Commissioning Judgement: A Buyer’s Checklist for Outside Advice
Photo: Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Most disappointing advisory engagements are not ruined at delivery. They are bought badly. A polished proposal, a partner who listens well and a fee that seems reasonable can conceal a simple problem: the buyer has not decided what decision the work is meant to improve. For UK leaders commissioning consultancy, legal or other professional advice, the discipline belongs at the point of purchase.
Start with the decision, not the deliverable
A proposal often lists outputs: a report, a workshop, a model, a legal opinion. Those are means. The buyer should begin with the decision that will be taken differently because of the work. Is the board choosing whether to enter a market, settle a dispute, change an operating model or approve a capital programme? If that decision cannot be stated in one sentence, the scope is not ready. Ask the adviser to restate the decision in their own words. If their restatement is vague, the engagement is already drifting.
Name the decision owner
Outside advice rarely fails because the adviser lacks expertise. It fails because nobody inside the organisation owns the answer. Before signing, identify the executive or committee accountable for the decision, the person who will sponsor the work day to day, and the people whose agreement is required. This is not bureaucracy. It prevents the familiar pattern in which a partner presents options to a group that has no authority to choose among them. The proposal should say who will decide, by when and on what basis. If the adviser cannot work with that clarity, that is useful evidence.
Require evidence, not assertion
Advisers sell judgement, but judgement should be evidenced. Ask what the adviser will examine, which sources they will use and what would cause them to change their view. A credible proposal distinguishes between facts, assumptions and opinion. It should also say what the adviser does not know. For regulated advice, check the basis of the opinion and the limits of liability. For consultancy, ask for comparable work and the names of clients who will speak candidly. Testimonials are marketing; evidence is a method.
Agree the exit before you begin
Every engagement should have an off-ramp. That may be a decision point after a diagnostic phase, a contractual right to stop if certain conditions are not met, or a fixed date at which the work is reviewed. The exit test should be written into the proposal: what will be true if the engagement is succeeding, and what will trigger a pause or termination? This protects both sides. It also exposes proposals that assume an indefinite programme without a defined moment of usefulness.
Design fees around the decision
Fees should follow the risk and the work, not the theatre of the proposal. A fixed fee can suit a well-defined opinion or review; time-and-materials can suit exploratory work where scope is genuinely uncertain; success fees may be appropriate in narrow situations but need careful scrutiny. Ask what is included, what is excluded and how changes will be priced. Compare total cost of ownership, not day rates alone: internal time, disruption and the cost of acting on poor advice are part of the bill. A low fee for the wrong scope is expensive.
Test internal capacity
The best adviser cannot compensate for a client team that has no capacity to engage. Before commissioning, ask who will read the drafts, attend the sessions, supply the data and make the decision. If the answer is that someone will be found, the engagement is at risk. External advice requires internal absorption. A short, well-resourced engagement usually beats a broad programme that the organisation cannot digest.
A discipline, not a formality
These checks are not a procurement ritual. They are a way of buying judgement rather than buying activity. The buyer who defines the decision, names the owner, demands evidence, agrees the exit, designs the fee and tests capacity is not being difficult. They are giving the adviser a fair brief and giving the organisation a fair chance of benefit. In UK boardrooms where advisory spend is under sharper scrutiny, that discipline is not optional. It is the difference between advice that improves a decision and advice that merely decorates it.
