Turn a public decision into a verifiable result
We support the full policy cycle: diagnosis, design, implementation and evaluation
- Companies
Engages Public affairs and regulatory strategy · Strategic communication
- Governments
Engages this service
- Social organizations and foundations
Engages this service
- International bodies and cooperation
Engages this service
- Political organizations and campaigns
Engages this service
Public policy and public management
The full cycle, from diagnosis to evaluation and back
Four stages and a return arc. Evaluation reopens the cycle with evidence, and that is what separates a policy from a report.
03ESCUCHAWhat the territory actually thinks about a decision, with traceable evidenceSee
“Who will oppose it, why, and what can be resolved before deciding?”
- Map of actors in the territory or interest group
- Design and delivery of the participation process
- Record of what was said, with evidence and traceability per actor
- Recommendation of what to incorporate and what not to, with the reason written down
- Ideal client
- Public entity, company with territorial operations, infrastructure or energy project
- When to engage
- Before deciding, not after the protest
Participation is documented as usable evidence: who said what, when, and what was done with it
06SALAThe session where the leadership team decides, facing the real actors who will reactDecide
“What happens once we decide this, and what do we do if it happens?”
- Preparation with the case file and the census of the issue
- Half-day to full-day guided session with assigned roles
- Decision record with the chosen option and its reasons
- Matrix of expected reactions and a first-thirty-days route
- Ideal client
- Board, executive committee, cabinet, campaign war room
- When to engage
- Before an irreversible decision: a reform, an announcement, a shift in public position
It is not a facilitation workshop. It is a decision made, with a signed record and reactions already rehearsed
07RUTAThe strategic architecture of an organization or a government — public policy, development plan, government platform or institutional transformationDecide
“How do I turn this intention into something that actually operates, and what will we be measured against?”
- Diagnosis with baseline and source per indicator
- Strategic architecture with objectives, lines and actions
- Governance model with named owners and cadence
- Indicator set and an operable tracking dashboard
- Ideal client
- National and local government, candidacies, company in transformation, foundation
- When to engage
- Development plan: immediately after the election. Government platform: between twelve and eight months before registration
Indicators are defined at the start, when they can still be measured. The instrument stays operable, not just approved
10FRENTEMoving a decision inside the institutional system — from outside, or from an elected seatInfluence
“How do we move this decision without burning the relationship or the argument?”
- Written, measurable objective, with a sequenced conversation plan and owner
- Argument differentiated by counterpart
- Calendar tied to the window and a logbook of the effort
- In seat mode: drafted bills, prepared oversight debates, and a management report
- Ideal client
- Trade association, regulated company, sitting senators, representatives, and council members
- When to engage
- Once a window is identified, or at the start of the legislative period
It runs against a written objective and a logbook: at the end you can say what you got and what you didn't
12TERRITORIOThe georeferenced inventory of what exists in a territory, operated by the entity itselfCapitalize
“Where do I invest first, and what do I back it with?”
- Built and validated inventory, with status and verification date per record
- The tool running under the entity's own credentials
- Map of localized gaps and prioritization with versioned criteria
- Executive recommendations document
- Ideal client
- Municipality, department, national entity with territorial presence
- When to engage
- At the start of a term, ahead of a handover, or in an emergency
Every figure is traceable back to the record that produced it — defensible before an oversight body or in a handover record
13PRUEBAWhat the organization can demonstrate: what the intervention produced, and how much is attributableProve
“Did this work, how much of it did we produce, and what do we back it with when asked?”
- Methodological design approved before fieldwork, with tested instruments
- Analysis with source and date per data point
- Report with findings, limits and actionable recommendations
- Executive version for the board, funder or public audience
- Ideal client
- Foundation, international cooperation, development bank, public entity
- When to engage
- Impact: before implementing. Results: at the close of a cycle. Accountability: before the annual hearing or handover
We say no when the information doesn't allow attribution, and we explain what wasn't met instead of hiding it
14CAPACIDADWhat stays in place when we leave: people capable of deciding and usable knowledgeBuild capacity
“How do we prepare the people who will decide, and what happens when the one who knows is gone?”
- School: a 60-hour training track built on the participant's own territory
- A municipal case file produced by each graduate
- Knowledge: a map, a classification architecture and a tool in operation
- Ideal client
- Parties and movements, trade associations, foundations and NGOs, entities with high turnover
- When to engage
- School: between eighteen and twelve months before candidacy registration
The school ends in a case file, not a certificate. The knowledge system is approved by passing the handover test
What remains after GOVERNA
A diagnosis that separates the problem from its symptoms
Alternatives compared by cost, risk and who executes them
Indicators with baseline, target and source
Defined up front, which is when they can still be measured
A governance model with decisions, owners and timing
Decision traceability
What was decided, on what evidence, and what followed
An evaluation that separates what the policy achieved from what would have happened anyway
From the public decision to the result