We design and deliver research and evaluation for government and not-for-profit organisations facing decisions that depend on evidence. Our work is built around the decision first — what needs to be made, who is responsible for it, and what evidence would actually change the outcome. Method follows from that. It does not lead it.
Program and policy evaluation, impact and outcome studies, research design, qualitative and quantitative analysis, stakeholder consultation, and decision support. Work ranges from focused single-question projects to complex multi-stakeholder engagements. If you are unsure whether your need fits, a diagnostic conversation is the right starting point.
Government and public policy, health systems, education and training, social services, and not-for-profit and philanthropic organisations. What these contexts share is decision complexity — choices that must be made with incomplete evidence, competing priorities, and real consequences.
Both. Some clients need a single, well-scoped project with clear outputs. Others engage us on an ongoing basis for advisory support across multiple decisions. We scope work based on decision complexity, not fixed package size.
Start with the decision. If your organisation is facing a consequential choice — about a program, policy, investment, or strategy — and the evidence needed to make it well does not yet exist or has not been properly interpreted, that is where we work. The question is not whether you need research. It is what decision the research needs to support.
Start with the problem, not the method. The most useful preparation is thinking through what decision you are trying to support, what you already know, and what uncertainty is preventing action. The getting started page walks you through this — it helps you think more clearly about your own problem before we meet, which makes the first conversation significantly more productive.
Yes. We assess what evidence already exists before recommending any new data collection. Existing surveys, reports, administrative data, and previous evaluations are often underused. In some cases they answer the question without further research. In others they sharpen the scope of what still needs to be generated.
Government agencies, not-for-profit organisations, and philanthropic funders across Australia, primarily in Queensland. What they have in common is operating in environments where decisions are complex, evidence is incomplete, and the consequences of getting it wrong are significant.
Every engagement follows four stages: define the decision, design the evidence approach, generate and analyse data, and translate findings into decision support. The first stage is the most important. Until the decision is properly defined — including who owns it, what uncertainty is blocking it, and what evidence would change it — no method can be reliably chosen.
We use mixed methods, combining qualitative and quantitative approaches based on what the decision requires. We do not apply a preferred template. Method selection is determined by the question, the evidence context, and the decision timeframe.
It depends on decision complexity, data requirements, and your organisation's pace. A Diagnostic Conversation can clarify the problem quickly. A Defined Project has a clear timeline set at scoping. A Complex Multi-Stakeholder Engagement is typically iterative. We provide a specific timeline once the brief is defined.
It depends on the project. Some engagements are largely independent once the brief is set. Others require close collaboration, particularly where stakeholder consultation or internal data access is involved. We agree on the working arrangement at the outset.
Both matter to us and to our clients. We treat all client information, data, and findings as confidential and do not share or reference work without explicit permission. Our findings are independent — we report what the evidence shows, including when that is uncomfortable or politically sensitive. Clients engage us precisely because independent analysis carries weight that internal work does not.
Scope changes are not unusual, particularly in complex or multi-stakeholder engagements where new information emerges. We flag scope implications early, discuss the options with you, and agree on any changes before proceeding. We do not absorb significant scope changes silently, and we do not charge for minor ones.
We scope work based on decision complexity rather than fixed pricing models. The factors that drive cost are decision context, analytical complexity, data requirements, stakeholder involvement, and delivery timeframes. We use four engagement types to give clients a clear sense of the level of investment before a project is formally scoped.
Diagnostic Conversation — used to clarify the problem and determine the appropriate type of work. The right starting point when the question is not yet well defined.
Defined Evaluation or Research Project — structured work with clear scope, methods, and outputs. Suited to clients with a well-defined question and a decision to support.
Complex Multi-Stakeholder Engagement — iterative, in-depth work involving multiple stakeholders and evidence sources. For higher-stakes or more complex decisions.
Ongoing Advisory Support — retainer-based access to senior expertise for organisations that need a trusted partner across multiple decisions over time.
Final pricing is confirmed after we review the brief. The engagement types signal the level of investment involved. The final scope and cost reflect your specific decision context — which is the only honest basis on which to price this kind of work.
A diagnostic conversation. It is designed to clarify the problem, identify what decision the work needs to support, and determine the most appropriate next step. You do not need a fully formed brief to begin.
The getting started page walks you through the key questions — covering your problem, your decision, your timeline, your stakeholders, the risks or sensitivities involved, and what a good outcome looks like. You do not need answers to all of them. Working through the questions before we meet makes the first conversation more focused and more useful.
A clear outline of the decision you are facing, the evidence gap you need to close, and any existing materials or context. The more precisely the decision is defined, the more accurately we can scope the work and advise on method.
Before we meet, consider reflecting on the following Getting Started questions.
The clearer the brief, the more quickly we can advise on scope, method, and the most effective way forward.