Fictional worked example · not a client case study
An example: a focused governance review
A fictional charity finds that decisions are unclear and agreed actions keep stalling. It commissions a focused review of decision-making and follow-through.
Discuss a similar projectExample timeframe
4–6 weeks
Planning budget
£2,750–£5,300
Scope
One charity, up to six interviews and an agreed set of up to twelve relevant documents. The review covers a defined question, not every aspect of the organisation.
This is an example, not a fixed package or set of rules. The scope, stages, timings and measures can be adapted to your organisation. Costs use a fictional £400–£600 day-rate assumption to illustrate a budget; they are not To Action rates or a quotation. Any actual work and fees would be agreed with you.
How the assumptions and fees work
We have created this scenario to make the possible work, costs and decisions easier to understand. It does not describe a real client, completed engagement or proven outcome.
- Costs: the day rate, time allowances and contingency are illustrative assumptions chosen for this example. They are not researched market rates or an approved To Action price list. The total adds the low and high estimates shown below.
- Timing: the roadmap assumes timely access to people, records and decisions. It is an example sequence, not a promised delivery date.
- Results: the measures describe what could be tracked. No improvement, income, funding or compliance outcome is guaranteed.
- Your proposal: before any engagement, we would agree the work included, exclusions, responsibilities, fees, expenses and how changes would be approved. Work outside that scope would need agreement.
This service is open for enquiries. We will agree suitability, availability, scope and fees with you.
One possible roadmap
Week 1 · Agree the question
Agree remit, independence and conflicts, evidence access, confidentiality, reporting audience and limits.
Example milestone: A written scope, evidence list and agreed fee before work starts.
Weeks 2–3 · Understand
Review the agreed documents and hold interviews, separating records, reported experiences and gaps.
Example milestone: An evidence map showing what is supported and what remains uncertain.
Weeks 4–5 · Test findings
Analyse recurring issues, draft proportionate recommendations and check factual accuracy.
Example milestone: A draft report with evidence, limitations and priorities; factual checks do not give a veto over supported findings.
Week 6 · Decide next steps
Discuss findings with the agreed decision-makers and assign actions and review dates.
Example milestone: A final report and an owned action plan, with a proposed 30/60/90-day follow-up.
These stages are a starting point for discussion, not a fixed method. We would adapt the sequence, pace, scope and measures to your organisation. Timing depends on access to people, information and any necessary permissions.
Rough cost breakdown
| Work or allowance | Basis | Range |
|---|---|---|
| Scope and evidence request | 1 day × £400–£600 | £400–£600 |
| Document review and interviews | 3–4 days × £400–£600 | £1,200–£2,400 |
| Analysis, draft findings and factual checks | 1.5–2 days × £400–£600 | £600–£1,200 |
| Trustee discussion and action plan | 1 day × £400–£600 | £400–£600 |
| Contingency | Example reserve for limited additional work | £150–£500 |
| Total planning allowance | £2,750–£5,300 | |
Scope and evidence request
1 day × £400–£600
£400–£600
Document review and interviews
3–4 days × £400–£600
£1,200–£2,400
Analysis, draft findings and factual checks
1.5–2 days × £400–£600
£600–£1,200
Trustee discussion and action plan
1 day × £400–£600
£400–£600
Contingency
Example reserve for limited additional work
£150–£500
Total planning allowance: £2,750–£5,300
Not included: Statutory financial audit, legal advice, investigation of allegations, safeguarding casework, certification and implementation of recommendations. Extra interviews, missing records, travel or a wider remit would need a revised scope and fee.
A simple decision matrix
Use these headings to discuss each finding. This is a prioritisation aid, not an audit rating or certification. Urgent safeguarding or legal concerns need the appropriate route without waiting for the review to finish.
| Criterion | Approach | Question |
|---|---|---|
| Potential impact | High / medium / low | What happens if this issue remains unresolved? |
| Urgency | Now / next / later | Is a decision needed immediately or can improvement be scheduled? |
| Evidence strength | Supported / partial / unknown | Which records support the finding, and what is missing? |
| Effort and owner | Small / medium / large | Who can act, and what capacity or specialist input is needed? |
Measures of progress and success
Agree the starting position, targets and who will collect the information before beginning. These are proposed measures, not claimed results.
Clear decisions
Compare sampled minutes before and after changes: are decisions and decision-makers identifiable?
Owned actions
Measure the proportion of agreed actions with a named owner and due date.
Follow-through
Review actions completed by their due date at 30, 60 and 90 days.
Unresolved priorities
Track high-priority issues still open and the reason each remains unresolved.
What completion could look like
The agreed question has been addressed as far as the evidence allows, limitations are explicit, and decision-makers have a report and practical action plan. Delivery of that plan is a separate stage; the review is not a compliance guarantee.
Discuss your own starting point
Tell us the question, the people or space involved, your timeframe and any budget you have in mind. Enquiries are welcome; an enquiry does not commit you to work.
Talk through your project