Separate Three Questions Before Responding
When a client and its funder send contradictory instructions, ask separately: what does the evidence support, who may direct this assignment, and who may approve a contractual change? Influence over funding is not, by itself, evidence of authority under the consultant's agreement. Equally, a client's signature does not permit the consultant to state a conclusion contradicted by the evidence.
This is a fictional advisory case. It supplies no interpretation of a real agreement. Get the actual contract, incorporated terms and delegated authority checked by the responsible contract or legal owner before acting on an uncertain instruction.
The Conflicting Requests
An NGO commissioned a consultant to compare three ways of handling purchasing across two offices. The agreed outputs are an evidence-linked options note, a role map and open decisions. The agreement names the NGO operations director as the instruction contact and requires a written change agreed by the named signatories for new deliverables. The funder is not a party to that fictional agreement. A separate funding condition may exist, but its wording has not been supplied to the consultant.
The NGO director asks: Keep both offices' approval routes and remove the combined-process option. A funder adviser asks: Recommend immediate merger and show a 15% saving. The supplied logs show recorded processing dates, but no reliable staff-time baseline. Staff disagree on the reasons for delays. Neither request establishes which option is best or what saving would result.
Make the Conflict Visible Without Broadcasting It
Keep the original messages in the authorized file. Write a short issue note to the contract contact through the agreed channel:
| Question | What Is Known | What Needs Resolution |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence | No reliable time-cost baseline supports a 15% saving | Is additional baseline work wanted, and is it feasible? |
| Scope | Three options are in the agreed comparison | Does removing an option change the decision the assignment can answer? |
| Authority | The fictional contract names an instruction contact and signatories | Has any authority been delegated to the funder adviser? Obtain the actual record. |
| Funding duty | An additional condition is asserted but not supplied | The NGO's grant owner checks the relevant text and any conflict with the assignment. |
Do not send confidential contracts or interview material to everyone copied on an email. Share the minimum needed for resolution with people entitled to receive it.
A Reasoned Consultant Response
The consultant replies to the authorized contact: The requests point to different conclusions. The current evidence cannot establish a 15% saving. I propose retaining the three-option comparison, identifying the conditions and unresolved costs for each. Please confirm whether the decision question or deliverables should change, using the agreement's change route. If the funder's requirement is binding on the NGO, please provide an approved non-sensitive statement of the requirement and the authorized instruction it creates for this assignment.
This response offers a way forward without silently treating either person's preferred outcome as a finding. It also gives the client a clear decision to make. A generalized claim that all funder requests override the consultant contract would not resolve the actual authority question.
Continue Only the Work That Remains Clear
Suppose the contract contact confirms that recording the current process may continue while the recommendation scope is resolved. Complete that permitted work, keeping the disputed analysis clearly marked as pending. Do not assume this fictional permission exists in another contract. Ask the responsible owner how to handle affected deadlines and costs promptly; silence is not an extension.
If the NGO formally removes the full-merger option, the consultant can describe a narrower assignment: compare the two remaining options. The final report should then say it does not evaluate full merger. If the NGO asks the consultant to claim a 15% saving despite missing evidence, decline that statement and explain why. Escalate through the agreed governance route; take qualified advice on any suspension, withdrawal, dispute or disclosure duties rather than inventing a right to stop or publish.
Preserve Judgment and Accountability in the Output
The final note can distinguish an analytical recommendation, the client's operational decision and a funder's requested condition. Record the date, scope and evidence behind each. An authorized client may decide against the consultant's preferred option; that does not require rewriting the evidence to make the decision appear inevitable.
For the estimate and timetable consequences, use the effort case and scope-change guide. For technical wording disputes, distinguish style from meaning.
Source and Scope
The Consultancy Playbook, September 2022, printed pages 34-35, discusses governance, dependencies and escalation. It is UK government commissioning guidance. The authority terms, conflict note and response above are an original fictional case; the source does not decide rights under a real consultancy or grant agreement.