Home/Who we work with
Capability note
Public and Para-Public Institutions
Institutional reform, accountability and decision support
Public institutions rarely fail for lack of a mandate. They fail where the mandate is not matched by a structure that can carry it: unclear decision rights, overlapping competences, accountability arrangements that produce reports but no consequence, and reform decided at the top without the institutional design that would make it operable.
This note sets out the problems we are asked to address in this sector, what we provide, and the terms on which we work.
Capability note
Public and Para-Public Institutions
Problems we are asked to address
01
Reform mandated without institutional design
A reform has been decided and announced. What it requires in terms of structures, decision rights, procedures, capacity and sequencing has not been worked out, and the institution is expected to implement it regardless.
02
Overlapping or contested competences
Two or more bodies hold mandates that intersect. Decisions are delayed, duplicated, or taken twice with different outcomes. The problem is treated as a coordination failure when it is a design failure.
03
Accountability that produces no consequence
Oversight mechanisms exist and function formally. Reports are produced and received. Nothing follows from them, because no step connects a finding to a decision.
04
Capacity concentrated at the top
Direction is set competently and does not translate into execution, because the middle of the institution lacks the authority, the procedures or the capability to act on it.
05
Policy made without analysis
Decisions are taken without an assessment of options, costs, feasibility or likely effects, and the implementation gap appears later as an operational problem rather than an analytical one.
06
A need for review that cannot be produced internally
An assessment is required whose credibility depends on its independence — for a partner, a funder, an oversight body, or the institution’s own leadership.
What we provide
Institutional assessment
Independent diagnostic of structure, mandate, decision rights, procedures and capacity, with findings and prioritised recommendations.
Mandate and decision-rights mapping
Clarification of competences between and within bodies: who decides what, on what authority, within what limits, and answerable to whom.
Reform design and sequencing
Translation of a reform objective into an institutional design and an implementation sequence, with dependencies, responsibilities and realistic timeframes.
Accountability and oversight frameworks
Design of reporting, oversight and integrity arrangements that connect findings to decisions, including conflict-of-interest and decision-recording mechanisms.
Policy analysis and decision support
Options analysis, feasibility and cost implications, scenario work, and briefs prepared for decision-makers.
Capacity development
Assessment of institutional capability and design of capacity-building programmes targeted at the level where execution actually fails.
Independent review
Review of a programme, function or institution against defined criteria, conducted and reported independently.
What a client receives
An institutional diagnostic report
a mandate and decision-rights map
a reform roadmap with sequencing and responsibilities
governance and accountability frameworks
revised procedures and delegation arrangements
a policy options paper
a capacity development plan
an independent review report
briefs prepared for decision-making bodies
Recommendations are sequenced against what the institution can realistically absorb. A reform programme that exceeds institutional capacity does not fail at the end; it fails at the first step and discredits what follows.
Terms on which we work
Neutrality. We take no political position and we represent no interest. We advise the institution on its own structures and decisions. Where a question is political rather than institutional, we identify it as such rather than answering it.
No lobbying or representation. We do not conduct lobbying, advocacy or representation before any authority, in any jurisdiction, for any client. This is a standing exclusion.
Confidentiality. Institutional information, mandate details and findings are confidential by default and are not disclosed without written authorisation.
No substitution for institutional authority. We advise and support implementation. Decisions remain with the institution, and we do not assume responsibility for functions that belong to it.
Written mandate. Scope, deliverables, timeline and responsibilities are agreed in writing before work begins. Where an engagement is subject to public procurement requirements, we work within the applicable procedure.
How to begin
An initial confidential discussion to establish the institutional question, the constraints surrounding it, and whether an external mandate is the appropriate instrument. There is no cost and no obligation attached to it.
