Most research and evaluation problems are not purely methodological problems. They are decision-making problems.
Before designing an engagement, we use an initial Diagnostic Conversation to clarify:
The decision your organisation needs to make
The evidence you already hold
The uncertainties that remain
The stakeholders and constraints shaping the work
The framework below outlines the four domains we typically explore before recommending an engagement approach. The quality of the engagement we design together is directly proportional to the clarity you bring to this conversation.
The Diagnostic Conversation is a structured strategic discussion designed to clarify whether additional research or evaluation is required, and if so, what form it should take.
During this conversation, we typically:
Clarify the underlying decision the work is intended to support
Assess the quality and accessibility of existing evidence
Identify operational, political, and ethical considerations
Determine the level of methodological rigour required
Identify the most appropriate pathway for the engagement
This process ensures that methodological decisions are aligned with strategic need before scope or design work begins.
Research and evaluation projects begin well before a contract is signed. Some of the most valuable work happens during the framing phase, when the strategic intent is clarified, the evidence landscape is mapped, and the constraints are understood before any methodology is designed.
The following framework is designed to help you prepare for your first Diagnostic Conversation with us. By working through these four domains, you will be better positioned to brief your internal leadership team and to ensure that our initial conversation focuses on strategy rather than discovery.
The framework includes the following sections:
Domain 1: Strategic Intent: What Is This Work Actually For?
Domain 2: The Evidence Ecosystem: What Do You Already Know?
Domain 3: Stakeholders and Sensitivities: Who Needs to Be Part of This?
Domain 4: Constraints, Timelines, and Logistics: What Are the Boundaries of This Work?
Before any discussion of methods, we need to understand outcomes. Research without a clear decision-owner is an information exercise, not a decision support system.
Consider 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 risk or performance concern? Identifying this distinction shapes the urgency, the scope, and the level of rigour required.
Identify the decision-owner: who has the authority to act on the findings? If the person who will ultimately make the decision is not involved in framing the research questions, there is a real risk that the work will miss the criteria they will use to evaluate its conclusions.
Define the choice set: what are the actual options on the table? For example, is leadership deciding whether to continue, redesign, expand, consolidate, or discontinue a program or service? If the decision has already effectively been made, the focus should shift to implementation evaluation rather than impact assessment. Knowing this early saves significant time and resources.
We never recommend generating new data if the answer already exists within your organisation's administrative records or previous evaluations. Before commissioning primary research, it is worth mapping what you already have.
Consider your baseline: what does your organisation currently know to be true, as distinct from what is an institutional assumption that has never been tested? This distinction is often more difficult to make honestly than it appears.
Assess your data liquidity: how accessible is your existing information? Do you have clean administrative records ready for analysis, or will insight need to be drawn from unstructured sources such as previous reports, staff interviews, or archived program files?
Locate the uncertainty gap: is your primary challenge a lack of information, meaning key evidence does not yet exist, or a lack of interpretation, meaning the organisation already holds substantial data but lacks strategic clarity about what it implies? These require different responses, and conflating them leads to the wrong research design.
In Brisbane's interconnected public and social sectors, the relational dimension of research is often as important as the technical one. How a consultation is designed, and who is included, shapes the legitimacy of the findings as much as the methodology does.
Map your stakeholders: who are the critical supporters of this work, and who are likely to be sceptical? Identifying both groups early allows us to design a consultation process that builds broad-based credibility for the final findings rather than becoming a flashpoint for existing tensions.
Identify the risk landscape: are there political, reputational, or ethical sensitivities that need to be understood before the methodology is finalised? In Health and Social Services particularly, certain consultation approaches or data sources may require careful handling or ethical clearance.
Consider organisational readiness: is your leadership team genuinely prepared to receive findings that may challenge prevailing assumptions? We work with you to determine how best to structure and present evidence in a way that encourages constructive action rather than defensiveness.
Methodological rigour is always relative to the deadline and the budget. The most technically perfect evaluation is of limited value if it arrives after the cabinet submission or the funding decision.
Establish the critical window: what is the hard deadline for the final decision your leadership team needs to make? We work backwards from your board meetings, funding cycles, and submission dates to ensure the evidence arrives when it is needed.
Define the level of rigour required: does this project require directionally correct insight for internal learning and program adjustment, or defensible technical evidence for external accountability, Treasury review, funding negotiations, or regulatory scrutiny? These are different standards, and they have different cost implications.
Identify your internal capacity: what level of support can your team realistically provide? An internal project champion who can facilitate data access and stakeholder introductions significantly reduces the external cost of the engagement and often improves the quality of the findings.
Our consultants take the time to understand your situation before offering any perspective on scope or method. There is no obligation attached to an initial conversation, and no expectation that you arrive with a fully formed brief. The clearer your thinking, the more quickly we can advise, but we are equally comfortable helping you develop that clarity as the first step. Tell us whether our Getting Started Guide was helpful in this process.
View: Our Contact Page
View: Our Feedback Form Page
Next Article: Our Strategic Questions Guide