Organizational Intelligence Foundations

Preview Cards

Here are the first 5 questions. Create a conversation to invite someone and discuss each card.

1. {"Title":"Organizational Intelligence Quick Self‑Assessment (15 minutes)","IntroductionHtml":"<section><p>Use this short assessment to surface immediate strengths and gaps across the core abilities that make an organization learn and improve: knowledge capture, decision hygiene, measurement, meetings, experiments, and incentives. It should take about 10–15 minutes for an individual or small team. For each area, choose a maturity score from 1 (weak) to 5 (strong) and add a brief note if useful.</p><p><strong>How to score:</strong> 1 = rare or ad hoc; 2 = informal and inconsistent; 3 = regular but limited; 4 = systematic and widespread; 5 = institutionalized and improving.</p><p><strong>Quick interpretation of total scores</strong> (sum of 10 items; range 10–50):<ul><li><strong>10–25 — Stabilize:</strong> Create basic structures: role clarity, a searchable repository, simple decision logs, and meeting outcomes that lead to tracked actions.</li><li><strong>26–37 — Experiment:</strong> Run defined pilots: standardize templates, capture experiments and leading indicators, introduce roles for knowledge stewardship, and test a few lightweight automations or AI supports.</li><li><strong>38–50 — Scale:</strong> Standardize practices across teams, automate capture and retrieval, integrate lessons into onboarding, measure outcomes, and align incentives for knowledge reuse.</li></ul></p><p>After submitting, your responses will be saved to your team space so you can track progress over time and share results. Use the optional notes to capture immediate actions and owners.</p></section>","SubmitLabel":"Save assessment","SuccessMessage":"Thanks — your responses have been saved. Use your Total score to pick the recommended band above, and consider these starter actions: Stabilize: pick one process owner and one repository; Experiment: run a 6‑week pilot capturing decisions and leading indicators; Scale: roll out templates, governance, and lightweight automation. You can revisit this assessment monthly or after key initiatives.","DataType":"OrgIntelligenceQuickAssessment","SchemaVersion":"1.0","Fields":[{"Key":"knowledge_capture","Label":"Knowledge capture: How consistently does your team record decisions, lessons, processes, and customer insights so others can reuse them?","FieldType":"scale","Required":true,"Min":1,"Max":5,"HelpText":"1=rarely saved; 5=systematic, searchable, and reused"},{"Key":"repositories_and_search","Label":"Repositories & search: Are knowledge artifacts easy to find and kept current (single sources, good metadata, search works)?","FieldType":"scale","Required":true,"Min":1,"Max":5,"HelpText":"Consider how long it takes a new person to find a needed procedure or past decision."},{"Key":"meeting_outcomes","Label":"Meeting outcomes: Do meetings reliably produce clear decisions, owners, and tracked next steps (not just discussion)?","FieldType":"scale","Required":true,"Min":1,"Max":5,"HelpText":"Include recurring team meetings and cross‑functional syncs."},{"Key":"decision_records","Label":"Decision records: Are important decisions documented with context, rationale, options considered, and expected indicators to watch?","FieldType":"scale","Required":true,"Min":1,"Max":5,"HelpText":"Good decision records reduce repeated debate and speed onboarding."},{"Key":"leading_indicators","Label":"Leading indicators & measurement: Do you track early signals that predict outcomes rather than only lagging results?","FieldType":"scale","Required":true,"Min":1,"Max":5,"HelpText":"Examples: defect rate trends, cycle time changes, customer sentiment shifts."},{"Key":"experiment_discipline","Label":"Experiment discipline: Does your team run structured experiments (hypothesis, measures, guardrails) and capture results?","FieldType":"scale","Required":true,"Min":1,"Max":5,"HelpText":"Look for simple A/B tests, pilots, or planned trials with defined learning objectives."},{"Key":"ai_usage","Label":"AI & automation usage: Is AI or automation used thoughtfully to augment knowledge work (e.g., summarizing decisions, surfacing related docs) with guardrails?","FieldType":"scale","Required":true,"Min":1,"Max":5,"HelpText":"Consider whether AI outputs are reviewed and linked back to records."},{"Key":"governance","Label":"Governance & maintenance: Are owners, review cadences, and content lifecycles defined so knowledge artifacts stay relevant?","FieldType":"scale","Required":true,"Min":1,"Max":5,"HelpText":"Governance prevents stale or contradictory guidance."},{"Key":"role_clarity","Label":"Role clarity: Are roles and responsibilities for decisions, knowledge stewardship, and improvement work clearly defined?","FieldType":"scale","Required":true,"Min":1,"Max":5,"HelpText":"Clear owners improve follow‑through and accountability."},{"Key":"incentives","Label":"Incentives & culture: Do incentives, recognition, and performance conversations encourage sharing, reusing, and improving organizational knowledge?","FieldType":"scale","Required":true,"Min":1,"Max":5,"HelpText":"Cultural cues and incentives matter more than tools alone."},{"Key":"total_score","Label":"Optional: Total score (sum of your 10 area scores)","FieldType":"number","Required":false,"HelpText":"If you prefer, add the sum of your scores here to quickly reference the bands in the introduction (range 10–50). This field is optional; your detailed area scores are saved regardless."},{"Key":"action_notes","Label":"Quick notes: top 1–3 actions, owners, and suggested timeframes","FieldType":"textarea","Required":false,"HelpText":"Capture the 1–3 practical next steps you can take this week or month."},{"Key":"share_with_team","Label":"Share results with your team?","FieldType":"yesno","Required":false,"HelpText":"If yes, your team space will show the saved assessment (if your platform copy supports team sharing)."}],"HelpText":"Complete the scales and optional notes, then click 'Save assessment'. Use this assessment monthly or after major initiatives to track progress.","ExampleUseNotes":"This assessment is intentionally concise. For deeper diagnostics, consider running a facilitated workshop using the area scores as a starting point: map root causes for low areas, identify cross‑cutting themes, and run a 6‑week experiment on one leverage point."}
2. <section> <h2>Purpose and use</h2> <p>This one-hour starter assessment helps a team quickly surface the most important gaps that block continuous improvement. Use it as a facilitated team exercise: score each question with quick evidence, agree an owner for follow-up, and capture the top 3 actions on the 1-page summary for leadership.</p> <h3>How to run (60 minutes)</h3> <ul> <li>5 min — Set context and hunger (why improving organizational learning matters now).</li> <li>30 min — Rapid scoring: 20 questions, ~1.5 minutes per question (discuss only when needed).</li> <li>10 min — Identify and agree top 3 gaps, owners, and near-term actions.</li> <li>15 min — Complete the 1-page summary template and assign follow-up.</li> </ul> <h3>Scoring</h3> <p>For each question, capture a score and brief evidence note.</p> <ol> <li><strong>0 — No</strong>: Little or no evidence this exists.</li> <li><strong>1 — Partial</strong>: Some practice or one-off examples, not consistent or owned.</li> <li><strong>2 — Yes</strong>: Clear, repeatable practice with owners and artifacts.</li> </ol> <p>After scoring, highlight questions scoring 0 or 1 as gaps. For each gap, assign an owner and a next step with a due date.</p> <h2>Checklist — 20 quick diagnostic questions</h2> <section> <h3>Area A: Knowledge capture (4)</h3> <ol> <li>Do we routinely capture decisions, key assumptions, and lessons from important projects or incidents? <em>Evidence:</em> saved decision logs, postmortems, or project retros saved in a known place.</li> <li>Are onboarding materials for common roles up-to-date and used to shorten ramp time? <em>Evidence:</em> role checklists, updated orientation deck, new-hire time-to-productivity metrics.</li> <li>Is there a simple taxonomy or folder structure that teams use consistently for knowledge artifacts? <em>Evidence:</em> documented naming conventions, few duplicates, searchable libraries.</li> <li>Do we have a lightweight process to keep critical documents current (owner + review cadence)? <em>Evidence:</em> ownership tags, review dates, recent update history.</li> </ol> <p><strong>Suggested owners for follow-up:</strong> Team lead or Knowledge Owner (e.g., librarian/coordinator), HR/Learning for onboarding items.</p> </section> <section> <h3>Area B: Decision clarity (4)</h3> <ol> <li>Are major recurring decisions documented with who decides, by when, and which inputs matter? <em>Evidence:</em> decision registries, RACI notes, decision templates used in meetings.</li> <li>Does the team use a consistent decision process for novel or risky choices (e.g., small experiment, escalate, defer)? <em>Evidence:</em> decision checklist, examples of recent decisions following the process.</li> <li>Are decision owners and success criteria defined before execution? <em>Evidence:</em> action cards with owners and metrics or acceptance criteria.</li> <li>Are past decision outcomes reviewed to improve decision rules? <em>Evidence:</em> decision reviews, changes to decision criteria after lessons learned.</li> </ol> <p><strong>Suggested owners for follow-up:</strong> Product/ops lead, program manager, or decision steward.</p> </section> <section> <h3>Area C: Measurement & indicators (4)</h3> <ol> <li>Do we track a small set of leading indicators that signal performance for our top priorities? <em>Evidence:</em> dashboards or reports with leading metrics, not just lagging ones.</li> <li>Are measurement definitions clear and shared (who measures, how, frequency)? <em>Evidence:</em> metric definitions doc or glossary with data owners.</li> <li>Do teams use indicators to change behavior (trigger meetings, experiments, or escalations)? <em>Evidence:</em> alerts, meeting agendas tied to metric thresholds, documented responses to signals.</li> <li>Is there a lightweight cadence to validate indicator usefulness (are we measuring the right things)? <em>Evidence:</em> periodic metric reviews, retired/updated metrics log.</li> </ol> <p><strong>Suggested owners for follow-up:</strong> Data owner, operations analyst, or function lead.</p> </section> <section> <h3>Area D: Meeting effectiveness (4)</h3> <ol> <li>Do meetings have clear outcomes, agenda owners, and timeboxes? <em>Evidence:</em> agendas with desired decisions, meeting notes with action items.</li> <li>Are decisions and action owners captured and followed up after meetings? <em>Evidence:</em> action tracker with owners and due dates, evidence of closure.</li> <li>Do recurring meetings include a short learning or improvements segment (e.g., 5 minutes)? <em>Evidence:</em> agenda templates, notes showing retro or continuous improvement items.</li> <li>Is meeting attendance intentional (right people, invited only when needed)? <em>Evidence:</em> reduced attendee lists, invite rationale, no-show rates low.</li> </ol> <p><strong>Suggested owners for follow-up:</strong> Meeting owner (team lead, scrum master, or operations coordinator).</p> </section> <section> <h3>Area E: Experiment practice (4)</h3> <ol> <li>Do we frame important changes as hypotheses with measurable outcomes? <em>Evidence:</em> experiment briefs, A/B docs, or pilot charters with metrics.</li> <li>Are experiments small, timeboxed, and designed to learn rather than only to deliver? <em>Evidence:</em> experiment plans, limited scope pilots with learning criteria.</li> <li>Are experiment results recorded and translated into decisions or next steps? <em>Evidence:</em> experiment reports, decision notes (scale, iterate, stop).</li> <li>Is there a safe pathway for teams to run low-risk experiments without heavy approvals? <em>Evidence:</em> experiment playbook, guardrails, and examples of prior safe experiments.</li> </ol> <p><strong>Suggested owners for follow-up:</strong> Improvement coach, product owner, or process owner.</p> </section> <h2>Quick interpretation</h2> <p>Sum scores (max 40). Typical interpretations:</p> <ul> <li>30–40: Solid foundations — focus on scaling and maintaining practices.</li> <li>20–29: Some good practices but inconsistent — prioritize 3 highest-impact gaps.</li> <li>&lt;20: Foundational gaps — pick 1–2 quick wins to build momentum (knowledge capture, meeting accountability).</li> </ul> <h2>1-page summary template (fill and share with leadership)</h2> <div> <h3>Organizational Intelligence — 1-Page Summary</h3> <p><strong>Team/Unit:</strong> [Team name] &nbsp; <strong>Date:</strong> [MM/DD/YYYY] &nbsp; <strong>Facilitator:</strong> [Name]</p> <h4>Top 3 gaps (why they matter)</h4> <ol> <li>[Gap 1 — concise description] — Owner: [Name] — Next step & due date: [Action] / [DD/MM]</li> <li>[Gap 2 — concise description] — Owner: [Name] — Next step & due date: [Action] / [DD/MM]</li> <li>[Gap 3 — concise description] — Owner: [Name] — Next step & due date: [Action] / [DD/MM]</li> </ol> <h4>Quick wins we will try in 30 days</h4> <ul> <li>[Quick win A — owner — due date]</li> <li>[Quick win B — owner — due date]</li> </ul> <h4>Risks or blockers needing help</h4> <p>[One-sentence summary of resource, policy, or cross-team help required]</p> <h4>Score summary</h4> <p><strong>Total score:</strong> [#/40] &nbsp; <strong>Notes:</strong> [short observation]</p> <h4>Recommended next step (within 7 days)</h4> <p>[Concrete step — e.g., owner schedules 30-min follow-up, creates action cards, and publishes updated doc]</p> </div> <h2>Evidence and follow-up discipline</h2> <p>Capture the brief evidence note for any 0/1 scores and link or attach artifacts. Ensure each gap has a named owner and a near-term follow-up. Avoid surface-level diagnosis: require a follow-up owner and at least one concrete next step before closing the assessment session.</p> <h2>Suggested adaptations</h2> <p>This checklist is intentionally light. Consider converting it into an interactive form to store historic assessments, track progress, and roll up scores across teams (see capability notes).</p> </section>