Twenty questions, in five blocks, decide whether a licensing consultant engagement will work: conflicts of interest, vendor depth, evidence of outcomes, method and team, and commercial terms. Put the conflicts and commercial blocks in writing, run the rest in conversation, and treat any reluctance to answer the conflicts block as a screening result in its own right.
Published 5 May 2026 · Last reviewed 5 May 2026
This script assumes you already have a shortlist — three to five firms pulled from the firm directory or your own network, screened for the vendor and service you actually need. The script is not a beauty parade; it is a structured way to surface the differences that matter between firms that all sound competent on a first call. If you are still at the “what kind of firm do I even need” stage, start with how to choose a software licensing consultant and come back.
Two mechanics make the script work. First, split written from spoken: conflicts and commercial questions go in writing, because written answers are commitments and evasions become visible on paper; depth and method questions go in conversation, because you learn as much from how a team reasons as from what it says. Second, ask every firm the same questions in the same order — the value is in the comparison, and the comparison only works if the inputs line up.
This guide is general information for buyers, not legal or procurement advice, and it names no firms. Every firm in the directory is listed with balanced pros and cons — listed, not ranked.
Conflicts come first because a structural conflict shapes every later answer, including the impressive ones. These four belong in writing.
1. “What revenue does your firm, or any affiliate, receive from software publishers — resale margin, rebates, alliance incentives, audit work or referral fees — for the vendors in our estate?” The single highest-value question on this page. Independent firms answer it quickly and specifically, because independence is their differentiator. A general answer (“we are vendor-neutral”) is not an answer; ask for the falsifiable version.
2. “Have you performed compliance audits on behalf of any publisher in the last three years? Which ones?” A firm that audits for a publisher this quarter cannot credibly defend you against that publisher next quarter. Past staff experience on the vendor side is different — that is knowledge, not a live revenue stream.
3. “Would any path you might recommend create delivery, implementation or resale work for your firm?” This catches the subtler pull: advice that steers toward the answer generating the larger follow-on project. Migration-heavy recommendations from firms with migration practices deserve a second look on this basis alone.
4. “Will you state your conflicts position in the engagement letter?” Whatever the answers to 1–3, the test is whether the firm will put them in the contract. The full desk-research version of this block — partner directories, press trails, bench profiles — is in the independence test.
Licensing expertise does not transfer cleanly between publishers. A team that is excellent on Microsoft enterprise agreements may never have touched an Oracle ULA certification or an SAP digital-access dispute. These questions test depth on your vendor, live, where vagueness has nowhere to hide.
5. “Walk us through the last three engagements you ran on this vendor. What was the situation, and what changed because you were there?” Listen for mechanism, not adjectives: which metric was at issue, which contract clause did the work, what the counterparty conceded and why. Anonymised detail is fine; absence of detail is not.
6. “Which of this vendor’s current programs and metrics have you negotiated in the last twelve months?” Vendor programs move fast — agreement structures retire, metrics change, audit playbooks rotate. Twelve months is the relevant window; experience from three program-generations ago is history, not depth.
7. “Who on the proposed team has sat on the vendor’s side of the table — sales, audit or licensing desk — and how recently?” Ex-vendor staff are common in this market and often the source of real edge. The point of asking is to map the team’s knowledge to the vendor’s current organisation, and to confirm the experience belongs to the people you will actually get (see Q13).
8. “Where does your knowledge of this vendor stop?” A serious practice has a precise answer — a geography it does not cover, a product line it refers out, a service it does not run. The firm that claims fluency across all 25 major publishers, all seven services and all jurisdictions is describing its marketing, not its bench. Coverage claims can be cross-checked against the vendor pages in this directory, for instance Oracle or Microsoft.
9. “Can you provide two references from engagements like ours — same vendor, same service, comparable scale?” Settlement confidentiality is real, so accept anonymised case studies where named references are impossible. What no firm gets a pass on is producing neither.
10. “What does a typical outcome look like for this kind of engagement — and what did your worst recent engagement look like?” The second half is the question. Firms that acknowledge a difficult engagement and explain what failed are showing you their honesty under mild pressure, which is exactly what you will rely on when the negotiation turns.
11. “What will you need from us, and how much of our team’s time?” Real engagements consume client effort: entitlement archaeology, deployment data pulls, stakeholder time. A firm that says “almost nothing” is either planning a shallow engagement or has not scoped yours. Specific data requests are evidence of a real method.
12. “If this goes to a dispute, what happens?” Consultancies are not law firms, and the conscientious ones say so unprompted, with a working answer about when and how counsel comes in. How to split the work between the two — and when you need a lawyer first — is covered in licensing lawyer or licensing consultant.
13. “Name the people who will do the work. How much of their time is committed, and what happens if they leave?” The bait-and-switch — partners pitch, juniors deliver — is the single most common complaint buyers raise about advisory engagements of every kind. Get the named team and the substitution terms into the engagement letter.
14. “Describe your method for an engagement like ours, stage by stage.” Whether it is an effective-license-position build, a renewal negotiation calendar or an audit-response sequence, a real method has stages, artefacts and decision points the firm can describe without notes. For the shape these engagements typically take, see the service hubs — e.g. audit defense or renewal & contract negotiation.
15. “What tooling do you use, and whose licenses are they?” The answer matters twice: tooling quality drives measurement quality, and tool-vendor relationships can be a quiet referral-fee conflict (block one again). Firms with tool-agnostic methods should be able to say what they do when your estate’s data contradicts the tool.
16. “How do you handle our data — where does it live, who sees it, and what happens to it after the engagement?” Deployment and entitlement data is commercially sensitive; in an audit context it is close to privileged. The answer should cover storage jurisdiction, access control and deletion, in that order, without improvisation.
17. “What fee model do you propose for this scope, and why that model?” The honest answer connects the model to the engagement’s shape — fixed fee where scope is bounded, time-based where it is not, gain-share only where the baseline can be measured cleanly. The full taxonomy, including where each model’s incentives point, is in fee models explained. Note that this directory publishes no prices, and a proposal’s number matters less than its structure.
18. “If you propose gain-share: how exactly is the saving measured, against what baseline, and who signs it off?” Gain-share disputes are almost always baseline disputes. A firm that proposes contingency pricing without a written measurement method is proposing a future argument.
19. “What are the exit terms — for us and for you?” Notice periods, work-product ownership, handover obligations. You want every deliverable — the entitlement library, the position papers, the negotiation file — contractually yours, in a format you can use without the firm.
20. “What conditions would make you decline this engagement?” The closing question, and a quietly revealing one. Firms with real standards have declined work — for conflicts, for hopeless timelines, for clients who would not resource their side. “We would never decline” is the weakest possible answer dressed as the strongest.
| QUESTION | STRONG ANSWER SOUNDS LIKE | WEAK ANSWER SOUNDS LIKE |
|---|---|---|
| Q1 publisher revenue | “None, from any publisher, directly or via affiliates — happy to put that in the letter.” Or a specific, scoped disclosure. | “We’re fully vendor-neutral” with no specifics; irritation at being asked. |
| Q5 last three engagements | Mechanism-level detail: the metric at issue, the clause used, what the counterparty conceded. | Logos and superlatives; “we saved a global bank millions” with nothing underneath. |
| Q8 where knowledge stops | A precise boundary and a referral habit: “we don’t cover X; we bring in a partner for it.” | “We cover everything, everywhere.” |
| Q13 named team | Names, committed days, substitution terms offered for the engagement letter. | “You’ll have access to our global bench of experts.” |
| Q18 gain-share measurement | A written baseline method, named sign-off, and willingness to cap the fee. | “We’ll agree the saving at the end — it’s always obvious.” |
| Q20 when they decline | A real example: a conflict, an impossible timeline, an unresourced client. | “We’d never turn a client away.” |
One pattern is worth naming across all five blocks: strong answers are falsifiable and weak answers are unfalsifiable. “We take no publisher money” can be checked; “we are trusted advisors” cannot. Prefer the firm whose claims you could, in principle, prove wrong.
Both, deliberately split. The conflicts and commercial blocks belong in writing — an RFP or email — because written answers are commitments a firm will not casually fudge. The depth, evidence and method blocks work better live, where you can push on a vague answer and hear how the team actually thinks.
Three to five is the practical range. Fewer than three and you have no basis for comparison on the judgment questions; more than five and the diligence burden crowds out depth. Use a filtered directory shortlist to get to that range before the script starts.
Confidentiality is real in this market — audit settlements routinely carry non-disclosure terms — so accept anonymised case detail where named references are impossible. What you should not accept is the absence of both: a firm that can produce neither a named reference nor a convincingly specific anonymised account has not done the work it claims, or cannot evidence it.
Most carry over, but the conflicts block changes shape: law firms are bound by professional conflict rules that consultancies are not, so ask about current and recent publisher representations rather than reseller margin. The lawyer-or-consultant decision itself is covered in licensing lawyer or licensing consultant.
Triangulate the written answers against public evidence: the vendor’s partner directory for resale ties, press releases for alliances, professional-network profiles for the named team’s actual experience, and the firm’s own website for services that contradict its independence claims. The independence test walks through that desk check step by step.
If forced to one: ask the firm to state in writing what revenue it receives from software publishers, directly or through affiliates, for the vendors in your estate. It is falsifiable, it is quick to answer honestly, and the manner of the answer — prompt and specific versus evasive and general — predicts the quality of everything that follows.
Tell us the vendor, the service you need and where things stand, and we will route your brief to firms that genuinely cover that combination — then you run this script against them. Free for buyers, no vendor ever sees your brief, no markup.
Our weekly dispatch on vendor audit programs, regional developments and one buyer move. Subscribe to The Licensing Radar.