Scoping Review
The most expensive mistake in strategy work is not a bad answer. It is a well-executed answer to the wrong problem. A scoping review is the small, deliberate step that makes that mistake much less likely.
The first conversation is free: 45 minutes, no obligation.
You implemented what worked for a similar organisation, and it did not work here but it is not clear why.
It has been worked on for months through a series of reasonable, well-resourced efforts, none of which quite solved it.
You know something is not right, but not whether it is a strategy, governance, capability or measurement problem, and you do not want to buy the wrong solution.
Each of these has a cost that rarely shows up on one line. Another round of funding spent on an approach that already did not work. A program redesigned around the symptom. A larger engagement bought to solve a problem nobody has checked. The longer the wrong problem is worked on, the more expensive it becomes to stop.
Most organisations arrive at an advisor with a presenting problem: a strategy that is not holding, a program that is not landing, a funder asking harder questions than last year. The presenting problem is real. It is also, often, not the problem that needs solving. A scoping review separates the two before either side commits to a larger engagement.
Social enterprises, not-for-profits and charities, peak bodies, purpose-driven businesses, and teams in federal, state and local government who recognise one of the situations above.
It is most valuable just before a decision that is hard to reverse: a funding application, a restructure, a new program, or a multi-year strategy. That is the moment when checking the problem costs least and saves most.
A scoping review is not a discovery phase you pay for before the real work starts. It is a self-contained piece of work with its own conclusion.
The purpose is to establish what is genuinely true about the situation, in contrast to what is assumed, inherited, or simply how things have always functioned. That means separating the constraints that are real from the constraints that turn out to be choices — which is frequently where the most useful finding sits.
It ends with a recommendation about what to do next. Sometimes that is one of the other TKD advisory services. Sometimes it is work that TKD advisory does not do, in which case you will be told that.
A framing conversation. How the problem is currently described, what has already been tried, and what each attempt actually tested.
Evidence gathered against assumptions. Interviews inside and outside the organisation, and a read of the documents that matter — strategy, board papers, funding agreements, evaluation reports. Evidence is gathered to test the premises the current approach stands on, not to support a solution that has already been half-decided.
A working session on the findings. The findings are put in front of you before they are written up, because the uncomfortable ones need discussing rather than delivering.
Written findings and a recommendation.
A problem statement you can defend. Specific enough to settle an argument about priorities, and grounded in what was actually found rather than what was assumed at the start.
The assumptions made explicit. What the current approach is standing on, which of those premises held up against evidence, and which did not.
A recommended way forward, with the reasoning visible so your board or leadership team can interrogate it rather than take it on trust.
An honest read on fit. Whether TKD advisory is the right party for the next step, or whether someone else is.
$6,000–12,000, exclusive of GST. Where it lands depends on how much ground the question needs to cover. At the lower end: three interviews inside the organisation, a review of two key documents, and a short report with findings and advice on next steps, with or without TKD advisory. At the upper end: up to six interviews, including up to three outside the organisation, a review of five documents, and a report. The scope is agreed in writing before the work starts.
50% of the fee is credited to a follow-on engagement that starts within three months. Three months, because after that the problem definition may no longer hold: circumstances move, and the findings would need checking again.
The scoping review is designed to be the lowest-commitment way towards a solution. It is smaller than any of the full engagements, and it is deliberately structured so that you can stop afterwards.
Three to four weeks from the first conversation to written findings, depending on how many people need to be spoken to and how quickly they can be reached.
Then that is the finding, and it is a good one. A scoping review that concludes the organisation already knows what it is doing and should proceed as planned has saved you the cost of a full engagement. TKD advisory is not structured to need the follow-on work, which is precisely what makes the diagnosis worth something.
Usually the person carrying the problem, two or three people close to the work, and at least one person who disagrees with the current direction. That last one matters most. Board involvement depends on whether the question touches strategy or governance. Total time from your team is typically a few hours.
No. A feasibility study asks whether a proposed solution can work. A scoping review asks whether the proposed solution answers the right problem in the first place. Those are different questions, and the second one usually needs answering first.
Between $6,000 and $12,000, exclusive of GST, depending on how many interviews and documents the question needs. 50% is credited to a follow-on engagement that starts within three months.
The first conversation, where the scope is worked out, is free.
If you are not sure whether what you are facing is a strategy question, a governance question or a measurement question, that uncertainty is itself the reason to start here.
Help me understand my problem or call +61 475 923 987