By Jon W. Hansen | Procurement Insights
There’s an easy way to tell whether an advisor, consultancy, or analyst is operating as a verification authority — or as a program accelerator.
Ask what they are willing to put in writing before implementation begins.
Not vision. Not roadmaps. Not “best practices.”
Risk.
Here are the five things serious advisors will document upfront — and why most won’t.
1. A quantified probability-of-success range
Not optimism. Not confidence.
A range.
If an initiative has a 25–40% likelihood of success given current conditions, that should be stated explicitly before money is committed.
If an advisor won’t quantify probability, ask yourself why.
2. A clear stop / pause threshold
What result means:
- “Proceed”
- “Re-sequence”
- or “Do not implement”
If there is no defined condition under which the answer could be “stop,” then the assessment is not independent — it’s performative.
Readiness without a stop condition is theater.
3. Named decision rights
Who defines what “good” looks like?
Who arbitrates exceptions when reality doesn’t match the model?
If decision rights aren’t explicit before deployment, they will be improvised later — and improvisation is where failure hides.
4. A conflict-of-interest statement
What happens to the advisor’s revenue if the answer is:
“You are not ready.”
If the same firm that benefits from implementation is also defining readiness, independence is compromised — even with the best intentions.
This isn’t about integrity of people. It’s about integrity of incentives.
5. A “receipts” clause
What will be documented now so outcomes can’t be rewritten later?
If success criteria, assumptions, and risks aren’t recorded before execution, post-mortems will quietly become narrative exercises — not learning exercises.
Failure doesn’t need to be hidden. It needs to be preventable.
The Validation Gap No One Discusses
None of the frameworks boards currently rely on meet the standard this test establishes.
That’s not a criticism of the people who use them. It’s an observation about the gap between perceived authority and structural accountability.
Why this matters
Most organizations don’t fail because they chose the wrong technology.
They fail because:
- readiness was assumed,
- governance was deferred,
- and no one was willing to put “do not proceed” in writing.
That’s not incompetence. That’s how systems behave when incentives reward momentum over judgment.
The quiet signal
Advisors who can pass this test:
- don’t rush,
- don’t oversell,
- and don’t confuse activity with progress.
They are willing to be ignored today — because they know reality will reassert itself later.
That’s not pessimism. That’s responsibility.
Before your next transformation
Ask for these five things in writing.
If you’re told they’re “too early,” “too strict,” or “not how things are usually done” — you’ve just learned something important.
Nothing fundamental has changed in transformation. Only the speed at which consequences arrive.
-30-
Procurement Insights
The Integrity Test: What Serious Advisors Put in Writing Before You Implement
Posted on January 22, 2026
0
By Jon W. Hansen | Procurement Insights
There’s an easy way to tell whether an advisor, consultancy, or analyst is operating as a verification authority — or as a program accelerator.
Ask what they are willing to put in writing before implementation begins.
Not vision. Not roadmaps. Not “best practices.”
Risk.
Here are the five things serious advisors will document upfront — and why most won’t.
1. A quantified probability-of-success range
Not optimism. Not confidence.
A range.
If an initiative has a 25–40% likelihood of success given current conditions, that should be stated explicitly before money is committed.
If an advisor won’t quantify probability, ask yourself why.
2. A clear stop / pause threshold
What result means:
If there is no defined condition under which the answer could be “stop,” then the assessment is not independent — it’s performative.
Readiness without a stop condition is theater.
3. Named decision rights
Who defines what “good” looks like?
Who arbitrates exceptions when reality doesn’t match the model?
If decision rights aren’t explicit before deployment, they will be improvised later — and improvisation is where failure hides.
4. A conflict-of-interest statement
What happens to the advisor’s revenue if the answer is:
“You are not ready.”
If the same firm that benefits from implementation is also defining readiness, independence is compromised — even with the best intentions.
This isn’t about integrity of people. It’s about integrity of incentives.
5. A “receipts” clause
What will be documented now so outcomes can’t be rewritten later?
If success criteria, assumptions, and risks aren’t recorded before execution, post-mortems will quietly become narrative exercises — not learning exercises.
Failure doesn’t need to be hidden. It needs to be preventable.
The Validation Gap No One Discusses
None of the frameworks boards currently rely on meet the standard this test establishes.
That’s not a criticism of the people who use them. It’s an observation about the gap between perceived authority and structural accountability.
Why this matters
Most organizations don’t fail because they chose the wrong technology.
They fail because:
That’s not incompetence. That’s how systems behave when incentives reward momentum over judgment.
The quiet signal
Advisors who can pass this test:
They are willing to be ignored today — because they know reality will reassert itself later.
That’s not pessimism. That’s responsibility.
Before your next transformation
Ask for these five things in writing.
If you’re told they’re “too early,” “too strict,” or “not how things are usually done” — you’ve just learned something important.
Nothing fundamental has changed in transformation. Only the speed at which consequences arrive.
-30-
Share this:
Related