Define the organisational result and KPIs
Nicole and the client first agree the result, how progress will be measured and who has authority to act.
Within 16 weeks, Meridian Works can use one repeatable process to select priority government opportunities, support its position with approved evidence and move suitable pursuits to a verified external next step.
Agreed measures and targets
| What is measured | Baseline | Week 16 target | Data source, owner and review frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pursuit progressPriority pursuits reaching a verified external next stage | 0 of 6 | At least 3, subject to external timing | Opportunity record and external confirmation · Growth lead · fortnightly |
| Business resultNew government contracts awarded | 0 | Track; no 16-week guarantee | Signed award or contract · Client sponsor · when due |
| Internal processMedian internal pursuit decision time | 18 business days · 6 eligible | 7 business days | Request-to-decision timestamps · Growth operations · fortnightly |
| Process useEligible pursuits using the agreed pursuit process | 0 of 6 | 80% or more | Complete pursuit record ÷ eligible pursuits · Client review owner · fortnightly |
| Quality controlClaims approved without sufficient evidence | Not recorded | 0 | Claim approval log · Technical verifier · each pursuit |
These are fictional targets agreed for this client example. They are not benchmarks calculated from the questionnaire.
Roles and responsibilities
| Client sponsor | Agrees the result, approves organisational actions and makes client decisions. |
| Participants | Report their experience of organisational practices. They are not personally scored. |
| Scarlet / assessment administrator | Compiles responses and evidence and records who may access each source. |
| Nicole / strategic adviser | Tests other explanations and recommends the organisational response. |
| Client review owner | Learns the process and runs the agreed follow-up reviews. |
Assessment process
Agree the result, scope, decision authority and measures.
Complete the Core 24 and selected tailored questions.
Compare responses with records and observed work.
Identify strengths, issues, disagreement and missing evidence.
Set actions, owners, evidence of use and review dates.
Repeat the relevant measures and compare results.
Complete the core assessment and tailored questions
The proposed method uses the same 24 draft core questions across organisations. Tailored questions relate to the client’s agreed result. All questions assess organisational practices, not individual performance.
Answer from what you observed in the past eight weeks. Your answers will be combined with other responses and organisational evidence to identify what is working, what is getting in the way and what needs more investigation.
No personal score is produced. Sponsors receive organisational findings, not named answers or raw comments. A live assessment would include a full privacy notice and voluntary consent process.
About this prototype
Nothing entered here is sent anywhere. Your selections and optional note stay in this browser until you clear them or clear your browser data. Do not enter real or sensitive information.
Core organisational assessment · draft v0.1
Government Growth, Positioning and Evidence
These questions are selected because they relate to Meridian Works’ agreed result. They are used with the Core 24 and reported separately.
Optional supporting example
You may add a brief example of what you directly saw, used or experienced. Do not name colleagues or include sensitive personal information.
This screen lets you test the assessment experience. The Findings screen uses a separate fixed fictional dataset.
No personal result is produced. Open Findings and select Participant update to see the organisational summary.
Review the evidence used in the assessment
Questionnaire results are reviewed with records and observed work. Each source shows its date, access limits, reporting permissions and limitations. Conflicting evidence is kept visible for review.
Review the organisational findings
Findings from the same evidence base are prepared for four audiences. Each view includes only the detail approved for that audience.
Decision authority and accountability
Results show item-level response counts. Separate questions are not averaged into a culture, maturity, readiness or organisational health score.
Evidence used for this finding
Response differences by role for C05 · review required before reporting
| Role group | Responses | Usually or reliably evident | Inconsistent | Not evident or isolated | Not enough visibility | Not applicable | Reporting status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leadership | 6 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Review required |
| Growth roles | 8 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 0 | Review required |
| Technical/delivery | 10 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 0 | Review required |
The groups are shown because these roles meet at the pursuit handoff. Before reporting live results, a reviewer must check whether any group, cell or comment could identify a participant.
Tailored questions · baseline results
The tailored questions are versioned and reported separately from the Core 24. No combined total is produced.
How evidence strength is assessed
Adequate: at least two relevant types of evidence, including a record or direct observation, with no unresolved conflict that would change the decision. Mixed: there is a credible signal, but coverage is incomplete or another explanation remains possible. Insufficient: the available evidence does not support the conclusion. Evidence strength is assessed separately from whether the organisational practice is working.
Reviewer: Nicole · fictional review date 6 February 2026. This rule still requires expert and pilot review.
- Relevant technical expertise is supported by participant responses and current capability evidence. C10 · E06
- The agreed result is clearer than the priority trade-offs and capacity needed to deliver it. C01 · C03 · C11
- Relevant teams took part in both pursuit reviews that were observed. E08
- Decision authority: questionnaire results and pursuit records show that timely authority is not applied consistently. C04–C06 · E01 · E04 · E08
- Supporting evidence: three priority claims lack current evidence that is relevant to the target. C17 · E06
- Workload allocation: sampled workloads do not consistently protect time for shared pursuit work. C13–C15 · E11
- Delivery capacity: existing expertise does not show whether Meridian Works has enough capacity if several pursuits convert. C10–C11 · E11
Limits of these findings: the assessment does not identify any employee as the cause, infer anyone’s motive or predict contract awards.
- Relevant technical expertise is a working strength.
- Decision authority and access to target-relevant evidence are not consistent in live pursuit work.
- Capacity and workload allocation need further review. These findings are not attributed to individuals.
- Test delegated authority for eligible pursuit decisions.
- Create an approved evidence pack for priority pursuits.
- Record each pursuit’s owner, decision and next action.
- Decide how pursuit work should be included in workloads and KPIs.
Next steps
The organisation will review whether these actions are used in live work and whether the assessed practices and government growth results change. Contract decisions are not yet due. This update does not include raw comments or individual response histories.
Agree the organisational actions
Each action responds to an assessed issue and states who is responsible, how use will be checked and when the result will be reviewed.
Week 8 progress
All four actions have a named owner.
The workload and KPI decision is still under leadership review.
One technical pursuit did not use the agreed process.
It is too early to link this result to the actions or claim a business outcome.
Compare the baseline, week 8 and week 16 results
The same relevant questions and evidence rules are used at each review. Changes in participation, external events and assumptions are shown with the results.
This comparison repeats the eight Core questions that are relevant to the agreed actions and result. It shows the number and percentage selecting “usually evident” or “reliably evident”. The questions are reported separately and do not prove what caused the change.
Who responded at each review point
| Review point | Invited | Completed | Who was included |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 27 | 24 | Leadership, growth and technical/delivery roles. |
| Week 8 | 25 | 23 | Roles involved in the four live tests of the agreed process. |
| Week 16 | 24 | 22 | Comparable role coverage; two baseline participants were no longer involved in the eligible work. |
These are separate organisational samples, not the same people tracked over time. Changes in participation and the external procurement delay limit what can be concluded. A high response rate does not prove that every relevant view is represented.
Separate measures for actions, process use and outcomes
| What is measured | Baseline | Week 16 | What the result means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Process useEligible pursuits using the agreed process | 0 of 6 | 4 of 5 | Target met; one exception was recorded. |
| Internal processMedian internal decision time | 18 days | 8 days | Decision time improved but did not meet the 7-day target. |
| Evidence usePursuits with an approved evidence pack | 1 of 6 | 4 of 5 | The new practice was used; one technical evidence gap remains. |
| Pursuit progressPursuits reaching a verified external next stage | 0 of 6 | 2 of 5 | Progress was below target and affected by external timing. |
| Business resultContracts awarded | 0 | No decision yet | No conclusion can be reached yet. |
| Quality controlUnsupported claims approved | Unknown | 0 | A record and approval control is now in place. |
Decisions from the week 16 review
- Keep the decision process. It was used and median decision time fell, although the assessment cannot prove that the process caused the change.
- Address the remaining technical evidence gap. Do not repeat all 24 Core questions.
- Do not claim an effect on contract awards before external decisions occur.
- Review the outcome again when procurement decisions are expected.
- The client review owner repeats the agreed authority, evidence and delivery questions.
The client review owner can run this agreed follow-up. Nicole returns if the result, scope or evidence requires strategic review.
Date to be agreed with client
Transfer the review process to the client
The client receives the agreed assessment materials and learns how to run the agreed follow-up reviews. The handover also states when Lockwood Advisory should return.
Materials provided to the client
- Agreed result, KPI definitions and targets
- Version-controlled Core 24 and tailored questions
- Evidence definitions, source details and access permissions
- Privacy rules and approved reporting format
- Action records, exceptions and change history
Reviews the client can run
- Repeat the Core questions affected by the actions
- Review whether the actions and agreed process are used
- Compare expected and actual results
- Record whether to keep, change or stop an action
- Check the later business outcome
When LA should return
- The agreed result or assessment scope changes materially
- Important evidence conflicts cannot be resolved
- A new tailored question set or assessment is proposed
- A privacy, workforce or specialist risk appears
- The client needs strategic interpretation or new action design
Handover checks
| Check | Fictional evidence | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Review owner appointed | The Commercial Operations Lead has access to the materials and authority to run the review. | Complete |
| Review owner can explain the method | The review owner explains the question limits, evidence rules and privacy requirements without prompts. | Complete |
| Client-led review completed | The review owner completed the week 16 authority, evidence and delivery review. Nicole observed only. | Complete |
| Business outcome follow-up scheduled | Procurement decisions are not due. The month 9 owner and data source are recorded. | Scheduled |
| Remaining issue recorded | One business unit still requires sponsor action on capacity decisions. | Open |
The handover records which reviews the client can run and when LA should return.
Month 9 outcome review
Review the proposed assessment method
Please review whether the assessment gives you the organisational evidence, findings and actions you need. The product name, final design, pricing and software build are not being approved at this stage.
What you are reviewing
Does the stable Core 24 plus selected tailored questions reflect how Nicole and Scarlet need to assess and support an organisation?
Each review question contains the material it refers to and a separate notes box. If the structure is right, the questions will be independently reviewed and tested before a small live pilot. The method is not ready for client use yet.
Finish and return your review
Send your review back: Your decisions and notes save in this browser while you work. When you are finished, select Download answers to send back. This creates one dated text file containing all of your answers and notes, ready to email to Scarlet. Any optional finding decisions made in the Findings tab are included too.
Rules used in this prototype
- The assessment measures organisational practices, actions and results, not individual performance or personality.
- No overall culture, maturity or readiness score is produced.
- Questionnaire results are reviewed with records and observed work.
- Conflicting evidence and unknowns remain visible.
- Actions, use of the actions, organisational change and business outcomes are measured separately.
- No proprietary assessment questions have been copied.
- All information is fictional. No live assessment or pilot is authorised.