Technology Advisory & Leadership

What it is

A structured review of the current estate, the commercial and operational priorities driving it, and the constraints — budget, skills, timeline — that will actually shape delivery, with working sessions that test assumptions and surface disagreement early.

Why it matters

The organisation has technology decisions to make and no shared view of the sequence. Investment cases compete without a common frame to test them against — or a strategy exists, written by a vendor with something to sell, and nobody in the room fully believes it.

What you get

A written strategy the executive team can present to the board in their own words; a prioritised roadmap with dependencies made explicit; business cases stress-tested for the trade-offs they actually contain; and a common frame the organisation can keep using once the engagement ends.

Engagement details

Format

Fixed-scope review

Duration

Four to six weeks

Output

Written strategy and sequenced roadmap

Commercial basis

Fixed fee

What it is

One to three days a week, in a regular monthly rhythm: a presence on the leadership team owning the decisions a CTO owns — architecture, vendors, risk posture, the shape and hiring of the technology team — and reporting to the board in language the board can act on.

Why it matters

The organisation is growing, but technology decisions keep landing on the desk of someone not equipped to own them. These are not engineering problems; they are leadership gaps — and they do not require a full-time executive to close.

What you get

A named senior leader accountable for technology; a strategy the executive team can own; board reporting that says what is true, what it costs, and what is being decided; and when the time comes, a permanent hire process run by someone who has held the role.

Engagement details

Format

1–3 days per week

Location

Remote and on-site

Term

Typically 3–12 months, reviewed quarterly

Commercial basis

Monthly retainer

What it is

A half-day session with the board, prepared specifically for the organisation: what AI the organisation should and should not be deploying, under what controls, who owns the risk, and what the board should be asking of its executive team. Nothing recycled; nothing for sale in the room.

Why it matters

AI is on the board agenda because it is everywhere else. The board is being asked to authorise a direction it has not had a fair chance to understand — and most boards are offered a vendor's view or a consultancy's framework, neither of which tells them what they are actually authorising.

What you get

The session built around your agenda; a written board summary circulated within the week; a set of questions the board can put to the executive team at every future AI decision; and a plain assessment of where the organisation's real exposure sits.

Engagement details

Format

Half-day board session, prepared

Location

Boardroom or remote

Output

Written board summary within the week

Commercial basis

Fixed fee

What it is

A fixed-scope review over four to six weeks: structured conversations with the executive team and the people who actually run the data, and a review of the estate as it is — data, governance, capability, supplier commitments, regulatory exposure — not as the strategy assumes it to be.

Why it matters

AI ambition has outrun the organisation's knowledge of itself. There are pilots in flight and a strategy with AI on every page, but no one can say with confidence what data the organisation holds, who governs it, or what would happen if a regulator asked.

What you get

A written assessment an executive team and a board can both read; a sequenced set of decisions — what to do first, what depends on what, what not to do yet; and a plain statement of the real risk exposure. A decision document you can act on the week it arrives.

Engagement details

Format

Fixed-scope review

Duration

Four to six weeks

Output

Written assessment and decision sequence

Commercial basis

Fixed fee

What it is

Pre-close or post-acquisition assessment of architecture, engineering team, delivery capability, security, technical debt, and what the promised roadmap will actually cost — via data room review, management interviews, and the systems themselves where access allows.

Why it matters

A deal is moving and technology is material to it. The target's claims about the platform, the team and the roadmap need testing by someone who has built and run what is being described — inside the deal window.

What you get

A written, commercially framed assessment; a risk register with sizes against it, separating what is negotiable now from what becomes expensive later; and a view on the team — where the knowledge actually sits, and what leaves if certain people do.

Engagement details

Format

Pre-close or post-acquisition

Duration

Typically two to four weeks, agreed to the deal window

Output

Written assessment and sized risk register

Commercial basis

Fixed fee

What it is

A non-executive directorship providing challenge and support: stress-testing technology assumptions against the commercial thesis, audit and risk committee input on cyber resilience, data sovereignty and vendor dependency, technology scrutiny on acquisitions, and AI governance that goes deeper than policy documents.

Why it matters

Technology has become material to the board's risk register, but no one at the table can interrogate it independently. A board that cannot interrogate its own technology dependencies cannot govern the risks they carry.

What you get

A director who translates technology into commercially legible judgement; questions that change what gets signed; and an independent view the executive team respects because it comes from someone who has sat on their side of the table for thirty years.

Engagement details

Format

Non-executive directorship

Commitment

Typically 1–2 days per month, plus committees

Committees

Audit & risk, M&A technology scrutiny

Commercial basis

Annual fee

What it is

Advising police forces and government agencies on the strategic and ethical use of AI in real-time operations — where the consequences of failure are immediate and human.

Why it matters

AI in policing is one of the most demanding accountability environments in which technology decisions are made: bias is not a theoretical concern, and public trust depends on getting the governance right before deployment.

What you get

A written view on each AI deployment you are considering: whether to proceed, under what controls, who owns the risk, and what has to be in place before it goes live — from advisers currently architecting AI and data programmes in UK policing.

What it is

An assessment of risk posture against actual exposure, not against a generic framework: where controls are proportionate, where they are theatre, and where a real gap sits unaddressed — translated into terms a board can weigh against other priorities.

Why it matters

The organisation has invested in security tools and can point to a policy document, but nobody at board level can answer what the actual exposure is, what it would cost if realised, or which of it has been consciously accepted rather than simply not noticed.

What you get

A written risk posture assessment stating what is exposed, what it would cost, and what is currently being accepted rather than managed; a prioritised set of recommendations sized to actual impact; and board-ready reporting that survives being asked a direct question.

Engagement details

Format

Fixed-scope review or board advisory

Duration

Typically four to six weeks

Output

Written risk posture assessment and prioritised recommendations

Commercial basis

Fixed fee

What it is

Fractional, interim or advisory technology leadership shaped for public sector conditions — central government, health, justice, education and home affairs — translating between technical delivery and the governance, funding and accountability structures that shape whether it actually happens.

Why it matters

Public sector programmes move through governance built for accountability rather than speed, and delivery partners promise timelines that assume a private-sector decision cycle. The barriers are as often organisational and political as technical.

What you get

Senior technology leadership that does not need the public sector context explained to it; realistic programme and procurement timelines tested against how decisions are actually made; and delivery partners held to account by someone who has sat on the other side of that relationship.

Engagement details

Format

Fractional, interim or advisory

Location

Remote and on-site

Sectors

Central government · Health · Justice · Education · Home affairs

Commercial basis

Day rate, retainer or fixed fee

What it is

Keynotes, conference sessions, leadership offsites and executive masterclasses on AI adoption and governance, the future of work, designing technology around the people who use it, and the strategic and ethical challenges facing boards — every session prepared for the room rather than recycled.

Why it matters

The conference needs a technology keynote that is not a vendor pitch; the leadership offsite needs a session that changes the questions executives ask, not just the slides they have seen.

What you get

A session prepared for your room, a planning call two weeks before, and the slides and reading list afterwards. Audiences leave with the questions to put to their own executive team, and a view of what it costs when nobody asks them.

Engagement details

Formats

Keynote, masterclass, offsite session

Duration

Thirty minutes to half a day

Audience

Conferences, boards, leadership teams

Commercial basis

Fixed fee plus travel