A ten-point check that shows which perspectives have actually been consulted on a specific decision, and which voices the recommendation has never heard.
Tick only the perspectives that have genuinely been consulted for the decision in front of you, not those your organisation talks to in general. The result maps the gap between the views you have and the views the decision needs, calculated entirely in your browser.
Last reviewed 3 July 2026 · Free and ungated
You now know which voices this decision has never heard. A client brief to the Global Board returns the missing customer, competitor and delivery perspectives in a confidential report.
Get independent perspectivesTick a perspective only if it was consulted about this specific decision, not in general.
This decision is being made almost entirely from inside the building. Whatever the analysis says, it reflects the assumptions of the people who produced it, and the perspectives most likely to contradict it have never been in the room.
Some outside voices have been heard, but the coverage is selective, and selectively consulted perspectives tend to be the comfortable ones. The views that were sought were probably the ones expected to support the case.
Most of the relevant perspectives have been consulted, which puts this decision ahead of most. The remaining question is quality: whether those conversations genuinely challenged the case or politely confirmed it.
Every perspective on the list has been consulted for this decision, which is genuinely rare. The remaining exposure is not breadth but depth: whether the challenges raised were absorbed into the case or noted and set aside.
When a major commitment goes wrong, the post-mortem almost always finds someone who saw it coming: a customer who was never asked, an implementation lead who was briefed rather than consulted, a former operator elsewhere who had watched the same plan fail. Internal alignment can create confidence, but it can also hide shared blind spots. This analyzer makes the missing voices visible while there is still time to hear them.
The list is not arbitrary. Customers and end users test whether the decision solves a real problem; competitors and market experts test whether the market will allow it; suppliers, regulators and implementation teams test whether it can actually be executed; finance leaders and external challengers test whether the case would survive someone with no reason to want it approved. A decision that has heard all ten has been examined from every direction it can fail from.
Each consulted perspective is worth ten points, so the result is simply coverage out of 100. There is no weighting between perspectives because their relative importance depends on the decision, and no partial credit because a perspective is either genuinely consulted or it is not. Nothing you tick leaves your browser.
Usually not. A party that earns money if the decision proceeds can provide expertise, but not independence. Tick the market expert or external challenger items only for voices with nothing to gain from the outcome.
Leave it unticked and read the band with that in mind. A decision with no regulatory dimension can carry a lower score comfortably, but be honest about the difference between irrelevant and inconvenient.
Only if the decision has not changed since. Perspectives consulted about a different question, or the same question in different conditions, are historical context rather than current challenge.