Loading session…

—

Report Prep

Demonstration dataset — explore freely · changes are not saved

Practitioner · Kaivant-O

Intake assessment

Record the organisational context from your intake session. Select the assessment path, score each LA dimension, and add your session notes. The LA score is computed immediately and will appear in the prep and decision-maker reports.

Assessment path

Kaivant-I Profile

Individual self-report only. No organisational intake required. The report shows the individual dimension profile without an LA or Kaivant-O composite.

Observation-based Kaivant-O

A senior stakeholder describes what they observe and experience. You score each dimension using the intake guide's band descriptors and your professional judgement. Appropriate when formal metrics are not available.

Empirical Kaivant-O

The client provides formal metrics, ratios, or documented data. You score using the intake guide's empirical data review track. Produces the most defensible LA score for board or leadership presentation.

Coordination Efficiency

The proportion of senior time directed at productive decision-making rather than coordination overhead. High CE means senior talent spends most time on judgement, not administration.

Observational track

"What proportion of senior time goes into reviews, approvals, and status updates versus substantive work? Where does work typically slow down or wait for someone?"

Strong — Senior time >60% on output. Meetings produce decisions. ≤2 approval layers.

Moderate — Manageable overhead. 3–4 approval layers. Leadership split between coordination and output.

Low — High overhead visible. 5+ layers. Senior people mostly coordinating, not producing.

Empirical track

Review meeting hours per person/week, approval layers per decision category, and coordinator vs producer role ratio.

Strong — <1 coordinator per 4 producers. ≤2 approval layers. Senior meeting load <25% of working time.

Moderate — 1:2–3 ratio. 3–4 layers. Meeting load 25–40%.

Low — Ratio ~1:1. 5+ layers. Meeting load >40%.

Band

Score (0–100)

Confidence

Views diverged across stakeholders

Decision Velocity

The speed and delegation depth of recurring operational decisions. High DV means decisions happen where the work is, without unnecessary escalation.

Observational track

"Walk me through a typical operational decision — who gets involved and in what order? What can people decide without checking in with you?"

Strong — Operational decisions <3 days. Delegation line is explicit and shared. Authority is well distributed.

Moderate — 3–10 days. Some clear delegation, some escalation. Authority partially explicit.

Low — >10 days common. Most decisions escalate. People unsure of their own authority.

Empirical track

Review elapsed time for operational and tactical decisions, and delegation status per recurring decision category.

Strong — Operational <3 days, tactical <2 weeks. >60% of categories fully delegated. Low escalation reversal (<10%).

Moderate — Operational 3–10 days, tactical 2–6 weeks. 30–60% delegated.

Low — Operational >10 days. <30% delegated. High escalation reversal rate.

Band

Score (0–100)

Confidence

Views diverged across stakeholders

Autonomous Workflow Percentage

The proportion of defined workflows that run without routine human intervention. High AW means exceptions are managed rather than the norm.

Observational track

"How many of your regular workflows run without someone needing to intervene? What typically needs a person in the loop, and what runs on its own?"

Strong — Most defined workflows run autonomously. Exceptions are rare and handled systematically. Human intervention is by choice, not necessity.

Moderate — Some workflows are automated, but most still require human steps or oversight for routine completions. Exception handling is common.

Low — The majority of work requires human handling at each stage. Automation is minimal or siloed to one function.

Empirical track

Review the percentage of workflow completions requiring zero unplanned human intervention, and the proportion of active processes that are fully automated end-to-end.

Strong — >60% of defined workflows run end-to-end without intervention. Exception rate <15%.

Moderate — 30–60% autonomous. Exception handling routine but contained. Some functions significantly more automated than others.

Low — <30% autonomous. Significant manual steps throughout. Exception volume regularly diverts senior capacity.

Band

Score (0–100)

Confidence

Views diverged across stakeholders

Adaptive Architecture

The organisation's demonstrated capacity to redesign how it works in response to new information or technology. AA acts as a modulator: it amplifies strong CE, DV, AW scores and limits the ceiling of weak ones.

Observational track

"Can you walk me through a time in the past 12 months where you changed how a team or process worked? What triggered that change — was it planned or reactive? Are there any active experiments running right now?"

Strong — Multiple active experiments. Structural changes initiated proactively. Redesign is a normal operating cadence, not a crisis response.

Moderate — Some process improvement activity, but mostly reactive or infrequent. One or two meaningful changes in the past year, often externally triggered.

Low — Structural change is rare or absent. The organisation responds to pressure but does not proactively redesign. "We are always too busy" is the common explanation.

Empirical track

Review the number of process redesigns or structural changes initiated in the past 12 months, the trigger type (proactive vs reactive), and the proportion currently in active experimentation.

Strong — 3+ meaningful structural changes in past 12 months, majority proactively initiated. Active experiments exist in at least two functions.

Moderate — 1–2 structural changes. Mix of proactive and reactive. Experimentation present but not systematic.

Low — Fewer than 1 meaningful structural change per year on average. Changes reactive only. No active experiments.

Band

Score (0–100)

Confidence

Views diverged across stakeholders

Leverage Trajectory

Whether output per person is growing faster than the sector benchmark. High LT means the organisation is genuinely ahead on productivity growth. This dimension is optional if the client cannot provide an estimate.

Observational track

"Over the past two years, has your output per person increased? Are you doing more with the same headcount, or have you added people in proportion to growth? How does that compare with others in your space?"

Strong — Output per person clearly growing above sector pace. Leadership can name specific gains. Growth has not required proportional headcount increase.

Moderate — Some productivity gain but roughly in line with sector. Headcount and output growing at a similar rate. Direction is positive but not distinctively ahead.

Low — Output growing only with headcount, or not at all. No meaningful gain per person. Sector comparison is unfavourable or unknown.

Empirical track

Review revenue or output per FTE over a 2-year period and compare with available sector benchmarks. Note headcount growth relative to output growth.

Strong — Output/FTE growth >10% ahead of sector over 2 years. Headcount growth <50% of output growth rate.

Moderate — Output/FTE growth broadly in line with sector (±10%). Headcount and output growing at similar rates.

Low — Output/FTE flat or declining. Headcount growth matches or exceeds output growth. Below sector pace.

Band

Score (0–100)

Confidence

Views diverged across stakeholders

If the client cannot provide a reliable LT estimate, leave the score blank. LA will be computed from CE, DV, and AW only, and the report will note LT as unscored.

LA axis — live preview

LA raw

—

Unmodulated mean

AA modulator

—

0.75 + 0.25 × AA/100

LA score

—

LA raw × AA modulator

Fill in CE, DV, AW, and AA to compute the LA score. LT is included in LA raw when provided.

Intake saved.

The LA score has been written to Firestore. The prep and decision-maker reports will now display the full Kaivant-O layout.