Starting point, the document you currently call policy

• When was your investment policy statement last updated and who led that review?
• Describe the format you use for the policy, where it is stored, and who can access it.
• How closely does the written policy match the trades and allocations your staff executes today? Options: Very closely, Somewhat closely, Often diverges, Not at all
• Which three sections of the policy do trustees refer to most often (for example, asset allocation, spending, manager selection)? Options: Asset allocation, Spending/distribution rules, Manager selection guidelines, Risk tolerance and ranges, Liquidity and cash rules, Governance/roles and responsibilities, Other
• Who on your team prepares the materials for committee meetings and compiles evidence of policy compliance? Options: CIO or head of investments, Investment analyst, Finance/treasurer staff, External advisor, Shared responsibility, Other
• Roughly how many formal policy reviews has the committee completed in the last decade? Options: 0-1, 2-3, 4-6, 7+

Where the policy bumps into reality

• What single policy failure in the last downturn made you question whether the written policy actually protected the committee?
• Walk me through a recent committee meeting where risk tolerance, allocation, or manager choice became a sticking point.
• Which specific holdings, managers, or asset classes most often trigger requests for exceptions to the policy? Options: Public equities, Core fixed income, Private equity, Real assets/real estate, Hedge funds, Legacy concentrated positions, Other
• Describe any near-term liabilities, spending commitments, or liquidity events that have forced tactical departures from policy.
• If unresolved, which governance or wording gap would cause the committee to reject a rewritten policy?
• On a scale of 1 to 5, how confident are you that the current policy protects trustees from fiduciary or compliance risk? Options: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Stakeholders, authority, and where decisions actually land

• Who has final signoff on policy changes and in practice, who usually calls the shots?
• Tell me about the trustees or stakeholders who most resist quantitative limits like ranges or glide paths, and why.
• How do committee discussions typically resolve when there is no clear consensus—by a vote, chair decision, or some other route? Options: Chair decides, Simple majority vote, Supermajority required, Executive director makes final call, Defer to external counsel
• List the external parties that must review or approve policy changes, for example auditors, legal counsel, or donor advisors. Options: Legal counsel, External auditor, Donor or beneficiary advisors, Custodian, Regulatory reviewer, Other
• What deadline or committee calendar constraint would force you to delay policy adoption beyond your intended timeline?
• If the chair asks for a one-page decision memo, which two metrics must appear there for you to sign off quickly? Options: Projected portfolio return, Expected volatility, Funding ratio or drawdown risk, Estimated transition cost, Legal risk summary, Likelihood of donor objection, Other

Other options on the table

• Name the option you are most likely to choose if our proposal does not address your top concern: stay with incumbent, hire a competitor, or solve it internally. Options: Stay with incumbent advisor, Hire a competing advisor, Solve it internally, Pause and revisit later, Other
• Have you spoken to other advisors or internal leaders about this project, and if so, who made the most persuasive case?
• State the specific proof points that would keep you with the current approach, for example lower cost, strong incumbent relationships, or smaller transition risk. Options: Lower upfront cost, Lower ongoing fees, Established trust with incumbent, Smaller short-term disruption, Existing internal capability, Other
• Do any trustees or staff favor an internal solution instead of hiring an external consultant? Options: Yes, No, Some do, some do not, Unsure
• Assuming you chose an internal path, who would own the work and roughly how many additional full-time equivalents or hours would that require?
• Tell me which competitor sample policies or proposals you reviewed and what about them stood out, positively or negatively.

Operational readiness, the practical gates we cannot ignore

• Could the engagement proceed if custodial and portfolio data cannot be exported reliably? Options: Yes, with manual workarounds, No, data export is a blocker, Conditional, with limited scope redefined
• List the systems that hold the data we will need, for example custodial reporting, accounting, performance analytics, and manager contracts. Options: Custodial reporting, Accounting/ERP, Performance analytics tool, Treasury/cash system, Manager contract repository, Other
• Identify the person or role who can provide API access, reporting credentials, or pull the historical performance and holdings files.
• Rate the cleanliness of your historical return and holdings files and whether they have been reconciled recently. Options: Fully reconciled and audited, Mostly clean with minor gaps, Patchy and needs cleanup, Significant reconciliation required
• Are there regulatory, donor restriction, or legal approvals that must be obtained before policy changes can be implemented? Options: Yes, multiple approvals required, Yes, a single approval required, No approvals required, Unsure
• Name the one operational gap that would prevent starting work within your target timeline.

Decision criteria, who decides and how fast

• Identify the non-financial barriers that would stop approval even if the draft showed improved risk-adjusted returns.
• Provide the acceptance criteria your committee requires for a policy to be considered approved, for example voting thresholds or legal signoff. Options: Simple majority, Supermajority, Committee chair plus CFO, Board ratification required, Independent legal signoff required, Other
• Estimate the fastest realistic timeline for committee signoff if the draft clearly met your acceptance criteria, in weeks. Options: Within 1 week, 2-4 weeks, 1-2 months, Longer than 2 months
• Provide the list of roles that must be present for final approval and those who must be informed afterward. Options: Committee chair, CIO/CFO, Board treasurer, Legal counsel, External advisor, Executive director
• Suppose a short pilot proves the projected savings or clearer governance, what would stop you from signing that week?
• Choose the primary outcome that matters most to you: clearer governance, stronger risk controls, lower fees, or improved expected returns. Options: Clearer governance, Stronger risk controls, Lower fees, Improved expected returns, Easier manager selection

One year out—what success really looks like

• Paint a picture of how committee meetings and decision making would run one year after adopting a new, well-implemented policy.
• Share three trustee or staff behaviors you would expect to change under a clearer policy. Options: More disciplined rebalancing, Fewer emergency meetings, Clearer manager mandates, Faster decision making, Better donor communication, Other
• Specify the metrics you will track to measure whether the policy improved long-term outcomes for beneficiaries. Options: Net return vs benchmark, Sharpe ratio or risk-adjusted return, Volatility relative to target, Tracking error to policy, Spend rule adherence, Other
• Clarify which role will own ongoing policy maintenance and the cadence for scheduled updates. Options: Investment staff, Committee chair, Board secretary, External advisor, Shared responsibility
• Assuming this work reduces uncertainty around manager selection, what is the first decision you would accelerate?
• Are you open to a short pilot engagement that focuses on governance and asset allocation first? Options: Yes, a focused pilot, Maybe, need more detail, No, prefer full engagement, Not at this time

• Stakeholder Mapping and Pre-Work Alignment
• Risk Tolerance and Investment Objectives Workshop
• Current Policy Gap Identification and Prioritization
• Allocation Principles and Trade-Offs Alignment
• Consensus Review and Drafting Kickoff

• Schedule the policy review workshop and circulate required pre-read materials and data exhibits.
• Present allocation principle options tied to objectives
• A ratified set of allocation principles and numeric ranges to be used in the draft policy.
• Defined decision rules for liquidity management and illiquid exposures.
• A documented manager selection and monitoring framework to include in the policy draft.
• Draft the allocation framework with agreed ranges and decision rules for review in the policy draft.
• Compile manager selection criteria and monitoring intervals for inclusion in the policy.
• List remaining open items that require formal committee vote or additional analysis.
• Recap decisions and attach evidence
• A confirmed drafting scope and delivery schedule for the first draft of the investment policy statement.
• An explicit acceptance checklist and sign-off process to judge draft readiness.
• A scheduled review workshop with required participants and materials listed.
• Produce the drafting brief that includes agreed objectives, risk tolerances, allocation framework, and prioritized gap list.
• Deliver the acceptance checklist and timeline for draft review and final approval.
• Confirm session objectives and success criteria
• A completed stakeholder matrix with named roles for decision, review, and advisory responsibilities.
• A delivered and timebound pre-work checklist listing all documents and data required for the next workshop.
• Produce and distribute the stakeholder matrix and decision rights summary.
• Collect and deliver the current investment policy statement, recent performance data, and manager contracts.
• Publish the pre-work checklist with deadlines and confirm availability for scheduled workshops.
• Recap pre-work findings and constraints
• A ratified investment objectives statement with ranked priorities and time horizon.
• A documented risk tolerance statement with numeric targets for expected return range, volatility, and acceptable drawdown.
• A list of any unresolved preferences requiring further analysis or committee input.
• Document the agreed objectives and numeric risk tolerance statements for inclusion in the draft policy.
• Run scenario and stress analyses for the agreed risk and return targets and deliver the results before the allocations session.
• List any outstanding questions or data needed to finalize targets.
• Walk through the current policy section by section
• A prioritized gap list that clearly links each gap to a risk, objective, or governance deficiency.
• Agreement on the top policy sections that must be rewritten versus those requiring minor edits.
• Produce the prioritized gap report with examples and suggested severity ratings.
• Collect historical exceptions, ad hoc decisions, and prior committee minutes that illustrate policy gaps.
• Identify policy sections targeted for full rewrite in the drafting phase.
• Map stakeholders and decision rights
• Confirm drafting scope and deliverables
• Identify governance and process gaps
• Elicit investment objectives and priorities
• Work through trade-offs and constraints
• Review existing documents and data needs
• Agree timeline and acceptance criteria
• Define manager selection and monitoring boundaries
• Elicit loss tolerance and risk preferences
• Prioritize gaps by impact and effort
• Document any unresolved items and decision paths
• Translate preferences into measurable targets
• Agree pre-work tasks and schedule
• Plan the policy review and approval workshop

• Draft Investment Policy Statement
• Finalize IPS and Adoption Materials
• Strategic Asset Allocation Model and Targets
• Asset Allocation Glidepath and Rebalancing Rules
• Manager RFP, Due Diligence, and Selection
• Manager Transition and Trade Execution
• Tax-Aware Transition and Reallocation Plan
• Custody, Operational Onboarding, and Documentation
• Liquidity and Spending Policy with Cash Flow Schedule
• Fiduciary Governance Charter and Delegated Authority
• Performance Measurement Framework and Reporting Pack
• Quarterly Performance and Attribution Reports
• Ongoing Manager Monitoring Rules and Watchlist Protocol
• Investment Committee Training and Governance Workshop

Draft Investment Policy Statement

• Do you have an existing investment policy statement (IPS) to revise that includes current asset targets and constraints? Options: Yes, IPS exists, No, start from scratch
• When was the IPS last updated (month/year) and is the previous adoption vote recorded in committee minutes?
• Who on your staff or committee will be the primary contact for gathering policy inputs and reviewing IPS drafts?

Finalize IPS and Adoption Materials

• Which adoption materials do you require with the final IPS (resolution language, executive summary, board memo)? Options: Resolution language, Executive summary, Board memo, Adoption slide deck, Training handout
• Provide measurable acceptance criteria for IPS adoption (required signatories, documented committee vote threshold, and final minutes published by date).
• How much lead time do you need between receiving the final IPS packet and the scheduled adoption meeting (in calendar days)? Options: 7 days, 14 days, 21 days, Custom number of days

Strategic Asset Allocation Model and Targets

• Specify the target allocation ranges you want modeled for equities, fixed income, private equity, real assets, and cash (percentages).
• Indicate the long-term return and volatility assumptions (annualized %) or provide an existing capital market assumptions table. Options: I will provide a CMA table, Use consultant standard assumptions, Provide custom assumptions here
• Identify any liability or spending-rate constraints that should be incorporated into the strategic asset allocation model (endowment spending rule, pension liability horizon, drawdown targets).

Asset Allocation Glidepath and Rebalancing Rules

• List the rebalancing triggers you prefer (calendar rebalancing frequency, threshold bands in percentage points, or cash-flow only). Options: Monthly calendar, Quarterly calendar, Threshold bands, Cash-flow driven, Hybrid
• Select the rebalancing execution owner: internal portfolio manager, external transition manager, or external advisor. Options: Internal portfolio manager, External transition manager, External advisor
• State the maximum allowable allocation drift from target before a rebalancing instruction is executed (percentage points). Options: 1%, 2%, 5%, Custom percentage

Manager RFP, Due Diligence, and Selection

• Confirm whether you require a formal RFP process with standardized scoring templates and reference checks for finalist managers. Options: Yes, formal RFP required, No, targeted search only, Hybrid: RFP for select mandates
• Describe minimum manager candidate criteria: track record years, minimum AUM, benchmark-relative performance thresholds, or operational certifications required.
• Supply any blacklists or prohibited manager structures (for example affiliated managers, certain fee structures) that should be excluded from searches. Options: No exclusions, ESG-based exclusions, Affiliated manager exclusion, Other - describe

Manager Transition and Trade Execution

• Provide the acceptance criteria for a completed manager transition (target allocation achieved within X trading days, reconciled positions, and cash drag below a stated threshold).
• Which custodians or platforms currently hold the manager positions to be transitioned and do they support bulk position transfer or in-kind transactions? Options: Single custodian, Multiple custodians, Third-party platforms (e.g., omnibus), Unknown - need to confirm
• Who will approve the transition plan and final trade-by-trade execution instructions (committee subcommittee, CIO, delegated signer)?

Tax-Aware Transition and Reallocation Plan

• How should taxable accounts be scoped for lot-by-lot tax optimization versus non-taxable accounts (account-level rules)? Options: Optimize taxable accounts, Treat all accounts uniformly, Custom rules per account
• Enumerate the tax constraints to observe (wash sale windows, long-term vs short-term lot preservation, state tax considerations).
• Explain whether you require realized-loss harvesting, gain deferral strategies, or a dollar threshold that triggers tax-aware trade postponement. Options: Require harvesting, No harvesting, Case-by-case

Custody, Operational Onboarding, and Documentation

• List the documents required for custodian onboarding (signed account agreement, board resolution, IRS letters, W-9/W-8BEN) and indicate which you already have available.
• Identify the technical contacts at your custodian who can complete test wires and confirm settlement instructions; include name and contact method.
• Confirm the acceptance criteria for operational onboarding (signed agreements received, successful test wire, and reported account numbers). Options: All items required, Partial items acceptable with plan, Custom acceptance criteria

Liquidity and Spending Policy with Cash Flow Schedule

• Indicate your target spending rate or distribution policy (percentage of assets, multi-year smoothing, or fixed-dollar schedule) used for cash planning. Options: Percent of assets, Multi-year smoothing, Fixed-dollar schedule, Other
• Choose the cadence for cash flow forecasting (monthly, quarterly, annually) and whether grant schedules are fixed or variable. Options: Monthly, Quarterly, Annually
• Estimate near-term liquidity needs over the next 12 months (expected withdrawals, planned capital calls, or large grants) in dollar ranges. Options: Less than $100k, $100k - $1M, $1M - $5M, More than $5M

Fiduciary Governance Charter and Delegated Authority

• Name the roles and job descriptions that should appear in the fiduciary governance charter (committee chair, investment manager, CFO, custodian liaison).
• Specify delegated authority thresholds for the CIO or investment officer (trade approval limits by dollar amount or percentage of portfolio). Options: $100k, $500k, $1M, Custom limit
• Describe required governance artifacts for compliance: conflict of interest disclosures, gift policies, and record retention periods (years).

Performance Measurement Framework and Reporting Pack

• Select standard benchmarks for each major asset class and indicate if any custom composite definitions are required for reporting. Options: Use standard market benchmarks, Require custom composites, Mixed (specify)
• State the reporting frequency and delivery channels for the reporting pack (quarterly PDF, secure portal upload, or slide deck). Options: Quarterly PDF, Secure portal, Slide deck for meetings, Combination
• Outline the performance attribution granularity required (total portfolio, composite, manager-level) and the attribution methodology (geometric, arithmetic). Options: Total portfolio only, Manager-level attribution, Full trade-level attribution, Custom

Quarterly Performance and Attribution Reports

• Choose the level of detail for quarterly reports: high-level dashboard, manager-level attribution, or full trade-level analytics. Options: High-level dashboard, Manager-level attribution, Trade-level analytics
• When do your committee meetings occur relative to quarter-end and what report lead time is required for packet distribution (business days)? Options: 7 business days, 10 business days, 14 business days, Other
• Clarify whether external benchmarks or peer universes should be included in the quarterly attribution report. Options: Include external benchmarks, Include peer universe, Both, Neither

Ongoing Manager Monitoring Rules and Watchlist Protocol

• Define quantitative triggers for watchlist placement (for example underperformance relative to benchmark over 12 months, material AUM decline, or key personnel changes).
• Explain the escalation steps and documentation required once a manager is placed on the watchlist (remediation plan, timeline, reporting cadence).
• Estimate the typical remediation window you expect before reallocation or termination of a manager (in months). Options: 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, Case-by-case

Investment Committee Training and Governance Workshop

• Are you requesting an on-site workshop, virtual training, or a hybrid session for committee governance training and policy orientation? Options: On-site workshop, Virtual training, Hybrid
• Outline the key learning objectives for the committee workshop (policy adoption process, oversight duties, investment monitoring, or fiduciary responsibilities).
• Name the committee members expected to attend and any external advisors who will present at the workshop.

• Master Services Agreement (MSA)
• Statement of Work (SOW)
• Fee Schedule & Payment Terms
• Data Processing & Security Addendum (DPA / Security)
• Decision Gates & Governance Matrix
• Transition & Implementation Governance Agreement
• Change Order Agreement
• Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)
• Acceptance & Sign-Off Checklist

• Obtain signed acceptance of final Investment Policy Statement
• Obtain signed approval of the Implementation Plan and acceptance criteria
• Obtain written sign-off on manager search outcomes and recommended hires
• Confirm and sign off completion of portfolio transitions and reconciliation reports
• Obtain sign-off on updated governance, decision gates, and approval matrix
• Confirm delivery and acceptance of reporting templates, data feeds, and access credentials
• Obtain documented completion of staff and committee knowledge transfer
• Receive written authorization to close the engagement and proceed with final invoicing
• Confirm archival of final deliverables and project records in the agreed repository
• Confirm scheduled periodic review cadence and assigned owners for sustainment

• Go-live health check (weeks 1-4)
• First outcomes measurement (weeks 4-10)
• 90-day realization review (around day 90)
• Quarterly operational review (ongoing)

• Implement the agreed short-win operational changes and report completion at the next review.
• Clear record of status against each numeric target recorded in Engagement Scope, with remediation actions for any unmet targets.
• Named metric owners confirm the verification steps and dates that will demonstrate remediation completion.
• Set the standing quarterly review schedule and reporting package for ongoing monitoring.
• Publish the 90-day outcomes report showing each metric vs target and the remediation plan for any shortfalls.
• Open discrete tickets for each remediation item with target completion dates and documentation of the acceptance check.
• Schedule the quarterly operational review series and distribute the reporting template to metric owners.
• Trend review for core metrics
• Reduce the number of active policy exceptions and ensure remediation tickets are progressing to resolution.
• Prioritize enhancement requests for the next quarter and schedule work to address the top items.
• Confirm next metric snapshot delivery date and owner for the upcoming quarter.
• Update the issue and enhancement log with agreed priorities and target resolution dates.
• Produce the next quarterly metric snapshot showing portfolio drift, exception counts, and action-item closure rates.
• Reconfirm success criteria and named owners
• All named owners confirm they can access the final policy document and understand version-control rules.
• Legacy policy documents are archived or set read-only and the team's fallback habit is closed.
• Top 3 deployment blockers are documented with remediation actions and completion dates.
• Publish the final investment policy statement to the approved repository and document version-control procedures.
• Archive legacy policy documents or convert them to read-only status and log the archive location.
• Document and circulate the list of current deployment issues with remediation dates before the next meeting.
• Document the root causes for each gap and agree corrective actions with dates.
• Present first outcome data vs targets
• Establish whether percent of portfolio aligned to target allocations is moving toward the target recorded in Engagement Scope.
• Confirm owners and reporting cadence for interim progress updates before the 90-day review.
• Publish a rebalancing or transition plan with target dates to bring allocations within the tolerances recorded in Engagement Scope.
• Log and justify each policy exception in the exception register, including expected remediation dates.
• Deliver interim metric snapshots to the agreed recipients at the agreed frequency until the 90-day review.
• Restate targets recorded in Engagement Scope
• Root-cause diagnosis for any shortfalls
• Present outcome data vs each target
• Open issue and enhancement request log
• Deployment and access validation
• Agree corrective actions and timelines
• Operational blockers and resource needs
• Early adoption signals and usage patterns
• Document remediation plan and close-the-loop actions
• Confirm ongoing monitoring and periodic review cadence
• Confirm monitoring and reporting cadence to next review
• Short wins and next checkpoints
• Retire the incumbent process or documents
• Open issues and immediate remediation actions