TRANSFORMATION READINESS DIAGNOSTIC
Wanting it is not the same as being able to do it.
Most transformations do not fail on strategy. They fail in the gap between the intent at the top and the capacity underneath it, and those two things are measured separately here, because averaging them hides exactly the problem you need to see.
8 questions · about three minutes
Axis 1 · Will
Axis 1: intent and commitment
Are we clear, committed and aligned on what we want to achieve, and do we truly want to transform?
- Clarity of vision: an unambiguous target state and success metrics
- Leadership commitment: conviction, courage and resource allocation
- Organisational alignment: intent that survives middle management
- Strategic focus: explicit agreement on what NOT to do
Axis 2 · Skill
Axis 2: capacity to execute
Do we have the operational engine, bandwidth and resources to actually execute and finish?
- Talent & competency: skills, bench depth and domain expertise
- Process & governance: decision rights, delivery discipline, PMO maturity
- Infrastructure & technology: platforms, data architecture, capital
- Adaptive culture: speed, psychological safety, resilience
Why two axes and not one score
Will is intent that survives contact with a hard trade-off: a target state somebody could measure, leaders whose own mandate is at risk, a middle layer that reallocates people without being asked, and an explicit agreement about what to stop. Skill is the machinery: bench depth, decision rights, platforms and data a pilot can actually scale onto, and an organisation that surfaces failure in days rather than at the quarterly review.
They are reported separately on purpose. High will with low skill and low will with high skill can produce the same average and are opposite problems: one is a credibility risk, the other is a capability sitting idle. The quadrant is the answer; the single number would be the thing that hid it.