A funding decision you can defend
Findings land before the next tranche or reforecast — so you commit money where delivery is real, and hold back what isn't ready to take it.
Act early on the programmes that matter most
Decisive action on your key strategic programmes while the decisions are still yours to make — and while changing a date or a business case is still inherited, not owned.
Risk you can point at
Not a heat map of everything. A clear view of where the exposure actually sits, how serious it is, and what happens if it's left alone.
You know what's actually green
Every programme scored against evidence rather than self-report, so you and your teams know where to act first — not where the noise is loudest.
Your first 90 days spent on people, not archaeology
Less time reconciling conflicting status reports. More on the C-suite, the board and the stakeholders who will judge your first year.
A mandate to drive change without spending relationships
It's the report saying the programme must change, not you — and that matters when you're still building the relationships you'll need.
What the reviews actually surfaced
“Before the review, that programme was reporting green at board level.”Renato Callisto, VP Portfolio, Budgeting & Governance
Who's in the room
The people who interview your team are the people who sign the report.
No juniors. No handover after the pitch. And if there's nothing wrong, that's the finding.
Gorev Moudgil
Managing Director
18 years across Accenture, McKinsey and Baringa, then running FTSE100 portfolios from the inside.
Lars Ridoff
Assurance Director
20 years in technology assurance across Deloitte, Accenture and EY, leading health checks and recovery reviews on ERP and digital programmes.
Jon Elcock
Assurance Director
22 years delivering in trading and regulated environments: Shell, Barclays Capital, Lloyds.
Start with the fast assessment. Go deeper if it's warranted.
Lite tells you within two weeks whether a programme needs your attention. Standard tells you why, and what to fix first. A comparable Big 4 review typically costs £200,000–£400,000 and takes two to three months.
The Signal Check
- Know within two weeks whether this needs your attention
- An independent assessment without a business case or sign-off conversation
- Something to put beside the PMO's status report
- Works from your existing documents · about 2–3 hours of your team's time
The Full Assurance Report
- Know why it's slipping, not just that it is
- Leave with a fix sequence someone owns, with dates against it
- Walk into the board with an independent position, not the SI's version
- For programmes spending up to £15m a year
Full Assurance at Scale
- Comprehensive + workstream-tailored survey
- 16–26 stakeholder interviews across workstreams
- For programmes spending more than £15m a year
04 — Portfolio
“Which of these programmes should I worry about first?”
The Portfolio Screen
20% off
any of Lite, Standard or XL · minimum four programmes
Know which programme to worry about first, on comparable evidence
A ranked portfolio view, not five reports in five formats
£16,000, £40,000 and £80,000 per programme at Lite, Standard and XL depth
Fixed price on a one-page scope. We start within 5 working days of your call.
We work from the documents you already have, so your PMO isn't building anything new. Your SI is told it's an independent review and interviewed like any other stakeholder.
In a CIO's words
“Gave us an independent view of where we stood ahead of a potential transaction — completed in weeks.”
CIO, European Commodity Trader
Fifteen minutes tells you whether it's worth doing.
No obligation, no sales pitch — just a conversation about whether it's the right moment to bring in an independent view.