Peer Reviews

Peer Reviews 2017-05-02T13:28:46+00:00

Any project planning involves development milestones, a suitable cashflow forecast and deadlines. Should these deadlines be missed the simple fact is that costs increase.

Naturally, as the costs increase, so does the worry that the project isn’t going to plan and there’s an increasing realisation that things aren’t quite right. This is a common situation that Candor³ hears on a regular basis.

It is difficult for investors or developers with limited technical knowledge or experience of a complex project, to fully understand whether they are getting the best results possible. Asking consultants for advice or explanations can be uncomfortable resulting in a struggle to get answers that allay the concerns.

Candor³ believes a simple solution to this situation is to get a Peer Review done. This is an effective tool widely utilised within the professional services industry and allows for a second opinion on matters that a client or the project management requires.

We believe that good consultants should not be concerned by a peer review of their work and should welcome further cooperation that result in additional recommendations or identifies any mistakes so that they can be corrected before problems arise that result in cost overruns.

From a client perspective the review will address nagging doubts, confirm that things are on track, or provide an alternative way forward that results in more peace of mind. A good review should also unlock any further additional value in the project or minimise any potential future pitfalls.

If you have concerns about how your project is proceeding and need a second opinion please call John Gardiner at Candor³. All enquiries treated in confidence.

Recent Successes

A Candor³ client was asked to invest in a project where significant work had been completed. A review of information provided identified issues with the project which meant major problems ahead. He chose not to invest.

A land developer asked Candor³ for a peer review on a project schemed for 26 sections. Through the peer review process opportunities were identified whereby 32 sections could be delivered. The project was redirected to secure the additional sites.