A major purchase or implementation
We verify the decision before you pay. Otherwise you risk buying the wrong thing and redoing it at your own expense.
Two services answering different questions: one looks ahead, the other assesses what has already been built.
We work through the business goals for the next year or two and translate them into a plan of IT changes. The output is a roadmap with the sequence, cost estimates and dependencies: what cannot start until something else is done.
A review of the decisions already made: how well the chosen systems fit the tasks, where the risks lie and what will become the bottleneck as you grow. We separately examine dependence on specific contractors and vendors.
Consulting is not always justified. Below are the situations where an outside view saves considerably more than it costs.
We verify the decision before you pay. Otherwise you risk buying the wrong thing and redoing it at your own expense.
We assess the condition and the risks of the handover. Otherwise the system is accepted without documentation and you live with someone else decisions.
We prepare a development plan with headroom. Otherwise the architecture hits its ceiling within a year.
We review the spending and the priorities. Otherwise the funding continues out of inertia.
We compare the options independently. Otherwise the choice comes down to price rather than to the task.
We may find ourselves in a conflict of interest, and we acknowledge that. A company that runs an audit and then proposes its own services has an interest in finding as many problems as possible. So we deliver the report with market-level cost estimates, not just our own price list, and we have no objection if you give the work to another contractor.
Most of the time goes into talking to people rather than examining hardware. IT problems almost always start in the processes.
We talk to the managers and to the people who work in the systems every day. The picture these two groups describe usually differs.
We review the architecture, the licences, the contractor agreements and how dependent the company is on specific individuals.
We rate every finding by business impact and cost to fix. The result is a queue, not a wish list.
We do not just send a document; we go through it in person with the management and answer questions on every point.
An infrastructure assessment answers the question of what you have and what condition it is in: an inventory and the risks. Consulting answers what to do next and why, and it starts from business goals rather than technical condition alone. The two are often done one after the other.
That is exactly the typical situation for this request. We work directly with the owner or the finance director and speak the language of business rather than jargon. Technical detail stays in the appendices to the report.
It happens, for example when it turns out that a recently purchased system does not solve the stated problem. We do not soften the wording, but we always show ways forward, including ones where the money already spent is partly put to use.
It depends on the size of the company and the depth of the review: the work takes two to four weeks. We quote after a short conversation, once the number of systems and interviewees is clear.
Tell us which decision you face and what gives you doubts. We will agree the scope of the review and propose a way of working.
Request received
We can already see it. We will reply within one business day, and for urgent matters we will bring in the on-duty engineer right away.
City not found. Please check the spelling.