Loading...
Loading...Identification of structural risks and independent arbitration prior to financial engagement in a technology investment.
Avoid disproportionate contractual commitment relative to actual scope
Avoid architecture generating structural dependency
Avoid financing a refactoring rather than initial development
Imminent engagement on a structuring technical decision presenting high irreversibility
Absence of neutral internal arbitration reference to evaluate received commercial proposals
Recurring scope extension proposals without structured factual justification
Need for critical arbitration: trajectory continuation or complete structural revision
You already have a senior CTO who is available, neutral and truly challenges vendors (rare)
The project has been stable in production for several months without friction
You're looking for someone to execute, not to decide
Clarifies critical decisions before budget commitment
Challenges your quotes and detects traps (vague scope, over-engineering, lock-in)
Selects and frames vendors according to YOUR criteria
Arbitrates cost / risk / timing with objective criteria
Maintains a trajectory understandable by management
You keep one contact and one accountability.
Decision note (5–10 pages): financial risks + 30/60/90-day plan, no jargon
Vendor scorecard (1 page): traction / quality / speed / reliability (green/orange/red)
Roadmap (3 milestones): binary decision criteria, no more ambiguity
Verdict (90 min): Continue / Correct / Pause
Short qualification (20 min) to determine if the risk justifies intervention. If it's not relevant, we'll tell you.
Assess my risk20 minutes can save you months of delays and tens of thousands of euros poorly invested.