Decision Systems & Capital Allocation Advisory.
Capital does not change the world, but decisions do.
But those decisions are rarely examined.
TELEP Network is a decision-systems advisory firm for institutions allocating capital in Africa.
We help leadership and governance bodies understand how their own machinery shapes outcomes — and what minimal shifts in decision logic unlock coherence between purpose and practice.
For: foundations, family offices, DFIs, and investment platforms with discretionary authority.
What we do.
HI THERE. WE’RE TELEP
Most investment and philanthropic institutions have strategies, but those strategies collide with internal decision logic — in committees, in risk filters, in unspoken veto points, in eligibility rules that quietly exclude.
TELEP helps you read that logic, before you write another strategy, call for proposals, or expand your portfolio.
Rewriting the Rules of funding.
How to know if this is for you.
This work is relevant if:
capital deployment is slower than it should be, despite available resources
funding decisions feel misaligned with stated objectives
allocation choices are internally contested or politically constrained
existing strategies fail to translate into coherent capital movement
If you are looking for implementation support, program management, or capacity building, this is not the right fit.
-
Intentions fail not because institutions lack generosity or intelligence —
but because they ignore the invisible logic that governs decisions long before capital actually moves.This logic lives in:
governance protocols
risk definitions and thresholds
eligibility and review rules
narrative defaults inside committees
Unless those elements align, strategy remains aspirational and capital remains hesitant.
-
We work upstream of action, not in programs or project lists, but in the decision systems that govern them.
Our work is grounded in the NextStep Philanthropy Framework (NSPF), a lens that reveals:
where real authority lies
why decisions contradict values
which assumptions silently shape pipelines
and how minimal changes create maximal alignment
This framework informs everything we do, from diagnostics to governance redesign.
-
Our advisory pathway helps you move from clarity to coherence:
1) Level 1 — Strategic Diagnostic
Diagnose contradictions and map power.
(90 minutes + synthesis)2) Level 2 — Decision Architecture
Translate diagnosis into governance adjustments and eligibility redesign.3) Level 3 — Advisory Accompaniment
Support socialization of decision change across governance bodies. -
When institutions realign their decision logic:
risk gets reframed, not feared
eligibility expands without losing rigor
governance decisions become defensible
capital moves with coherence instead of hesitation
This is not about doing more;
it is about deciding better.
Our work in practice.
Scenario 1: Capital exists, but nothing moves
A philanthropic institution has committed multi-year resources to Africa, yet annual disbursements remain consistently below target.
Internally, teams blame pipeline quality, partner readiness, or external risk.
Our work focused upstream: mapping the actual decision rules in use (formal and informal), identifying where risk assumptions were being duplicated across committees, and clarifying who truly held veto power.
The intervention did not add new instruments or partners, it realigned the decision logic so capital could move as intended.
Scenario 2: Strategy on paper, paralysis in practice
A fund has a clear strategic narrative around inclusion, proximity, and long-term impact.
In practice, allocation decisions are slow, internally contested, and increasingly political.
We conducted a strategic diagnostic to surface misalignments between stated objectives, governance structures, and exit assumptions.
By clarifying which decisions belonged to strategy, which belonged to governance, and which had been left unresolved, the institution regained coherence, without rewriting its strategy.
Scenario 3: Growth creates contradiction
An investor expanding its footprint in Africa begins to experience friction: decisions that once felt intuitive now require excessive justification, and exit conversations become inconsistent across the portfolio.
Our work focused on decision architecture at scale, clarifying allocation thresholds, redefining exit logic, and formalizing principles that had previously lived only in founders’ heads.
The result was not faster execution, but cleaner decisions, and fewer internal conflicts.