The Report Problem
There is a persistent and largely unexamined gap between what consulting deliverables contain and what decision-makers need from them. Reports are comprehensive by design — they document methodology, present findings in sequence, acknowledge limitations, and arrive at conclusions in the final pages. This structure is logical for academic publication. It is poorly suited to a board meeting with 45 minutes on the agenda and six items to cover.
The problem is not length per se. A fifty-page financial model with detailed assumptions is entirely appropriate for a CFO who needs to interrogate the numbers. The problem is linear narrative: the habit of presenting analysis as the story of how the answer was found rather than the answer itself, structured to support the decision that needs to be made.
Consultants produce this structure partly because it demonstrates effort, partly because it hedges against being wrong, and partly because it is what they were trained to produce. Clients accept it partly because they don't have a clear alternative, and partly because the comprehensiveness creates the impression of rigour even when the decision-relevant content could fit in three pages.
What a Decision Memo Does
A decision memo is not a short report. It is a different document with a different purpose and a different structure.
It starts with the decision. Not the context, not the background, not the scope of the engagement. The decision: "We recommend proceeding with the Lagos market entry, conditional on the regulatory approval pathway described in Section 3." Everything that follows is organised to support, qualify, or contextualise that recommendation.
It is structured around the questions the decision-maker will ask, not the questions the analyst answered. A board member reading a market entry memo wants to know: what do we get if this works; what do we lose if it doesn't; what has to be true for this to succeed; and who else is already doing it. Those questions rarely map to the section structure of a conventional feasibility report.
It makes the uncertainty explicit and located. Every recommendation rests on assumptions. A decision memo names the two or three assumptions that matter most, states the analyst's confidence level in each, and identifies the early indicators that would signal the assumption is failing. This is more honest than a report that presents a single-point projection as if the uncertainty has been resolved.
Structure of an Effective Decision Memo
Section 1: The Recommendation (half a page)
State the recommendation plainly. Include the key conditions. If there is a minority view on the team, note it in one sentence — not to hedge, but because boards take recommendations more seriously when they know dissent was considered.
Section 2: The Evidence (one to two pages)
Present only the evidence that is directly relevant to the recommendation. If the market size analysis, the regulatory landscape, and the competitive positioning all point in the same direction, say so and summarise the key numbers. If they conflict, show how the recommendation weighs the conflict. Do not present all the analysis conducted — only the analysis that supports or qualifies the recommendation.
Section 3: The Risks (half a page)
Three risks maximum. For each: what is the risk, how likely is it, what is the impact if it materialises, and what is the proposed mitigation. If there are more than three material risks, the project scope is probably wrong and that is itself the finding.
Section 4: The Decision Required (quarter page)
State explicitly what you are asking the board to decide, by when, and what happens if the decision is deferred. This section is frequently omitted and frequently the most useful. Boards often leave meetings without a clear decision because no one specified what the decision was.
What Goes in the Appendix
Everything else. The full financial model, the interview transcripts, the regulatory analysis, the methodology. Make the appendix available, reference it by section in the main document, and let the board decide what to interrogate. Most will read the memo. Few will read the appendix. Both options should be available.
Why Consultants Resist This
The decision memo format is uncomfortable for consultants because it forces a clear recommendation. A comprehensive report can be presented as "here are the findings — the decision is yours." A decision memo says "here is what we think you should do." That requires confidence in the analysis, willingness to be evaluated against the outcome, and a client relationship that can accommodate directness.
These are worth developing. Clients who receive decision memos rather than reports make faster decisions, ask sharper follow-up questions, and are more likely to return for subsequent engagements because the first one was useful. The commercial logic is straightforward.
Conclusion
The consultant report is not a bad format. It is a format optimised for the wrong objective — thoroughness rather than usefulness. Decision memos are optimised for the actual purpose of most consulting engagements: helping someone make a decision they are uncertain about, faster and with more confidence than they would manage alone.
The shift requires only a change in structure and a willingness to lead with the recommendation. The analytical rigour remains; it is simply presented in service of the decision rather than as a display of method.