What people ask before they call.

An organisational investigation is an independent, evidence-based inquiry into why a problem keeps coming back inside an organisation. It examines the system that produced the problem, not the people involved.

Every claim has to be confirmed by a second source before it counts. It ends in a written finding for the board: the cause, the cost and what to change.

We find out why a problem keeps coming back, and help you fix the cause so it stays fixed.

Our clients are organisations where a small failure costs millions. At a mobile operator, an outage of a few minutes can stop calls and payments for millions of people. At a mine, one power failure can stop production for a whole shift.

Our method is adapted from aircraft accident investigation. Your board receives a written finding: what is causing the problem, what it costs and what to change.

Boards and the executives who answer to them: board chairs and directors, audit and risk committee chairs, chief executives and chief operating officers, chief risk officers and heads of internal audit.

Many of our clients have already had all 3. Each did its job, and the problem came back.

• An audit checks whether the rules were followed. It does not see why people work around them.
• A consultant brings a solution, often one that worked elsewhere. It may hold for a while. Then the problem returns, because the cause was never proven.
• A coach helps one person. This kind of problem sits between people.

We start where they stop: we prove the cause first, then help your team fix it until the fix holds.

No. We do not investigate fraud or misconduct, and we do not assess individuals. Blame sits outside the terms of reference, in writing, and a finding makes no recommendation about anyone’s job.

If you suspect wrongdoing, that is work for forensic specialists and your legal advisers. We investigate why a capable organisation keeps producing a result nobody chose.

A survey collects opinions and reports an average. We ask people to walk us through real events, compare their accounts and check them against the record: board papers, minutes and budgets.

A survey tells you how people feel. A finding tells you what is causing the problem, what it costs and what to change.

FRANK names the 5 stages that fix the problem: frame the reality, reflect on alignment, articulate the impact, name the adjustments and kickstart realignment.

We always investigate first, because a fix without a proven cause is a guess. But what a board pays for is a change that holds, so the method is named after the part that looks forward.

Ask 5 people on your leadership team, separately, what the strategy is right now. If you would get 5 different answers, there is something here.

Then look at the cost: missed targets, people who have left, and board time spent on questions nobody could answer. If you can put a number on it, the first meeting is worth having.

Because they report into the structure that is hiding the problem. You cannot ask someone to audit the hierarchy that sets their own bonus. This is not a criticism of those roles. It is why the work has to be independent.

We do not need anyone to be completely honest. The method is built so the truth shows up anyway.

• We ask about what happened, not what people think. “Walk me through the last time a decision stalled” is much harder to spin than “How are decisions made here?”
• We ask about the system, never about a person. Nobody is being judged, so nobody needs to defend themselves.
• Nobody can be traced. Nothing reaches you with a name on it. We sit outside your reporting line, and we leave.
• Everyone gets the same questions, so the answers can be compared. Where they do not match, we know where to look.
• Nothing counts until it is confirmed. A claim becomes a finding only when a second source agrees: another person, a document or a number.

It rests on the same observation: the truth people tell changes when rank leaves the room. People are not lying to their chief executive. Telling your boss bad news carries real risk.

We take the lesson, not the disguise. We do not go undercover. People know an independent review is happening, and the method does not depend on catching anyone out.

We protect sources, not decisions. Everything people tell us stays confidential. Decisions taken with authority are not hidden.

• If the information never reached the decision-maker, that is a fault in the system, and we fix how information travels.
• If it arrived and nothing happened, the finding states the facts only: what arrived, when and what followed, each confirmed by a second source.
• We do not judge motive or character, and we make no recommendation about anyone’s job.
• The person concerned sees the finding first and can respond.

The board receives every finding in full and decides what to do. We establish the facts. The board makes the call.

The same rules apply. The finding states the facts, and the sponsor sees it first and can respond, like anyone else. We will not soften a finding to protect whoever pays the invoice.

Say so, and show us what you think we got wrong. Usually it is one of 2 things: context we did not have, which we will check, or a fact that is uncomfortable but true.

The standard, the sequence and the documents are public, so a board can judge the work before it buys it. The question sets, the scoring and the register are working instruments, shared with clients under engagement.

See how we work.

An investigation takes 12–16 weeks to reach a finding and agree the changes, then 12 weeks of support while the fix takes hold. A Defences Review is shorter and is scoped to your organisation.

An investigation starts from US$35,000 and a Defences Review from US$15,000. The first meeting is free. Every fee is fixed before work starts, so you know the cost and the end date.

• The first meeting: no fee.
• Preliminary report: US$2,500, deducted from the investigation fee if you go ahead.
• Defences Review: from US$15,000, or from R210,000 in South Africa.
• Investigation: from US$35,000, or from R600,000 in South Africa. Large, multi-country investigations are US$250,000 or more.
• AI Decision Review: a board session from US$7,500, or a review after a failure from US$12,000.

These are the fees for 2027. The fee guide gives an indicative fee for your situation in 3 questions.

You are buying a finding, not a number of days.

A written finding in weeks 10–14. Then a list of the agreed changes, each with an owner and a test, and a plan for the 12 weeks while we step back. Your board keeps the list when we leave.

90 minutes with the executive who would sponsor the work. Questions, not a presentation. If we find nothing worth investigating, we say so and you pay nothing. If an investigation is warranted, a preliminary report sets out the scope and the fee. It costs US$2,500, and if you go ahead with the investigation, we deduct it from the fee.

See how the first meeting runs.

It checks the decisions your AI systems make, or help people make, using the same method as our other work.

• Before something goes wrong, it gives the board confidence in what it is about to approve: what the system will decide, from which records, and who answers when it is wrong.
• After something goes wrong, it finds out why, without blaming the nearest person.

There are no guarantees, but the board can show it asked the right questions. See the AI Decision Review.

Where it helps a board. King V asks boards to govern technology and AI with clear accountability, and to conclude on their governance outcomes. Our reviews give that conclusion evidence. We do not sell King V compliance work, and this is not legal advice.

FranklySpeaking was founded in 2013 and is led by Frank Tsuro. Investigations are delivered by our team of associates and partners, to one method.

Organisations where a small failure costs millions. We have worked in telecommunications, energy, mining, logistics, infrastructure, construction, banking and state-owned enterprises.

We have teams in Harare and Johannesburg, and associates elsewhere. We work internationally, in person and online.

No. Frank advises a leader, personally, on a decision. FranklySpeaking works on the organisation when a problem keeps coming back. If the question is a decision in front of you, start with Frank’s advisory work.

Book the first meeting: 90 minutes with the executive who would sponsor the work, at no fee. You can pick a time or write to enquiries@franklyspeakinghq.com. If you want a look first, the 4-minute check scores your 5 defences from 10 statements.

Yes. Our founder gives the keynote Fix the System, Not the Pilot, for conferences, executive teams and boards. Fees depend on the room and what it is for. See the keynote.