The Strategic Pressure Test
The report puts the difference between the outside view and your team's self-plot on the table. What you do next is a choice — not a follow-up step that we fill in for you. There are three routes. The order is not accidental: most teams can go further on their own than they think, which is why that route comes first.
You receive a route map per strategic theme: concrete steps, who needs to be at the table, which data is still missing, an agenda template for your own strategy day, and the assumption clocks that require reconfirmation each quarter. That is enough to put the decision agenda from the report on your own schedule and follow up on it.
This route fits when your team is used to structuring decisions itself, when there is already a rhythm of strategy days or management meetings into which the agenda fits, and when the spread between participants is manageable — a few deviating scores, not a conflicting worldview.
This route does not fit when the spread in the plotting round is large and no one on the team can lead the conversation about it, when an assumption touches on a theme where no one internally has sufficient depth, or when the decision agenda keeps getting shelved because there is no owner for it. Doing it yourself requires that you conduct the conversation about what the report shows yourself — the tool does not conduct that conversation for you.
You use the tool and the route map as in route 1, and additionally bring in a partner for the parts that carry more weight: expert interviews on a theme where the outside view yields thin evidence, or a guided confrontation session based on the spread pattern from your own report. There is a partner button for each component; you decide yourself which part you outsource and which part you keep in-house.
This route fits when the spread between participants is large on one or two themes, but not across the board, or when an assumption touches on a subject for which external evidence is needed that the datasets do not provide. It also fits when the conversation about the outcome is sensitive enough that an independent facilitator makes it easier to discuss the spread without defensiveness.
This route does not fit when the entire report points to loose components across the board — that is not a matter of highlighting a few heavy parts, but of a broader conversation that belongs in route 3. Nor does it fit when a team mainly wants the guidance to avoid its own decision-making. The partner leads the conversation, but the decision remains yours.
The partner takes over a complete trajectory. The report, with your permission, comes along as a dossier — so the partner never starts from a blank slate, but already has the outside view, the self-plot, the spread, and the decision agenda in hand. That saves repeating the intake and the plotting round.
This route fits when the spread is large on almost every theme, when multiple assumptions score as outdated or conflicting, or when the leadership team needs an external party to drive the entire follow-up — from theme to execution. It also fits when the time or capacity to work through the decision agenda yourself, with or without a partner, is lacking.
This route does not fit when the report actually shows a manageable picture with a few deviating scores. Purchasing a full trajectory for a small difference is not diligence, but overkill. And a partner can lead and structure the conversation — but the assumptions are and remain your team's, not the partner's.
The tool does not advise, in any of the three routes. What you read in the report is a confrontation between data and self-image, with source and date per theme — not a recommendation. Anyone who chooses the guidance of route 2 or the trajectory of route 3 purchases it from a partner, after the report and outside this environment. What the tool does is described on what it is, and how the intake, the plotting round, and the report precisely come about can be read on how it works. For background on the assumption taxonomy and the maturity axes, there is the knowledge base.
A decision agenda with strategic themes is the starting point, not the end. Themes only become reality once they land in tasks, hours, and systems — and that is precisely where the work scan on ftetoai.com continues.
Stel uw vraag. Vaak zit de echte vraag een laag dieper — daar mag ik naar vragen.
Answers come from this site’s knowledge base. Not tailored advice, and not a scan of your company.