Altamont Advisory · Arm 03 · Decision-grade intelligence
Decision-grade intelligence leadership can defend — governed, used, and left with your teams.
Not demo-room models. Intelligence that holds under capacity, bandwidth, politics, and multi-partner pressure. Same quality bar as Core Advisory and EdWorX.
Decision-grade intelligence · IMP residual capacity · peer arm to Advisory & EdWorX
Institutional weight
Depth across multi-country portfolios — Africa, Southeast Asia, and complex delivery environments.
950+
Institutional assignments
100M+
People reached
150+
Countries of delivery
300+
Specialists deployed
Shortlist materials for procurement and evaluation committees.
Download capability statementsCapabilities
Intelligence shaped around the next decision — not dashboards that die after the pilot.
AI for institutional purpose — governed, auditable, fit to real risk and capacity.
Foundations that make intelligence trustworthy — and sustainable after close-out.
Platforms and operating models built for bandwidth, capacity, and adoption politics — including IMP as the four-domain workspace where residual capacity matters.
Four-domain workspace · Altamont Digital
IMP is one multi-tenant workspace covering four domains: delivery, MERL/results, evaluation, and finance (EMS) — with shared people, programmes, and organisation boundaries so one tenant never sees another’s data.
Delivery holds people and purpose-based consent (grant/revoke), enrolment, activities, milestones, evidence, import, and roles. Results & learning hold outcomes → indicators (baseline / target / actual), learning log, inquiries, and reports/exports. Evaluation is a workhorse: evaluation programmes; TOR/proposal to design draft; human Accept gates; evidence events; governed findings and recommendations; client packs (board / HTML / PPTX-style outputs as implemented). Finance (EMS) covers staff claims, approvals, vendors/AP, and reports — organisation-scoped.
AI may draft designs and packages; humans Accept design and client packs — there is no silent publish-as-truth.
Structures, indicators, and findings trails remain with the organisation after close-out. Residual capacity under Implementation Integrity means the workspace still works when advisors are no longer in the room.
IMP is not a replacement for field work or independent professional judgement. It is not an offline mobile field app, not a cross-org data marketplace, and not automated final evaluation without human Accept.
Consultants and contractors: learn about IMP packages and join the Partner programme.
Full product storyInstitutional packages
What IMP does
Core
One multi-tenant workspace
Four domains — delivery, MERL/results, evaluation, and finance (EMS) — sharing people, programmes, and organisation boundaries. Strong tenant isolation.
Delivery
Delivery
People and purpose-based consent (grant/revoke), enrolment, activities, milestones, evidence attachments, import, and roles (Admin / Staff / Viewer).
MERL / results
Results & learning
Outcomes → indicators with baseline, target, and actual; learning log; inquiries; reports and CSV exports for programme and donor review.
Evaluation
Evaluation workhorse
Evaluation programmes; TOR/proposal → design draft; human Accept gates; evidence events; governed findings and recommendations; client packs (board / HTML / PPTX-style as implemented).
Finance · EMS
Finance (EMS)
Staff claims, approvals, vendors/AP, and reports — organisation-scoped accountability finance on the same workspace.
Governance
AI drafts · human Accept
AI may draft designs and packages; humans Accept design and client packs. No silent publish-as-truth.
Residual capacity
After close-out
Structures, indicators, and findings trails remain with the organisation — Implementation Integrity when advisors leave.
Honest boundary
What IMP is not
Not a replacement for field work or independent professional judgement; not offline mobile field capture; not automated final evaluation without humans; not a cross-org data marketplace.
Product evidence
Live UI from the platform — consent, utilisation, and vendor control as teams actually use them. Tap or click to expand.
Who it is for
How to engage
Same quality bar. Two ways to buy: formal mandate / RFP, or frictionless packaged entry via the acquisition desk (fixed pilot + clear Year-1 packages). First clear packaged path of this kind for institutional MERL advisory — procurement-efficient, not consumer SaaS.
Premium
Digital backbone / full mandate
Formal path: IMP configured under institutional or MERL advisory. Residual capacity under one quality bar — for mandates that warrant a senior team and written scope.
Brief a senior advisor →
Download IMP Technical Capability StatementSee packaged mandate options →Frictionless entry
90-day fixed-fee pilot
Fixed fee, credited toward Year-1 if you continue. Prove residual capacity in a real discussion — scope designed in days, not another opaque proposal cycle.
Request pilot discussion →
Many conventional MERL advisory RFPs cost organisations an estimated $6–10k in internal process time before delivery begins. A fixed-fee pilot can put more of that value into implementation and residual capacity.
Design pilot scope →Download 90-Day Pilot PackSecondary
Licence / lighter package
Discuss a product licence or light package without a large advisory engagement — or open transparent package options on the acquisition desk.
Discuss a licence →
See package options →Why this is better for you
A frictionless buying system for institutional MERL advisory — transparent packages and fixed-fee pilot entry under the same Implementation Integrity standard. Formal RFP remains available when your process requires it.
Diagnostic sample — not a free pilot
Board-style thinking: on-track / at-risk / behind, target vs actual.
Share a sample extract (up to ~100 rows). We map people, programmes, activities/indicators where the file supports it and return a short note on fit and gaps (including consent and duplicates).
You will hear from us within 2–3 business days.
Who we serve
Selected work
Multi-region · multi-partner portfolio
Outcome leadership defended
A decision-linked intelligence product and utilisation cycle the board actually used — with clear ownership, refresh cadence, and governance so the system remained after the engagement.
Pressure
A multi-country portfolio board could not compare performance across partners or defend reallocation mid-cycle. Dashboards existed; utilisation did not. Leadership risked deciding on politics rather than governed evidence — while country teams waited for a signal they could act on.
High-stakes institutional setting
Outcome leadership defended
Prioritised use-cases tied to real decisions, human-in-the-loop patterns, and a governance frame the institution could defend and sustain.
Pressure
Leadership wanted AI productivity gains without accepting uncontrolled model risk, weak data foundations, or tools staff would abandon after a pilot — under capacity and political scrutiny.
One practice
Next step
Data landscape, digital constraint, IMP as backbone under advisory, pilot discussion, or board decision under pressure. Response within two business days.
