Map responsibilities before comparing titles
Start with the decisions and workstreams in your brief, then ask who owns each one. Record the day-to-day lead, specialist practitioners, senior reviewer, project or account management and final quality responsibility. Titles vary between agencies, so compare responsibilities and authority rather than seniority labels alone.
Identify the client-side owners at the same time. Agency performance depends on access, approvals, information and implementation that may sit with your organisation. A clear two-sided responsibility map prevents work from falling into the space between teams.
Put this into practice
- Owner for each important workstream
- Day-to-day relationship lead
- Specialist and senior review roles
- Client decisions and deliverables
- Final approval and escalation authority
Clarify allocation, access and service expectations
Ask how each proposed person is expected to contribute: direct delivery, review, meetings, escalation or occasional advice. A senior name on a team chart may represent valuable oversight, but it should not be mistaken for day-to-day involvement. Confirm regular access and response expectations.
Discuss workload without asking for confidential client information. The agency should be able to explain how it plans capacity, protects critical dates and responds when several priorities compete. Availability at pitch does not guarantee future allocation unless the appointment timing and roles are agreed.
Put this into practice
- Expected contribution of every named role
- Regular meeting and review participation
- Response and escalation expectations
- Capacity around critical delivery periods
- Conditions that could change allocation
Meet the people who will lead the work
Ask the ongoing lead and important practitioners to join a working conversation before appointment. Give them a realistic problem, evidence gap or trade-off from the brief and explore how they would approach it. The purpose is to observe thinking and collaboration, not to obtain unpaid finished work.
Make working fit specific. Look for clear questions, attentive listening, useful challenge, ability to explain specialist choices and comfort with uncertainty. Personal rapport matters, but a vague chemistry score can favour familiarity without showing how the team will make decisions under pressure.
Put this into practice
- Ongoing lead participates directly
- Relevant practitioners explain their decisions
- Team listens and asks useful questions
- Disagreement is handled constructively
- No finished speculative solution is required
Expose partners, hand-offs and continuity risks
Ask which work depends on freelancers, production partners, another office or a separate agency. Understand who contracts, briefs and checks that work, how information moves between teams and whether partner costs are included. External delivery is not inherently weaker; hidden dependencies are harder to manage.
Discuss what happens if a key person becomes unavailable or leaves. A practical continuity plan can include documentation, shared account knowledge, deputy roles and client approval for material substitutions. Avoid demanding that no change can ever occur; require a fair process that protects the work.
Put this into practice
- External and cross-office roles identified
- One owner for every hand-off
- Documentation and shared account knowledge
- Deputy or continuity arrangements
- Client approval for material substitutions
Test governance with a realistic scenario
Use a scenario that reveals decision rights: a missed deadline, conflicting performance signals, an urgent approval or a budget change. Ask who would decide, what information would be needed and how the agency would communicate options. This turns a generic service promise into an operating method you can compare.
Include your own team's behaviour in the scenario. Ask what happens when feedback is late, stakeholders disagree or access is blocked. A credible answer should identify escalation and trade-offs rather than promising that the agency will absorb every disruption without consequence.
Put this into practice
- Decision owner and information required
- Escalation path and response expectation
- Options and trade-offs communicated clearly
- Client delay or disagreement addressed
- Action and decision recorded after the issue
Put the team commitment into the agreement
Reflect the selected team model in the written scope. Record named key roles where appropriate, responsibilities, meeting access, senior review, partner dependencies and the process for substitutions. Align the fee and service level with the staffing explanation used during selection.
Agree practical handover and exit arrangements from the start. Maintain access to important accounts, data, files and working documentation, and state how knowledge will transfer. Seek suitable advice for employment, contracting, privacy or other legal issues relevant to the engagement.
Put this into practice
- Key roles and responsibilities recorded
- Access and review cadence stated
- Partner and substitution rules agreed
- Account, file and documentation access protected
- Handover and transition responsibilities clear
Common questions
Should I insist on the people who attended the pitch?
Insist on clarity about who will do the work. Some pitch participants may provide specialist or senior oversight rather than daily delivery. Record the roles and access that influenced your decision and agree how material changes will be handled.
How can I assess team chemistry fairly?
Define observable behaviours such as listening, clarity, constructive challenge, decision-making and response to uncertainty. Use the same realistic working scenario for each shortlisted team and record evidence rather than relying only on personal rapport.
Is a larger agency team safer?
Not automatically. Compare the named people, relevant depth, availability, continuity, hand-offs and governance. A compact team can be dependable, and a larger team can still rely heavily on a few individuals.