C09 · proof of concept
Three failures, three fingerprints.
When a consulting engagement covers two of the three legs, the missing one leaves a specific shape in the deliverable. The shape is recognisable from the artifact alone — no sector knowledge required, no client knowledge required. Three deliverables follow. For each, identify which leg was missing.
0 of 3 placed
-
Signature 1
An 80-page report with lengthy primary-source quotes, theme coding, and a list of 40 observations. The final chapter is titled "Further work required." There is no recommended structure, no proposed vehicle, no named next step.
Listening without design — reports nobody acts on.
The dead giveaway is the closing chapter title. A report that ends with "further work" is one whose authors have noticed they are missing the next leg and have decided to label the gap rather than close it. The findings are real; the engagement was not scoped to convert them into a vehicle.
-
Signature 2
A 40-page strategy document with elegant diagrams, four named workstreams, and a governance model. No citations from interviews. No quoted voices. The word "sector" appears 31 times without ever naming who spoke for it.
Design without listening — strategies that don’t fit.
The dead giveaway is the word "sector" untethered from any speaker. A strategy that frames its subject without grounding it in primary voices is not necessarily wrong, but its alignment with the sector it describes is unverified — and the cost of misalignment is only visible after implementation begins.
-
Signature 3
A 120-page programme plan with detailed activities, timelines, and staffing. The fundraising appendix is three pages. No named prospects, no solicitation cadence, no articulated case for the gift size assumed in the budget.
Design without resourcing — plans without capital.
The dead giveaway is the proportion. When the artifact is 120 pages of programme detail and three pages of fundraising notes, the fundraising step was either out of scope or treated as someone else’s problem. The plan looks complete; what it is missing is the path from delivery to capital.
What you just did
3 of 3 placed correctly.
The failure shape is in the artifact. If a report ends with "further work is required," design was out of scope. If a strategy doesn\u2019t cite voices, listening was out of scope. If a plan has a three-page funding appendix, resourcing was out of scope. This is also diagnosable from the brief — before the work starts — by reading which columns the engagement is priced to cover.
Most consulting engagements in this industry cover two of the three legs, not three. That isn\u2019t a moral failing of the firms involved; it\u2019s a feature of how scopes of work are priced and what each party is staffed to deliver. The diagnostic above is useful precisely because the failure modes are predictable. Once the three signatures are familiar, every engagement\u2019s eventual artifact reads like a forensic record of what was — and was not — in scope.