The Ten-Minute Proposal Test: What UK Clients Should Look For Before the Kick-Off

Most consultancy proposals arrive with the best of intentions and the worst possible shape. A UK business owner receives a document of twenty or thirty pages, several appendices, a fee schedule and a set of slides that seem to have been designed for a different audience. The temptation is either to skim and sign, or to postpone the decision until the diary clears. Neither is necessary. A proposal can be read well in ten minutes if the client knows what to test.

At Harman Dean, the useful test is the three-slide rule. Ask the adviser to present the proposal as if it were three slides: problem, plan and proof. The exercise is not a demand for less thinking. It is a demand for clearer thinking. A firm that can explain itself in three slides can usually explain itself in a meeting, a report and a difficult phone call six weeks later.

Why a Proposal Needs a Ten-Minute Test

A proposal is a buying document, not a piece of literature. The client is not trying to become a consultant. The client is trying to decide whether this piece of work is worth the money, the management time and the disruption. Ten minutes is enough to form a view on those three questions, provided the proposal is read in the right order.

The order matters. Most clients read the fee schedule first, then the biographies, then the case studies. That is the order in which proposals are often written, but it is not the order in which risk is understood. Start with the problem. Move to the plan. End with the proof. If any of the three is missing, the proposal is not ready.

Slide One: The Problem, Stated Plainly

The first slide should answer a simple question: what is the problem, and why does it matter now? A strong proposal will state the issue in plain English, without dressing it up as a transformation programme. It will say who is affected, what has changed, and what happens if the business does nothing.

Look for a sentence that a non-specialist director could repeat in a board meeting. If the problem can only be described in the adviser's own vocabulary, that is a warning. The client should not have to learn a new language to approve a piece of work. A clear problem statement also makes the later fee discussion easier, because everyone can see what is being bought.

There is a second test here. The problem should be the client's problem, not the adviser's favourite solution in search of a home. If the proposal describes a methodology before it describes the difficulty, the emphasis is in the wrong place.

Slide Two: The Plan, With Choices and Consequences

The second slide should explain what will be done, in what order, by whom, and what the client will be asked to provide. It should not be a project plan in miniature. It should be a plan a busy owner can follow: the stages, the decision points, and the moments when the client's own people will be needed.

A good plan shows choices. It says what is included and what is not. It explains why one route has been chosen over another, and what would change if the client preferred a different balance of speed, cost or depth. A plan that presents only one possible route is not necessarily wrong, but it is less useful. Clients buy better when they can see the trade-offs.

The plan should also name the client-side responsibilities. Access to data, a nominated point of contact, review time and decision deadlines are all part of the proposal. If they are absent, the timetable is probably optimistic.

Slide Three: The Proof, Not Just the Promise

The third slide should provide evidence. Not a list of logos, but proof that the adviser has done something similar and can do it again. Relevant experience, a short case example, a named reference, a clear statement of what the adviser will personally do rather than delegate. The proof should match the problem and the plan.

Clients should be wary of proof that is impressive but unrelated. A large client name does not necessarily mean the adviser understands a smaller UK business with a short decision chain and a full order book. The best proof is specific and modest: here is the situation, here is what we did, here is what changed, here is what we would do differently next time.

Red Flags That Hide Behind Jargon

Jargon is not always a sign of bad work. Every sector has its shorthand. But in a proposal, jargon often hides a missing answer. Phrases such as holistic review, deep dive, best-in-class and strategic alignment should be treated as questions, not conclusions. What will actually be delivered? Who will do it? How will the client know it has worked?

Other red flags are more structural. A proposal with no clear end date, no named deliverables and no statement of assumptions is asking the client to buy a feeling rather than a service. A proposal that cannot be summarised in one page is often a proposal that has not been finished.

Asking for a One-Page Summary Without Weakening the Brief

Some clients worry that asking for a one-page summary will look unsophisticated, or will encourage the adviser to cut corners. In practice, the opposite is usually true. The summary is a test of the proposal, not a replacement for it. The full document can remain as the detailed record; the one-page summary is the decision aid.

A useful request is straightforward: please add a single page at the front covering the problem, the plan in stages, the proof, the fee and the three main risks. That page does not weaken the brief. It clarifies it. It also gives the adviser a chance to show that the thinking is joined up.

A Calm Way to Buy Well

The three-slide rule will not turn a weak proposal into a strong one. It will, however, help a UK client see the difference more quickly. Problem, plan and proof are not sophisticated tests. They are the basic tests of any professional engagement, and they can be applied in ten minutes at a kitchen table or in a boardroom.

Harman Dean's view is that good buying is not about becoming an expert in the adviser's field. It is about asking for clarity in the client's own field. A proposal that survives the three-slide test is not guaranteed to succeed. But a proposal that cannot survive it is unlikely to be worth the kick-off meeting.