Define the organisational result and KPIs
Nicole and Encon would first confirm the result, baselines, targets, evidence sources and who can act. This screen shows how that setup could work.
Nicole described Encon as seeking more involvement in early client scoping, a broader government pipeline across agencies, and greater recognition as a strategic expert rather than only a delivery provider.
The 90-day result, targets, counts, evidence, findings, actions and later results below are invented to make the whole assessment method visible. They require Encon's confirmation before any live use.
Over 90 days, Encon establishes and uses a repeatable government growth approach that increases early client scoping involvement, broadens a qualified pipeline across government agencies, uses Encon's knowledge in strategic engagement and leaves clear internal ownership for continuing the work.
Proposed measures and targets
| What is measured | Baseline | Day 90 target | Data source, owner and review frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Early client involvementScoping conversations before procurement requirements are fixed | Illustrative: 1 in previous 90 days | Illustrative: at least 5 across 3 agencies | Client contact record plus timing confirmation · Government Growth Lead · fortnightly |
| Strategic engagementSubstantive engagements with a recorded external response or next step | Illustrative: 2 of 6 | Illustrative: at least 75%, with at least 6 qualifying engagements | Engagement record and buyer response · Relationship owner · fortnightly |
| Government pipeline mixQualified government pipeline as a proportion of total qualified pipeline | Illustrative: 18% | Illustrative: 30% | Qualified pipeline value · Commercial Lead · monthly |
| Agency spreadGovernment agencies represented in the qualified pipeline | Illustrative: 2 agencies | Illustrative: at least 5 agencies | Opportunity register · Government Growth Lead · monthly |
| Concentration riskShare of government pipeline held in the largest single agency | Illustrative: 72% | Illustrative: report separately; reduce where suitable | Opportunity register by agency and value · Commercial Lead · monthly |
| Insight useApproved Encon insights used in strategic buyer engagements | Illustrative: not recorded | Illustrative: 3 insights used in at least 5 engagements | Insight register linked to engagement records · Technical Lead · monthly |
| Process ownershipEligible government opportunities using the agreed growth process | Illustrative: 0 of 5 | Illustrative: 80% or more | Complete pursuit record divided by eligible pursuits · Review Owner · fortnightly |
| External movementPriority opportunities reaching a verified external next step | Illustrative: 1 of 5 | Illustrative: at least 4, subject to buyer timing | Buyer confirmation or documented next step · Relationship owner · fortnightly |
| Buyer evidenceDirect buyer responses to a consistent question about Encon's contribution | Illustrative: 2 responses from a narrow sample | Illustrative: at least 6 across priority agencies; no automatic reputation conclusion | Approved buyer response record · Relationship owner · monthly |
| Longer-term business resultNew government work secured and mobilised | Illustrative: 0 | Track beyond day 90; no award guarantee | Signed award and mobilisation record · Client sponsor · when due |
All baselines and targets in this table are illustrative. Encon would confirm definitions and targets before assessment. Pipeline mix, agency spread and concentration are reported separately so one large opportunity does not disguise concentration.
Roles and responsibilities
| Encon sponsor | Confirms the result and targets, approves organisational actions and makes Encon decisions. |
| Encon participants | Report what they can see about organisational practices. They are not personally scored. |
| Scarlet / assessment administrator | Compiles responses and permitted evidence and applies the privacy rules. |
| Nicole / strategic adviser | Tests competing explanations, reviews evidence strength and recommends organisational action. |
| Encon review owner | Learns the process and runs agreed follow-up reviews. |
Assessment process
Define the result, current position and evidence needed.
Map decision makers, pathways, dependencies and constraints.
Align Encon's role and claims with capability and buyer need.
Use relevant insights in purposeful external engagement.
Assign ownership, capacity, next actions and escalation.
Compare use, organisational change and external results.
Complete the core assessment and tailored questions
This assessment is answered by Encon team members about Encon's organisational practices. It does not assess anyone's personality, performance or motivation.
Answer from what you could observe in the previous 90 days. For each question, choose how fully it reflects Encon's organisational practice. Use the optional comment when the answer needs a “yes, but” or “yes, and”. Combined responses would be checked against records, observed work and external evidence before any conclusion is made.
No personal score is produced. Encon sponsors would receive approved organisational findings, not named answers or raw comments. The separate Method Review tab is for Scarlet and Nicole only. It is not part of the Encon participant assessment.
About this worked example
Nothing entered here is sent anywhere. Selections and optional question comments stay in this browser until cleared. The answers prefilled by the demonstration are fictional. Do not enter real or sensitive Encon information into this prototype.
Stable Core 24 · neutral draft v0.3
Government Growth Activation
These questions trace directly to the three Encon goals Nicole described. They are used with the Core 24 and reported separately.
This screen demonstrates the participant experience. The Findings screen uses a separate illustrative 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.
The three growth goals come from Nicole's discussion of Encon's intended direction.
Every response count, record, finding and conclusion on this tab is invented to demonstrate how the method handles evidence and uncertainty.
Diagnose
Results show item-level illustrative counts. Questions are not averaged into a culture, maturity, readiness or organisational health score. Small role groups are not displayed because doing so could model unsafe reporting.
Evidence used for this finding
Encon-tailored questions · illustrative baseline results
The 12 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, external source 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 evidence does not support the conclusion. Evidence strength is separate from whether the organisational practice is working.
Critical rule: internal answers, internal confidence, content production and meeting counts cannot establish external reputation. A conclusion about recognition as a strategic adviser requires direct external buyer evidence.
- Relevant technical and delivery knowledge is visible in the illustrative evidence. C10 · E07
- At least one illustrative early-scoping pathway has been verified. T01 · E06
- Qualified government opportunities already exist, so diversification is not starting from zero. T05 · E04
- Early client scoping: one case is verified, but no repeatable pathway is evident. T01-T04 · E06
- Government diversification: the illustrative pipeline covers two agencies and is concentrated in one. T05-T08 · E04 · E10
- Ownership and follow-through: some engagements and opportunities lack a recorded owner, external response or next action. C16-C20 · E05 · E08
- Capacity: protected time for the work has not been confirmed. C18 · E11
Not concluded: there is not enough direct external buyer evidence to assess Encon's reputation as a strategic expert. Content and internal answers cannot answer that question. The assessment does not identify an employee as the cause or predict awards.
- Encon's knowledge and delivery evidence are a working strength.
- Early scoping and government pipeline diversification need a more consistent organisational pathway.
- External recognition cannot be concluded from internal answers.
- Test an early client-scoping pathway.
- Build and review a multi-agency target map.
- Use approved insights in strategic engagements and record buyer responses.
- Use one government growth record with clear ownership.
- Test protected capacity for 45 days.
Next steps
The organisation would review whether the actions are used, whether assessed practices change and whether verified external results follow. Award decisions remain separate. This update would 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.
The action themes respond to the Encon goals Nicole described.
The specific actions, owners, dates and progress shown here are invented for method review.
Illustrative day 45 progress
All five actions have an owner and review date.
The cross-team capacity action remains partly blocked.
The illustrative 80% process-use threshold is reached.
This is progress, not proof that the engagement caused the result.
Compare baseline, day 45 and day 90
The same relevant questions and evidence rules are used at each review. Actions, use, organisational change, external movement and longer-term commercial results remain separate.
The result types reflect the early scoping, government diversification and strategic-engagement goals Nicole described.
All counts, percentages and conclusions below are invented. They show a mixed day-90 result, not a prediction.
This comparison repeats eight relevant Core questions. It shows the number and percentage selecting Mostly or Completely. Separate questions are not combined into a single score, and change does not prove causation.
Who responded at each review point
| Review point | Invited | Completed | Who was included |
|---|---|---|---|
| Illustrative baseline | 14 | 12 | Relevant leadership, commercial, technical and delivery roles. |
| Illustrative day 45 | 14 | 12 | Comparable organisational role coverage. |
| Illustrative day 90 | 13 | 11 | Comparable role coverage; one baseline role was no longer involved. |
These are separate illustrative organisational samples, not personal tracking. Different participation and buyer timing limit comparison.
Separate measures for use and outcomes
| What is measured | Illustrative baseline | Illustrative day 90 | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Action useActions used in live work | 0 of 5 | 4 of 5 | Most actions were used; the capacity action was incomplete. |
| Early scopingConversations before requirements were fixed | 1 | 4 across 3 agencies | Improved, but the illustrative target of 5 was not met. |
| Strategic engagementEngagements with an external response or next step | 2 of 6 | 6 of 9, or 67% | The floor of 6 was met, but the illustrative 75% target was not. |
| Government pipeline mixGovernment share of total qualified pipeline value | 18% | 29% | Improved, but the illustrative 30% target was not met. |
| Agency spreadAgencies in qualified government pipeline | 2 | 5 | The illustrative spread target was met. |
| ConcentrationLargest agency share of government pipeline | 72% | 48% | Concentration reduced but remains material. |
| Insight useApproved insights used in strategic buyer engagements | Not recorded | 3 insights used across 5 engagements | The illustrative use target was met; this does not prove buyer recognition. |
| Process ownershipEligible opportunities using the agreed process | 0 of 5 | 6 of 7, or 86% | The illustrative 80% process-use target was met. |
| External movementPriority opportunities reaching a verified next step | 1 of 5 | 3 of 7 | Improved but below the illustrative target of 4. |
| Buyer evidenceDirect buyer responses using the agreed evidence question | 2 responses from a narrow sample | 4 responses collected | Useful evidence is emerging, but the illustrative target of 6 was not met and broader reputation cannot yet be concluded. |
| Longer-term business resultGovernment work secured and mobilised | 0 | Awards pending | No award conclusion and no 90-day guarantee. |
Illustrative day-90 decisions
- Keep the early-scoping pathway and refine its qualification trigger.
- Keep separate reporting for government share, agency spread and concentration.
- Continue external buyer evidence collection. Do not claim broad reputation change.
- Resolve the capacity action before adding more priority agencies.
- Review work secured and mobilised when procurement decisions are actually due.
The Encon review owner can run the agreed follow-up. Nicole returns if the result, scope, evidence or action design changes materially.
When award decisions are due
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
Encon receives its agreed assessment materials and approved organisational findings. Participant comments remain protected.
The named owner, completion status and next-review timing below are invented.
Handover checks
| Check | Illustrative evidence | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Encon review owner appointed | The illustrative Commercial Lead has access to the materials and authority to run the routine review. | Complete |
| Review owner can explain the method | The owner explains the question limits, external-evidence rule and privacy requirements without prompts. | Complete |
| Client-led review completed | The owner completed the illustrative day-90 review. Nicole observed only. | Complete |
| Business outcome follow-up scheduled | Award decisions are not due. The owner and evidence source are recorded. | Scheduled |
| Remaining issue recorded | Cross-team capacity remains unresolved. | Open |
The handover records which reviews Encon can run and when LA should return.
When award decisions are due
Review the proposed assessment method
This tab is not an Encon participant or client-feedback screen. It lets Scarlet and Nicole decide whether the Encon worked example proves the draft method clearly enough to keep developing it.
What you are reviewing
Does the stable Core 24, Encon-tailored 12, evidence analysis and remeasurement flow show a credible organisational assessment?
Each review question contains the exact material it refers to and its own notes box. This example is not approved for client use or a live Encon assessment.
Finish and return your review
Send your review back: Decisions and notes save in this browser while you work. Select Download answers to send back to create one dated Encon review file.
Rules used in this worked example
- The assessment measures Encon's organisational practices, actions and results, not individual performance or personality.
- The Core 24 uses neutral question wording across six Systems Shift stages.
- Every participant question has its own optional comment box.
- No overall culture, maturity or readiness score is produced.
- Questionnaire results are checked against records, observed work and external evidence.
- External reputation requires direct buyer evidence.
- The direction Nicole described is separated from illustrative data and analysis.
- No live Encon assessment or pilot is authorised.