Technology spend rarely goes wrong in one large decision. It goes wrong in thirty small ones, each sensible alone, made over three years by people who were never in the same room.
A strategy that lives in a slide deck changes nothing. The version that works names what you're doing, what you're deliberately not doing, and who decides when that changes.
What you run, what it costs, what it's actually used for, and where the risk sits. Most of this has never been written down in one place.
Ranking initiatives against business outcomes and capacity, so the roadmap reflects what the organisation can absorb rather than everything anyone asked for.
Sequenced work with dependencies made explicit, in a horizon short enough to mean something — usually twelve to eighteen months.
Run cost separated from change cost, so the conversation stops being one number and starts being a set of decisions.
Naming who decides what, and how exceptions get approved. Most technology drift traces back to the absence of this.
Revisiting the plan against what actually happened, because a roadmap nobody revisits becomes fiction inside two quarters.
The symptom is usually a stack nobody would design on purpose, assembled entirely from choices that each made sense at the time.
Startups have a different version of this problem — see startup consulting. Where the constraint is an ageing platform, see legacy system modernisation.
Tell us what's driving the review — cost, risk, a merger, or a system nobody trusts. We'll assess the estate and come back with a plan and a number.