Beyond a list of completed activities
A useful review asks whether the agreed work happened, whether it addressed the intended problem and what should change. Reporting should make uncertainty visible rather than reward impressive-looking totals.
The review rhythm depends on the assignment. A fixed founder review frequency is not promised on this site.
An illustrative review agenda
- Confirm the priority and the decision it was meant to support.
- Compare agreed actions with the evidence available.
- Identify dependencies, blockers and overdue approvals.
- Choose corrective actions and assign a responsible owner.
- Record the next review point and what evidence is needed.
A practical record
For each priority, a review sheet can record the action, owner, due date, status, evidence and next decision. “Complete” should mean an agreed output exists, not simply that someone says the work is finished.
For example, an illustrative task to clarify volunteer roles might be supported by an approved role map and orientation notes. That evidence shows the organisational task was completed; it does not establish that public opinion changed.
Responsibility on both sides
The client’s decision-maker needs to attend or delegate appropriately, resolve approvals and provide accurate updates. The consulting team should explain its assumptions and flag work outside the agreed scope.
When priorities change, the calendar and resource plan need to change with them. Keep confidential details out of widely circulated dashboards. Review access and reporting requirements so that the process remains useful rather than burdensome.
Questions about the work
Can the review use our existing tools?
Yes, where they are suitable and access is authorised. The process matters more than introducing a new dashboard.
Which metrics should we use?
Agree measures linked to the actual outputs and decisions. Do not equate activity, reach or attendance with electoral support.