®Line of Sight Diagnostic
Most charity strategies look fine on paper. Then daily decisions do not follow them.
This is a 30-minute self-diagnostic for charity leaders who sense their fundraising could work harder. It will not fix your fundraising. It will tell you, honestly, whether your line of sight is clear, and where it breaks.
What is it?
This is not a guide or a framework. It is a worksheet.
Twelve pages of structured questions that show, in plain language, whether the people in your organisation can trace a clear line from mission, to outcomes, to the income that funds them, to the work your fundraisers are doing this week.
Most charities cannot. They run the strategy and they run the fundraising, but the link between the two is for show rather than working. Donors notice. Fundraisers feel it. Boards struggle to explain it. Income shows the strain.
This worksheet does not solve that. It makes it visible.
Who is it for?
- Chief executives with a strategy that should be working, who want to test whether it really shapes fundraising decisions.
- Fundraising directors and heads of income who can feel the gap between plan and practice but have not had the words for it.
- Trustees about to enter a budget cycle who want better questions to take into the boardroom.
- Senior fundraising managers who suspect the system around their team is the limit, not the team itself.
If you want tactics, channel advice or a fundraising playbook, this is not the right resource. We can point you to people who do that work brilliantly. This worksheet sits upstream of all of it.
What will I get?
- A 12-page A4 PDF, to print or fill in on screen.
- 30 minutes of structured questions in three sections: mission to outcomes, outcomes to income, strategy to daily work.
- A one-page Line of Sight Map exercise that shows where your chain breaks.
- A reality check page that tells you honestly whether you have a focused problem or a structural one.
It is free. There is no upsell at the end.
What will it ask of me?
It is meant to be uncomfortable. Some questions are hard to answer cleanly, and that is the point. If you breeze through every page, it is not doing its job. The questions you stall on are the most useful ones.
It works best when two or three senior colleagues complete it on their own and compare answers. Disagreement reveals the system. Agreement on something nobody had spelled out reveals it even more.
