Current-state assessment.
Business functions mapped against systems, with the friction points named.
Global Governance is our assessment and operating model practice. We examine how every part of a business actually works, how technology serves it, and where the two have drifted apart — then design the governance that keeps them aligned.
The individual systems are normally fine. What is broken is everything between them. Work travels through the organisation and at some point it leaves a system — it becomes a spreadsheet, an email with an attachment, or a named person who reconciles two sets of numbers that were never designed to be compared. Nobody has costed that person's time as technology spend. It is technology spend. And because the failure sits between departments, it belongs to nobody.
Governance is the mechanism. Alignment is the outcome. Governance is how technology decisions get made — not a register of obligations.
Durations are set against your size and number of sites. We do not quote a standard length before we know what we are looking at.
Agree what better means in your business. Without that, an assessment has no scoring axis.
Interviews across every function, not just IT. Contracts, inventory and spend — a current-state picture your own people confirm is accurate.
Score every finding against the outcomes from stage one. What enables them, what detracts, and what is simply neutral cost.
The target operating model — decision rights, thresholds, ownership and standards — and a roadmap sequenced by dependency and impact.
The standing forum we chair or sit on, testing decisions against the model and reporting on whether the roadmap is holding.
Business functions mapped against systems, with the friction points named.
Every system, its owner, its annual cost, its renewal date and its dependencies.
Each break in the machine, its business consequence, and what it costs to leave alone.
Decision rights, spend thresholds, ownership, standards and the forum that applies them.
Sequenced by dependency and business impact, with indicative cost and effort against each item.
The same conclusions in the language of business outcomes and cost, not architecture.
The trigger is how your business and your technology interact, not how big you are or how many countries you sit in. A forty-person company with six tools nobody chose deliberately has the same problem as a multinational — at a scale where it is still cheap to fix.
Global Governance is not an audit against a framework, and it does not produce a maturity score. It is not a procurement exercise for a platform. And it does not assume the answer is more technology — a material proportion of what we find is systems to retire, contracts to consolidate and processes to simplify before anything is automated.
Most engagements open with a short piece of paid advisory — a written recommendation, priced separately from whatever follows. If the recommendation is that you do not need us, that is what it will say.
Speak with Toga
Global Governance is our assessment and operating model practice. We examine how every part of a business actually works, how technology serves it, and where the two have drifted apart — then design the governance that keeps them aligned.
The individual systems are normally fine. What is broken is everything between them. Work travels through the organisation and at some point it leaves a system — it becomes a spreadsheet, an email with an attachment, or a named person who reconciles two sets of numbers that were never designed to be compared. Nobody has costed that person's time as technology spend. It is technology spend. And because the failure sits between departments, it belongs to nobody.
Governance is the mechanism. Alignment is the outcome. Governance is how technology decisions get made — not a register of obligations.
Durations are set against your size and number of sites. We do not quote a standard length before we know what we are looking at.
Agree what better means in your business. Without that, an assessment has no scoring axis.
Interviews across every function, not just IT. Contracts, inventory and spend — a current-state picture your own people confirm is accurate.
Score every finding against the outcomes from stage one. What enables them, what detracts, and what is simply neutral cost.
The target operating model — decision rights, thresholds, ownership and standards — and a roadmap sequenced by dependency and impact.
The standing forum we chair or sit on, testing decisions against the model and reporting on whether the roadmap is holding.
Business functions mapped against systems, with the friction points named.
Every system, its owner, its annual cost, its renewal date and its dependencies.
Each break in the machine, its business consequence, and what it costs to leave alone.
Decision rights, spend thresholds, ownership, standards and the forum that applies them.
Sequenced by dependency and business impact, with indicative cost and effort against each item.
The same conclusions in the language of business outcomes and cost, not architecture.
The trigger is how your business and your technology interact, not how big you are or how many countries you sit in. A forty-person company with six tools nobody chose deliberately has the same problem as a multinational — at a scale where it is still cheap to fix.
Global Governance is not an audit against a framework, and it does not produce a maturity score. It is not a procurement exercise for a platform. And it does not assume the answer is more technology — a material proportion of what we find is systems to retire, contracts to consolidate and processes to simplify before anything is automated.
Most engagements open with a short piece of paid advisory — a written recommendation, priced separately from whatever follows. If the recommendation is that you do not need us, that is what it will say.
Speak with Toga