Put the conditions of the business inside the proposal

I ask whether the measures in a portfolio can be combined on the basis assumed by the strategy account. Standalone estimates may interact when changes affect the same system, so a sum can be arithmetically correct while the package claim remains unsupported. Qualified technical specialists need to examine those relationships and the conditions of the model. My role is to make the revised proposition visible to the commercial and investment owners, including when I approved the earlier account. A model remains a model until appropriate evidence supports an operating conclusion. I would retain the cost of review and the scope of any pilot, rather than present a smaller estimate as either a failure of the entire opportunity or proof that the chosen package has already delivered its benefit.

A service model that places assets at a customer's premises needs an account of how the premises can remain available for the proposed term. I ask legal, commercial and site owners to examine the actual tenure, consents and obligations before a long service period is treated as a simple extension of present access. An expectation of renewal is not automatically an established right, and an unresolved site should remain unresolved in the portfolio. The strategy may need a shorter or narrower proposition, with its different economics made explicit. I would not supply a legal interpretation or assume that every lease or consent has the same effect. My contribution is to ensure that the site relationship is part of the business being approved, rather than a detail deferred until after equipment spending has become difficult to reconsider.

An asset register can establish what the company owns without explaining what it can practically recover or sell. I ask qualified technical and professional owners to examine the proposed exit, including integration with the site, removal rights, condition, cost and a credible subsequent use. A unit identified as a candidate for removal is not already recovered inventory. A resale assumption is not proceeds received, and it should not be confused with an accounting conclusion about carrying value. The strategic question is whether the business model depends on an exit that has been examined. If the answer changes, management needs to see the consequence for the proposition and the options still available. I would keep the review expense visible rather than allow a revised assumption to appear as an accomplished recovery.

I examine what the company spends to understand a prospective customer's problem and how that work relates to later paid engagements. Free assessment can be a sensible route where learning and trust matter, but the count of completed assessments is not itself evidence of an effective acquisition model. I ask for the population, follow-on status, expense and fee account to remain distinct. A trial of paid scoping may answer a different question and should not be declared superior from a small initial group. Commercial and finance owners need to define the account, while technical owners retain the quality of the work. My role is to help the company choose a route deliberately, including the customers it may lose and the uncertainty still present, instead of allowing unpaid effort to disappear behind a large activity total.