ITI Quality Assurance

Instructions

Review consulting deliverables against quality standards before client presentation. Apply the QA checklist systematically to catch gaps, inconsistencies, and quality issues that undermine credibility and client confidence.

QA Checklist

Evaluate every deliverable across six dimensions:

1. Completeness

• [ ] All sections outlined in the engagement scope are present
• [ ] Data tables and frameworks are fully populated (no placeholder text or TBD items)
• [ ] Financial projections include all three scenarios (conservative, base, optimistic)
• [ ] Recommendations include implementation guidance, not just strategic direction
• [ ] Appendices contain supporting data referenced in the main body
• [ ] Executive summary accurately reflects the full document

2. Accuracy

• [ ] All statistics and benchmarks cite a source or are explicitly labeled as estimates
• [ ] Financial calculations are internally consistent (totals match components, percentages sum correctly)
• [ ] Client-specific data matches what was provided during discovery
• [ ] Industry benchmarks are current (within 2 years) and from credible sources
• [ ] Competitor references are factually accurate and verifiable
• [ ] Technical specifications match current platform capabilities

3. Coherence

• [ ] Recommendations flow logically from analysis — no conclusions that lack supporting evidence
• [ ] Terminology is consistent throughout (same concept always uses the same term)
• [ ] Cross-references between sections are accurate (section numbers, page numbers, figure references)
• [ ] Timeline across deliverables is consistent (no conflicting dates or durations)
• [ ] Prioritization rankings are consistent across all sections where they appear
• [ ] Tone and voice are consistent from executive summary through appendices

4. Quality

• [ ] Writing is clear, concise, and free of jargon that isn’t defined
• [ ] Visual elements (charts, tables, diagrams) are properly labeled and readable
• [ ] Formatting is consistent (heading hierarchy, bullet style, table structure)
• [ ] No spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors
• [ ] Document structure supports both linear reading and section-specific reference
• [ ] Page count is appropriate for engagement type (Advisory: 10-15pp, Fractional: 20-30pp, Transformation: 30-50pp)

5. Strategic Alignment

• [ ] Recommendations address the challenges identified in discovery
• [ ] Strategy aligns with the client’s stated vision and constraints
• [ ] Initiatives are calibrated to the client’s organizational capacity
• [ ] Investment recommendations fit within the discussed budget range
• [ ] Timeline accounts for known client constraints (fiscal year, leadership changes, etc.)
• [ ] Nothing recommends capabilities the client cannot reasonably build or acquire

6. Actionability

• [ ] Each recommendation specifies who should own it and when it should start
• [ ] Implementation steps are concrete enough for the client to begin without additional consulting
• [ ] Quick wins are clearly distinguished from long-term initiatives
• [ ] Dependencies between recommendations are explicitly mapped
• [ ] Success metrics are defined with baseline values and targets
• [ ] Risk mitigation steps are practical and within the client’s control

Review Process

Pre-review preparation:

1. Re-read the intake summary and engagement scope
2. Note the engagement type (Advisory, Fractional, Transformation) to calibrate depth expectations
3. Identify the primary client audience for the deliverable (CEO, VP, team)

First pass — structural review (30 min): Check document structure against expected format, verify all required sections present, flag gaps or placeholders, confirm page count in range.

Second pass — content review (60-90 min): Read sequentially against the QA checklist, verify data accuracy and calculations, test logical flow, flag unjustified recommendations.

Third pass — client lens (20 min): Read the executive summary as the client CEO — is the story clear? Would a skeptical board member find the financial case persuasive? Can the team execute Phase 1 without ambiguity?

Cross-Deliverable Consistency

When an engagement produces multiple deliverables, verify consistency across all documents:

Check	What to Verify
Numbers	Revenue figures, audience sizes, and costs match across all documents
Priorities	Initiative rankings are consistent everywhere they appear
Timeline	Phase dates and durations are aligned across strategy, roadmap, and financial model
Terminology	Segment names, initiative names, and metric definitions are identical
Recommendations	No deliverable contradicts or undermines another’s conclusions

QA Report

Document findings in a structured QA report:

Deliverable: [Name]
Reviewer: [Name]
Review date: [Date]
Overall assessment: [Ready / Needs revision / Major rework]

CRITICAL ISSUES (must fix before delivery)
1. [Issue] — Location: [section/page] — Fix: [specific action]

IMPORTANT ISSUES (should fix, may deliver with caveat)
1. [Issue] — Location: [section/page] — Fix: [specific action]

MINOR ISSUES (fix if time permits)
1. [Issue] — Location: [section/page] — Fix: [specific action]

STRENGTHS
- [What works well — reinforce in future deliverables]

Severity definitions:

• Critical — factual error, missing required section, logical contradiction, or issue that would undermine client confidence
• Important — incomplete analysis, unclear recommendation, formatting inconsistency, or issue that reduces perceived quality
• Minor — typo, style inconsistency, or cosmetic issue

Examples

• Strategy document QA: reviewer catches that the revenue projection in Section 4 uses a 3% churn rate while the audience section assumes 2% monthly churn. Flagged as critical — inconsistency undermines financial credibility.
• Roadmap QA: Phase 2 start date in the timeline graphic is April but the text says March. Important issue — client will notice and question attention to detail.
• Cross-deliverable check: audience development plan recommends 4 segments but the content strategy only addresses 3. Important issue — indicates incomplete integration between workstreams.