What this is
A short, private advisory engagement designed to help senior leaders answer one question:
Can I trust this accessibility team, system, vendor or set of metrics enough to make decisions with them?
This work focuses on interpreting existing systems, not creating new ones. It is intentionally scoped to reduce uncertainty for leaders without introducing operational disruption.
It is performed by an executive accessibility leader with no financial ties to vendors or other consultants.
When this is useful
This review is most valuable when:
- A leader has inherited a domain after a reorg, merger, or leadership change
- Metrics or anecdotal data seem positive but feel unreliable
- Accountability appears diffused or squishy
- Risk is suspected but not clearly surfaced in existing reports
What I look at
I review a small set of materials already in use, such as:
- Roadmaps, OKRs, or delivery plans
- Team composition and duties
- Existing dashboards or KPIs
- Current accessibility vendor reports
- Audit findings, risk calculators, or compliance summaries
- Internal reports used to justify decisions
I supplement this with one structured conversation with the accountable leader (and, if present, two accessibility focused leaders).
No workshops. No surveys. No tooling changes.
What you receive
Part 1. Confidence map
A written assessment that clarifies:
Which signals are decision-safe vs where there are gaps?
- Is what your teams tell you likely true and actionable?
- Is responsibility clear or just implied without accountability?
Where risk is compounding quietly?
- Does your perception diverge from operational reality?
- Are systems or people just giving you the “right” answer?
- Does your existing program close the loop on risk mitigation, or is risk left to grow until it becomes disruptive?
This is not an issue list. It is an interpretation layer. This allows leaders to calibrate how much weight to place on existing data or internal team reports.
Part 2. Executive options
Clearly framed options leaders can choose from (including “Doing nothing”), each with:
- Risk tradeoffs
- Organizational costs
- Decision confidence
Options are presented without recommendations to preserve executive judgment and ownership.
Engagement shape
- 2 weeks
- Fixed fee
- One written artifact
- One live readout with the accountable leader (via Teams, Zoom, etc)
No implementation work is included.
What this is not
To keep the work low-friction and decision-focused, this engagement does not include:
- Remediation or delivery ownership
- Team management or process redesign
- Ongoing reporting or dashboards
- Emergency or reactive work
Why leaders use this
Leaders use this review to:
- Increase confidence before making irreversible decisions
- Understand where metrics can be trusted—and where they cannot
- Surface risk early without triggering organizational defensiveness
- Establish clearer accountability without escalation
The value is clarity, not activity.
Next steps
If this sounds useful, a brief conversation is usually enough to determine fit and scope.
This work is private and referral-based.