Diagnosis
Establishing what is actually true about the estate, the risk and the dependencies before anyone proposes a solution.
Trusts, family offices, law firms and private advisory groups work with information that cannot be treated like ordinary company data. Privacy, continuity and control are part of what their clients are paying for. I think of these as high-discretion environments, and the work I do sits almost entirely inside them.
In such a place a technology decision is also a decision about who can see the information, where it is allowed to travel, how long the organisation could run without a given supplier, and whether recovery is real or merely assumed. Most of these organisations hold decades of confidential records on systems designed before any of those questions were asked of them.
The aim is not to lock everything down. Good control is what lets an organisation move quickly and be confident about it, rather than move carefully and hope.
A trust, family office or private advisory group rarely has a technology problem on its own. The same system touches investment information, legal entities, external administrators, banks, advisers and people working across jurisdictions. That changes the questions worth asking: where the important information actually lives, who can see it, which supplier has quietly become impossible to replace, which process depends on one person knowing how it works, and which AI work can safely leave the building at all.
You do not have to pick one before making contact. They exist so you can see what the work actually looks like.
One decision, examined by somebody with no stake in which way it goes.
What gets examinedWhat each system may see, suggest, prepare and do on its own, decided before it is connected.
How authority gets decidedUsing AI where confidentiality is part of what clients pay for.
Where the line actually sitsWhether a target's technology is an asset, a liability, or a bill that has not arrived yet.
What the committee is taking onSenior ownership for a defined stretch, or continuing judgement without a permanent executive. Described further down this page.

Establishing what is actually true about the estate, the risk and the dependencies before anyone proposes a solution.
Framing consequential choices for principals and boards so the trade-offs are legible without requiring them to become technologists.
Deciding where systems run, what information each may reach, which suppliers are involved, what happens if one of them becomes unavailable, and who is accountable for each part once the consultants have gone. In the profession that is called the architecture and the operating model. In practice it is the way people, systems, suppliers and decisions fit together day to day.
Security, privacy, identity and AI governance treated as one domain rather than four committees.
Setting the path for a programme, choosing vendors, and holding delivery to it without absorbing the delivery itself.
Where AI belongs, where it does not, what the data layer has to be first, and what authority a system may hold.
Continuing senior judgement for an organisation that does not need, or cannot justify, a permanent executive in the role.
A defined period covering an executive gap, a modernisation, a stalled programme or an operating-model change, with a stated end.
An independent view of what is being proposed, what it will cost, what could go wrong, and what I would do instead. On an AI decision, a cloud move, an outsourcing arrangement, a supplier, or an investment with technology in it.
One question, one answer, a fixed scope. A technology assessment, a review of whether the organisation is ready for AI, a test of whether recovery actually works, a technology review after an acquisition, or a reset with a deadline on it.
You do not need to decide in advance what kind of help this is. Describe the situation and the shape usually becomes obvious to both of us.
A short description of the situation is enough to start. No preparation, no document, no procurement process. If it is not something I am the right person for, I will say so and point you at who is.
I look at what is actually true rather than what the last report said: the decision in front of you, what it depends on, what it will cost to reverse, and where the real risk sits. This is deliberately short.
If there is work worth doing, you get it in writing: what it covers, how long, what you receive and what it costs. Sometimes the honest answer is that the problem does not need an adviser, and that is a perfectly good outcome.
Nothing about the first two steps commits you to the third.

A question about a file from fifteen years ago should not take three people and a morning.
Institutional knowledge that lives in a long-serving employee's head is a continuity risk with a retirement date attached.
Entity and portfolio reporting assembled by hand is slow, and the errors are invisible until they are expensive.
Knowing who processes what, where, under what terms, and how quickly any of them could be replaced.
The confidentiality obligation does not relax because the tool is useful.
Systems, access and knowledge surviving a departure, an illness or a succession.
Using AI where confidentiality is part of the service

I do not resell platforms, take referral fees, or run a delivery team that has to be kept busy. That means I can tell you the right answer is to buy, or to build, or to replace, or to leave a thing alone, and none of those costs me anything.
The personal side of the same problem, handled with the same discretion as the institutional side: assessment of where a principal and household are exposed, identity and privacy design, secure remote and travel access, review of home and personal technology, provider selection, and incident-readiness planning. Where specialist protection providers are involved, the work is coordination with them.
It does not include physical protection, monitoring around the clock, managed detection, digital forensics or incident response. Those are different disciplines and are named here so nobody assumes otherwise.
From one engagement in this sector:
A substantial share came off the annual licensing bill, and recovery was demonstrated through a ransomware exercise rather than assumed. From one engagement, anonymised.
Start with the problem, not the service.
You do not need to decide in advance whether this is advice, an interim role or a single review. Describe the situation and the shape becomes obvious.