Your agency does good work. You do not know whether it is the right work.
When nobody inside the company can contrast what a technical supplier says, the relationship rests on trust. Trust is fine, but it is not a management method. I step in between: I talk to them in their language, review what they propose and tell you about it in yours.
I am not here to replace your supplier. It is almost never necessary.
The problem is not your supplier. It is the asymmetry.
Your supplier knows technology. You know your business. When something has to be decided that mixes the two — and everything important mixes the two — the conversation tilts. They propose, you accept. Not because you agree, but because you have no way to disagree.
Changing supplier does not fix that asymmetry. The next one will also know more than you about their field. What fixes it is having someone on your side who knows the same.
How it shows
- Estimates arrive closed and cannot be argued with, because arguing requires knowing what they are based on.
- Every change request turns into a quote, and you cannot tell which ones are reasonable.
- You work with several suppliers and none of them feels responsible for what happens in the seams between them.
- When something fails, each one points at the other, and you have to judge a case you do not understand.
- You end up setting priorities by pressure rather than judgement: whatever someone shouts loudest about goes first.
- Nobody in your company understands what has been built. If the supplier disappears tomorrow, the knowledge disappears too.
- You are afraid to ask for a big change, because you do not know whether it is a day of work or three months.
What I do
- I talk to your supplier as an equal
- I review what they propose, ask what needs asking and spot what is not being said. Not out of distrust, but out of knowledge.
- I review estimates before you approve them
- Not to negotiate the price down, but to know whether what is about to be built is what is needed and whether the scope is properly defined. Most cost overruns do not come from a high hourly rate: they come from a badly defined scope.
- I translate in both directions
- To your supplier I give clear requirements and decisions already made, which is what they need to work well. To you I give the real state of things, in money and in weeks.
- I put the priorities in order
- A single list, sorted by business impact, that every supplier sees and none negotiates on their own.
- I cover the seams
- When there are several suppliers, the problem is never inside one supplier's work: it is between two of them. That gap is mine.
- I reduce your dependence
- Minimum documentation, access credentials in your name, and knowledge that does not live solely in the head of someone who invoices you.
I am not here to get anyone fired
The supplier's reaction when someone like me shows up is usually the same: they assume I am there to audit them in order to replace them. That is reasonable, and it has to be defused early, because a defensive supplier works worse and hides more.
- I introduce myself as part of your team, not as an evaluator. Because that is what I am.
- The first conversation with them is to listen, not to review. They almost always have legitimate complaints about how the work is being asked of them, and almost nobody has asked.
- I give them what every good supplier wants: clear requirements, someone who understands what they say, and decisions that do not change every week.
- If the supplier is good, they stay. And the relationship usually improves, because at last there is someone opposite who can say yes or no with knowledge.
- If the supplier is not good, it shows. It comes out on its own by the second or third technical conversation. And then you make the decision to change with data, not with anger.
What you gain
- You know where the money goes. Not what gets invoiced, but what it turns into.
- You know what is being done this week and why that and not something else.
- You can say no to a quote, with an argument.
- You can ask for big things knowing roughly what they cost before you ask.
- You stop depending on one person to understand your own platform.
- Meetings with the supplier take half as long, because the decisions arrive already made.
What you get
- A map of suppliers
- Who does what, what contract they hold, what access they control and what happens if they are gone tomorrow.
- A single list of priorities
- Maintained and sorted by business impact, visible to every supplier.
- A written review of every relevant estimate
- Before you approve it, not after you are invoiced for it.
- A periodic progress report
- Where everything stands, readable in five minutes, without chasing anyone.
- An inventory of access and dependencies
- With whatever has to be recovered into your name. There is usually something.
- A decision log
- What was decided, when, with what information and who decided it.
How the scope gets defined
On the first call I do not close a price or a timeline. I have not seen the project, and estimating without having seen it would not be serious: what a rescue, a due diligence or external technical leadership costs depends on the real state of the system, on what access exists, on how many suppliers are involved, on what documentation there is, and on how urgent it is.
- 01
A first call to understand the situation
Thirty minutes, no cost. You tell me what is going on, I ask questions, and I come out knowing whether I can help and what kind of work fits.
- 02
If it fits, an initial review of the context
I take a first look at whatever exists: documentation, access, contracts, who is involved. This is where the real size of the problem becomes visible.
- 03
Definition of the scope
What is in, what is out, what dependencies exist and what can be left aside without the work losing its point.
- 04
A written proposal
With scope, price, timeline and deliverables. No open ranges: a proposal you can compare and defend.
- 05
We start only if we both approve it
If the proposal does not convince you, no harm done and you have paid nothing. If it does not convince me, I say so first.
I would rather look careful than look fast. A quote given in thirty minutes, without having looked at anything, gets broken by week three.
Tell me how you work with your supplier today.
Who decides, who estimates, who prioritises and who holds the access. Those four answers show fairly clearly where the imbalance sits.
You tell me who decides, who estimates and who holds the access.
I tell you where the asymmetry is and what can be fixed without changing supplier.
If I need to step in, I define dedication and scope, and they reach you in writing before we start.
What people ask me before we start
Is this going to upset my agency?
A good agency, no. It gives them someone who understands what they say, clear requirements and stable decisions. An agency that lives off opacity is upset by it, and that in itself is information you can use.
Do you replace my supplier?
No. I do not build your project. If at some point the supplier has to change, I help you choose the next one and run the handover, but the work is not mine.
And if I have an internal project manager?
Then you probably do not need this, or you need much less of it. A project manager coordinates the work; I bring technical judgement on whether that work is the right work. If your project manager already has that judgement, you have what you need.
How long is it needed for?
It is ongoing work, not a project with an end. It usually starts with a review of the situation, and the regular dedication is defined after that review, not before: until I see how many suppliers there are and how the work is being asked of them, any figure would be made up.
Do you sign off on approvals?
No. I recommend, and I explain why. You do the approving: it is your money.
How is this different from external technical leadership?
In the scope. Here the responsibility is the relationship with your suppliers. There the responsibility is the whole technical side of the company, suppliers included. Many people start here and end up at external technical leadership.
And if what I want is to change supplier right now?
Before changing it is worth knowing what broke: whether it is the supplier or how the work is being asked of them. Changing without knowing leads to repeating the problem under a different name. That is what this is for: digital project rescue.