Seeking an independent view does not mean the strategy is wrong. It means the organisation wants to test its thinking before making decisions that may be difficult or expensive to reverse.
A good review should not simply validate the document. It should examine the assumptions behind it.
Are the Technology choices right?
Technology decisions are rarely made in a vacuum. Existing relationships, previous investments and team experience all influence the options that reach the shortlist.
Sometimes the preferred choice remains the right one. But that conclusion is stronger when the alternatives have been properly tested and the evaluation criteria have not unintentionally favoured the most familiar option.
We recently worked with an organisation that had identified a preferred ERP platform. The initial choice appeared credible, but a deeper review of the requirements and available alternatives identified a substantially better fit.
The purpose of the challenge was not to overturn the original decision. It was to ensure the organisation made the right one.
Are the costs complete and realistic?
The headline cost of a transformation rarely tells the whole story.
Licensing may change as usage grows. Old and new systems may need to run together. Productivity can fall while teams learn new processes. Additional support may be needed after go-live. Internal people assigned to the programme still represent a cost to the wider business.
These costs are not always omitted deliberately. They are often difficult to see from inside the programme.
Benchmarking the assumptions against comparable transformations can expose gaps before they become budget pressures.
Can the timescale hold?
A confident roadmap can quickly become an unrealistic one if important dependencies have been underestimated.
Delivery may rely on scarce internal resources, third parties, data readiness, procurement, governance decisions or other programmes completing work on time.
A realistic plan should make those dependencies visible. It should also show where there is genuine contingency and where a date depends on everything going right.
An achievable timeline is more valuable than an ambitious one that begins to unravel as soon as delivery starts.
Does the organisation have the capacity to deliver?
Strategies often depend on people or capabilities that are not yet in place.
The plan may assume that new roles will be recruited, specialist knowledge will be developed or existing teams will find additional capacity alongside their day-to-day responsibilities.
Those assumptions need to be tested early.
What happens if recruitment takes longer than expected? What will be deprioritised to release internal capacity? Where will the organisation need external support? Who will retain the knowledge after delivery?
A strategy is only credible if the organisation can realistically mobilise the people needed to deliver it.
Is the future operating model clear?
Technology strategies tend to describe what will be implemented. They do not always explain clearly enough how the organisation will operate afterwards.
Who will own the new platforms? How will they be supported? Which capabilities will sit internally and which will be provided by partners? How will decisions be made? Who will be accountable for improving the technology once the programme team has moved on?
Without clear answers, an organisation can successfully implement new technology but still struggle to realise the expected benefit.
Is there a credible plan for bringing people with you?
Technology transformation changes how people work. That change cannot be treated as an activity to address shortly before go-live.
Communication, engagement, training and adoption should be designed into the strategy from the start. They require clear ownership, sufficient investment and the same attention as the technical delivery.
A platform can be implemented exactly as designed and still fall short if people do not understand it, use it consistently or see how it improves their work.
