A high-impact research or evaluation project begins long before a contract is signed. At Bainbridge Consulting, we believe that the most valuable work happens during the framing phase.
The following framework is designed to help you "pre-wire" your project. By reflecting on these four domains, you will be better prepared to brief your internal Executive team and ensure our initial Diagnostic Conversation is focused on high-level strategy rather than administrative discovery.
Before we talk about methods, we must talk about outcomes. Research without a clear decision-owner is merely an information exercise.
The Underlying Catalyst: Beyond the formal brief, what is driving the need for this work? Is it a proactive search for program improvement, or a reactive response to a funding or performance risk?
The Decision Owner: Who has the authority to act on the findings? If the final decision-maker isn't involved in framing the questions, the research risks missing the "hidden" criteria they use to judge success.
The Choice Set: What are the actual options on the table? (e.g., "Should we scale Program A, or pivot resources to Program B?"). If the decision is already made, we should shift the focus to implementation evaluation rather than impact assessment.
We never recommend generating new data if the answer is already hidden in your organisation's "administrative memory."
The Baseline: What do you already "know" to be true, and what is merely an institutional assumption?
Data Liquidity: How accessible is your existing data? Do you have clean administrative records, or will we need to "mine" insights from unstructured sources like previous reports or staff interviews?
The Uncertainty Gap: Is your primary challenge a lack of information (we don't have the numbers) or a lack of interpretation (we have the numbers but don't know what they mean for our strategy)?
In Brisbane's interconnected public and social sectors, the "who" is often as important as the "what."
The Stakeholder Map: Who are the "Critical Friends" and who are the "Skeptics"? Identifying these early allows us to design a consultation process that builds broad-based legitimacy for the final findings.
The Risk Landscape: Are there political, reputational, or ethical sensitivities? In sectors like Health or Social Services, we must identify "no-go" zones and participant wellbeing risks before the methodology is finalised.
Organisational Readiness: Is the organisation prepared to hear "uncomfortable" evidence? We work with you to determine how to report findings in a way that encourages progress rather than defensiveness.
Rigour is relative to the deadline. A "perfect" evaluation that arrives after the Cabinet submission is a wasted investment.
The Critical Window: What is the hard deadline for the final decision? We work backwards from your board meetings or funding cycles to ensure the evidence arrives in time to be useful.
The Level of Rigour: Does this project require "directionally correct" insight for internal learning, or "high-stakes" technical rigour for external accountability or Treasury-level review?
The Internal Surge Capacity: What level of support can your team provide? Identifying an internal "Project Champion" who can facilitate data access and stakeholder introductions can significantly reduce the project's external cost.