Strategy
3.6 / 5
StrongThe leadership team can name its target customer and annual focus. Quarterly trade-offs are not consistently recorded.
DISCOVER / BUSINESS HEALTH ASSESSMENT
See the business.
Know what matters.
Ten connected domains. The evidence behind the scores. A clear view of what to protect, what is getting in the way, and where to focus first.
Guided onboarding with a MomentumOS advisor, with support throughout your assessment.
01 / THE CONNECTED VIEW
A shape starts the conversation.
The evidence explains it.
This fictional business has strong customer practices. Its growth constraint may sit between the sale and the start of delivery.
A higher score indicates greater maturity in the example. This is not a benchmark against other businesses.
Critical 0–<1.5At Risk 1.5–<2.5Stable 2.5–<3.5Strong 3.5–<4.5Excellent 4.5–5
Read all ten scores in an accessible table
| Domain | Score | Band | Evidence status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strategy | 3.6 / 5 | Strong | Illustrative |
| Revenue | 3.0 / 5 | Stable | Illustrative |
| Marketing | 2.6 / 5 | Stable | Illustrative |
| Customer | 4.2 / 5 | Strong | Illustrative |
| Pipeline | 2.2 / 5 | At Risk | Illustrative |
| Operations | 2.0 / 5 | At Risk | Illustrative |
| Financial | 3.4 / 5 | Stable | Illustrative |
| People | 3.6 / 5 | Strong | Illustrative |
| Technology | 2.8 / 5 | Stable | Illustrative |
| Leadership | 3.8 / 5 | Strong | Illustrative |
Demo calculation: ten illustrative domain values, equally weighted at 10%, produce 3.12/5. Values were chosen for this example, not calculated from real questionnaire responses. No accepted-open adjustments are applied. A real Assessment preserves category-level evidence and approved scoring rules; Pending and N/A are visible and excluded from applicable scoring.
02 / INSIDE THE TEN DOMAINS
Strengths and weaknesses,
with something behind them.
These fictional answer summaries illustrate the kind of evidence a consultant investigates. They do not establish a real-world result.
Revenue
3.0 / 5
StableService lines and prices are documented. Margin by job is reviewed after completion rather than before commitments.
Marketing
2.6 / 5
StableReferrals and repeat demand bring enquiries. Source tracking is inconsistent across channels.
Customer
4.2 / 5
StrongA named contact owns customer updates, and service issues are tracked through closure.
Pipeline
2.2 / 5
At RiskDeal stages exist, but expected delivery dates are entered before an operations capacity check.
Operations
2.0 / 5
At RiskScheduling uses a shared board. Scope changes and delivery acceptance are handled differently by each lead.
Financial
3.4 / 5
StableMonthly accounts and cash planning are established. Job-level variance arrives too late to guide live work.
People
3.6 / 5
StrongCore roles and development conversations are established. Backup cover for scheduling is informal.
Technology
2.8 / 5
StableThe team uses a shared CRM and delivery board. Scope updates are copied manually between them.
Leadership
3.8 / 5
StrongLeaders meet weekly and review exceptions. Escalation rules for changing a delivery promise are unclear.
03 / WHAT THE PATTERN SUGGESTS
From scores to decisions.
Evidence, interpretation and a test are kept separate. A low score starts an investigation; it does not prove the cause.
Customers have a clear point of contact.
Demo evidence: A named person owns updates; service issues remain visible until closure.
Why it matters: Keep that ownership when improving internal handoffs. Changing it could weaken a practice that already works in the example.
Source: fictional Customer answer summary · Illustrative support only
A delivery promise can outrun capacity.
Demo evidence: Sales enters dates before an operations check. Delivery leads use different acceptance practices.
Hypothesis: The missing handoff rule may create avoidable rescheduling. Review recent jobs before treating this as the root cause.
Sources: fictional Pipeline + Operations summaries · Cause needs verification
Margin feedback arrives after the decision.
Demo evidence: Job-level variance is reviewed after completion. Scope updates move manually between tools.
Potential impact: Leaders may miss a chance to challenge extra work while it is still in progress. No financial loss is claimed or quantified.
Sources: fictional Financial + Technology + Revenue summaries · Impact unmeasured
04 / THE PRIMARY CONSTRAINT
Look between the teams.
Working hypothesis: sales-to-delivery acceptance.
The illustrative growth goal depends on making promises the delivery team can keep. That makes the handoff a more useful starting point than choosing a department simply because its score is lowest.
Promise entered → capacity not checked → delivery lead reconciles the gap → customer contact manages the exception
Test the alternative: capacity itself may be inadequate, or scope may change after a sound handoff. Review a sample of recent jobs, promise dates and change records before deciding.
05 / THREE ACTIVE PRIORITIES
A focused next conversation.
Directional recommendations for the fictional business. Owners and success measures would be agreed with leadership.
Verify where promises break down.
Trace recent work from accepted quote to delivery start. Compare promised dates, capacity decisions and scope changes.
Evidence to bring back
A reviewed set of handoffs showing whether the main issue is acceptance, capacity or later changes.
Clarify the decision before the commitment.
Agree who can accept a delivery date and what information they need. Preserve the named customer contact.
Evidence to bring back
A leadership decision on accountable roles and a bounded pilot, if the handoff hypothesis is supported.
Make job feedback useful earlier.
Check whether current records can reveal scope and cost changes while work is active, before considering another tool.
Evidence to bring back
A verified baseline and agreement on which live signals would change an operating decision.
First 30 days
Review the handoff evidence, confirm the constraint and agree a small number of priorities.
By 60 days
If the evidence supports it, approve a bounded pilot and decide whether future-state design support is needed.
By 90 days
Review observed changes against the agreed baseline. Keep, adjust or stop the pilot based on what actually happened.
The Assessment diagnoses. Blueprint designs. Install establishes operational use.This 30/60/90 view illustrates possible next decisions. It is not an implementation plan, a performance promise, or included BUILD delivery. Any next engagement has its own agreed scope and authorization.
START WITH YOUR BUSINESS
What would your picture show?
Start with a free 25-minute Opportunity Snapshot with Greg. Explore whether an Assessment is the right next step.