This work is useful when
- Problems that survived previous fixes
- Conflicting explanations across teams
- A change decision that requires evidence across authority, workflow, information, people, or technology
← Commissionable work
The situation we can help hold and understand
“Everyone has a reasonable explanation, but no explanation accounts for the whole thing.”
This is a place to begin, not a conclusion made for you. We do not decide where the problem sits until the evidence supports it.
The work you are commissioning
System Diagnostic
Evidence work across people, work, authority, handoffs, exceptions, and information, ending in an evidence-backed problem definition and system map.
- Participants
- 2–4 relevant stakeholders for a focused scope; broader participation by evidence plan
- Duration
- 5 business days to 4 weeks, depending on scope
- Price
- USD 2,500–10,000
- Stopping point
- Stop when the organization can name the problem, its uncertainty, and the responsible next decision without requiring more external interpretation.
This should not become a shortcut when
- A request to blame one person or team
- A client unwilling to provide relevant evidence or access
- A pre-decided solution seeking a diagnostic label
Scopes within one service
Change the depth without multiplying the catalogue.
Focused Diagnostic
One difficult problem or decision path, examined with 2–4 relevant stakeholders.
- Duration
- 5–7 business days
- Price
- USD 2,500–5,000
- Participants
- 2–4 stakeholders
Cross-System Diagnostic
A problem spanning multiple teams, functions, authority layers, or operating systems.
- Duration
- 2–4 weeks
- Price
- USD 5,000–10,000
What you will hold when the work ends
One coherent delivery package composed for the real problem.
You leave with a shared, evidence-backed explanation of where the problem sits, what is producing it, and which part of the system should—or should not—change.
System Diagnostic Report
Maps and analysis are components of one case-specific report, not a standard bundle of separate files. Their depth depends on the evidence plan and decision at risk.
- What it is
- One integrated report built around the problem examined. It combines only the maps, evidence, problem definition, tensions, and change boundary required to explain this system responsibly.
- How to use it
- Use it as the shared decision basis for what to change, what to leave alone, what to investigate further, and what to hand to an internal team or specialist.
- What it changes
- It replaces competing explanations with one traceable account of the system and the limits of what the evidence can establish.
Components selected when needed
Nothing is included merely to make the report look complete.
We include only what explains the problem, supports the decision, or lets the team carry the agreed scope forward.
Current system map
- What this component does
- A visual account of how work, decisions, authority, information, handoffs, exceptions, and human load currently interact.
- How to use it
- Use it in leadership and cross-team discussions so people can examine one system instead of defending separate functional explanations.
- What it changes
- It reveals where the formal process and the system people actually rely on have diverged.
Evidence-backed problem definition
- What this component does
- A written explanation of the problem, competing hypotheses, supporting and contradicting evidence, structural tensions, and remaining uncertainty.
- How to use it
- Use it as the decision basis for what to change, what to investigate further, and what not to disturb.
- What it changes
- It replaces competing opinions with a problem definition that can be challenged and checked.
Change boundary and action brief
- What this component does
- A concise brief stating what should change, wait, remain untouched, or be handed to a specialist, including the reasons.
- How to use it
- Use it to brief an internal team, commission specialist work, or decide whether system design is necessary.
- What it changes
- It keeps the organization from solving beyond the evidence or widening the project unnecessarily.
Information and access required
- Relevant documents and operating records
- Stakeholder interviews
- A real workflow or decision path
- Exceptions, workarounds, and prior interventions
What the work does not include
- Diagnosis does not guarantee one root cause
- Recommendations distinguish evidence from interpretation
- Architecture begins only when the problem definition is credible
Specialist applications
AI, workflow, KPI, and governance are applications of the work—not competing service pillars.
- Delegation and decision rights
- Workflow and handoffs
- Performance and information flow
- AI and human accountability
- Search and discovery decisions
- Governance and escalation