Technology Business-Finance Decision Architecture Consultant

The mandate

The defined issue is that regional technology finance reviews use incompatible assumptions and decision conventions, so executives cannot distinguish genuine economics from presentation differences. The consultant will deliver a Business-Finance Decision Architecture Pack, joining assumption ownership, performance evidence and action options for a selected multi-geography review perimeter. It is not an outsourced planning seat.

The engagement runs four months from 19 October 2026 at four days weekly. Pune workshops establish the executive questions and selected regional interfaces; remote analysis develops the artifacts. Deliverables include a decision taxonomy, common assumption register, performance-evidence bridge and review paper showing alternatives, owners and escalation requirements rather than expanding the existing dashboard estate.

Milestone one is due 18 November 2026: a signed decision inventory, regional definition differences and a baseline of unsupported assumptions. Milestone two on 18 January 2027 delivers the working decision pack and a challenged rehearsal using actual performance. Milestone three, on 18 February 2027, comprises a live executive-review pilot, corrections and a retained business-partner refresh with documented issue ownership.

The CFO and transformation sponsor jointly accept the outputs. Selected decisions must be traceable to controlled financial evidence, assumptions must have named owners and the pack must identify which actions require executive approval. Regional reviewers must reproduce the comparison and explain legitimate differences rather than erase them. Acceptance requires a useful, repeatable decision process, not agreement that every recommendation will be implemented.

The sponsor supplies financial results, existing review papers, regional finance contacts and timely access to commercial or delivery assumptions. The scope excludes statutory reporting redesign, systems procurement, acquisition diligence and execution of the operating decisions identified. Additional regions or materially new business models require sponsor-approved change control. The project closes on accepted artifacts and transfer tests, leaving ongoing decision ownership with retained finance and executive leaders.

What you will own

• Inventory the executive decisions currently hidden inside regional review packs, linking each to the evidence, assumption owner and authority needed for a meaningful choice.
• Map definition differences across selected regional views, distinguishing legitimate economic variation from avoidable inconsistency in planning, cost allocation or performance presentation.
• Construct a common assumption register that preserves uncertainty and expiry dates rather than giving unsupported numbers permanent authority through repeated use in review materials.
• Develop decision papers comparing action alternatives on contribution, cash and execution dependency, with explicit escalation when a proposed action exceeds delegated finance authority.
• Pilot the architecture in a live review, observing whether executives make clearer choices and whether unresolved questions receive accountable owners and evidence deadlines.
• Transfer the refresh logic and review method to retained business partners through a changed-case reproduction test and documented correction of pilot usability issues.

Candidate qualifications

• Demonstrate eighteen or more years across technology finance, FP&A or business partnering with senior functional leadership. Provide a multi-geography finance process you personally redesigned, the inconsistent definition or assumption it exposed and the executive decision improved. A broad transformation label is insufficient without analytical artifacts and evidence of use.
• Show strong ability to connect controlled results, commercial assumptions and future action without conflating accounting recognition with management economics. Explain a case where regional comparisons initially pointed to the wrong conclusion and how your evidence bridge preserved legitimate differences while making the choice clearer.
• Bring practical facilitation with regional finance and operating leaders, including contested cost allocation or planning conventions. Evidence should show a bounded data request, a resolution route and ownership retained with authorised executives. The consultant must be able to describe uncertainty plainly rather than using architecture terminology to conceal unresolved judgement.
• Prove fixed-fee delivery of accepted decision artifacts with stakeholder review and retained-user transfer. Describe how you tested usability, handled additional-region requests and avoided becoming the permanent operator of the model. Current commitments must permit the specified four-day weekly project capacity and confidential multi-geography collaboration.

Application

Applications for this mandate are received in one way only: through the India Board Terminal's application process. It is automated end to end. Your Executive Passport travels to the mandate holder in its confidential form, your answers to the three questions below are read before anything else in your file, and every stage that follows is recorded on your applications page.

There is no address to write to and no intermediary to call. The mandate holder reads what the Terminal delivers and nothing else, which is what keeps the process the same for every applicant and keeps your name out of it until you release it. Applications close on 11 October 2026. Mandate reference PCT-CON-2026-IND-47.