Example report for a fictional organization with invented answers. Your own report is generated from your answers, the moment your payment is confirmed.
Readiness Report
Delta Housing Cooperative (fictional)
Readiness Index
32/100
Forming
- Profile
- Observer
- Future fitness
- Vulnerable
- Transition position
- Experimenting with the new
- Ecosystem odds
- 42%
- Where to start
- Strategic advisory
In one page
- Observer. You see change coming, but find it harder to act on it. Sensing 50%, acting 33%.
- Vulnerable. Your environment asks for level 3 foresight (a range of futures); your practice is at level 2 (developing).
- Strongest: sensing and the Interconnected capacity. Weakest: Bendable (17/100).
- Ecosystem odds 42%. Your plan needs 3 partner groups to deliver; the chance that all of them do is below two in three.
Your first move
Strategic advisory · Horizon Probing and a Transition Arena. Your answers point to a gap between seeing and acting, or to a leadership team that is not aligned on what comes next. The fix is a shared map of possible futures and a protected space to try the new.
The decision in front of you
Whether to invest our reserves in local heat networks now, or wait until national rules on heat are clear.
How to read this report: section 1 shows who you are as a team, section 2 your context, section 3 what to do. Scores run from 0 to 100; 50 is the midpoint between "Partly" and "Mostly".
1
Who you are
Your profile
Observer
You see change coming, but find it harder to act on it.
What we see
You spot weak signals early, discuss scenarios and know your assumptions, but insights tend to stall at the decision table. Seeing a lot without being able to move creates anxiety, and the organization becomes brittle under pressure.
How this profile fails
Paralysis by deliberation. Because nobody agreed in advance which signal would trigger a change, or because money and people are locked for the year, every new signal turns into a debate instead of an experiment.
What helps
Turn insight into commitments: agree "if this happens, then we do that" rules in advance, give new initiatives a protected space, and run six-week safe-to-fail probes.
Leadership mindset
On the 1–5 scale used in research on futures consciousness, your leadership scores 2.7, which reads as developing: futures thinking happens, but not yet by default. Research links a stronger long view to more resilience and to more willingness to invest today for benefits later, especially when the organization is clear about who it is.
| Capacity | Your answer |
|---|---|
| Weighing choices against your 5–10 year identity | Mostly |
| Using the future to question, not only to plan | Partly |
| Protecting transformative initiatives | Not yet |
| Agency to shape your sector | Mostly |
Four capacities for a turbulent world
A brittle, anxious, nonlinear and hard-to-grasp world asks for the opposite capacities. Your scores:
Brittle →
Bendable
17/100
You can change course and move people and money without breaking.
Build it: Agree course-change triggers in advance, and keep a small reserve you can move within weeks.
From statements 6 and 7
Anxious →
Attentive
50/100
Front-line signals and bad news travel fast and safely.
Build it: Give front-line signals a fixed slot on the leadership agenda, and thank the first person who raises a doubt.
From statements 3 and 8
Nonlinear →
Neuroflexible
44/100
You think in several futures and learn through small experiments.
Build it: Test big decisions against three futures, and run a small probe before any big budget.
From statements 2, 5 and 10
Incomprehensible →
Interconnected
61/100
You see across sectors and the wider system, and your partners are aligned.
Build it: Scan outside your sector every month, and align your critical partners before you need them.
From statements 1 and 12, and your ecosystem odds
2
Your context
Future fitness: need against practice
Ad hoc practice
Developing practiceYour practice
Systematic practiceYour environment
Frontrunner practice
Vulnerable
Your foresight is one level short of what your environment asks.
In the same research, firms one level short were on average about 37% less profitable than vigilant peers. One level is closable within a year: the levers and the 90-day plan below are chosen to close it.
Research: Rohrbeck and Kum (2018), Technological Forecasting and Social Change; Global Future Fitness Study (2023). These are averages for firms, not a forecast for you.
Where you are in the transition
Experimenting with the new
You are experimenting with the new while the core is stable. The main risk is that promising initiatives are absorbed by the core business and watered down. Protect them in their own space, with their own rhythm and budget.
Based on the X-curve of transitions (Loorbach and colleagues, DRIFT): every transition combines the build-up of the new with the breakdown of the old.
Ecosystem odds
42%
0.75 × 0.75 × … (3 partner groups)
Your plan depends on 3 external partner groups, each about 75% ready. Because the chances multiply, the odds that all of them deliver on time are 42%. Combined with your internal readiness of 42, your risk-adjusted execution score is 18.
Before you scale, start with a minimum viable ecosystem: the fewest partners needed for a first proof, then add partners in stages. Raising one critical partner from 75% to 90% readiness does more than adding a new one.
Based on Ron Adner, The Wide Lens (2012): co-innovation and adoption-chain risk.
Decision rhythm
Once a year, in the budget cycle. You review signposts once a year, in the budget cycle. A signal can cross its trigger and go unnoticed for months. For an environment like yours, move to monthly signpost reviews, weekly for transition work.
3
What to do
Recommended route
Strategic advisory
- Principle
- Prepare for several futures
- Method
- Horizon Probing and a Transition Arena
- Phase
- Phase 1 · Diagnose
- Your bottleneck
- Strategy or alignment gap
Why: Your answers point to a gap between seeing and acting, or to a leadership team that is not aligned on what comes next. The fix is a shared map of possible futures and a protected space to try the new.
What it involves: We map what to keep, what is transitional and what is emerging (Three Horizons), test your main decision against contrasting scenarios, and set up a small protected team to run safe-to-fail probes outside the daily routine.
Also worth considering: Staged investment (Signpost Investing).
Your three biggest levers
“We have agreed in advance what would make us change course.” Not yet
First step: Agree with your board now which signal would make you change course, and what you would do then.
“We protect promising new initiatives from being watered down by the daily routines and politics of the core business.” Not yet
First step: Give your most promising new initiative its own small budget, owner and review rhythm, outside the core business cycle.
“We test new ideas with small experiments before committing large budgets.” Partly
First step: Run one small, cheap experiment this quarter before any large budget is committed.
Your 90-day plan
Days 1–30
- Agree with your board now which signal would make you change course, and what you would do then.
- Run a half-day Three Horizons session: what to keep (H1), what is transitional (H2), what is emerging (H3).
- Write down the three assumptions your strategy rests on, and give each an owner.
Days 31–60
- Build three contrasting scenarios and test your main decision against each.
- Set up a protected Transition Arena: a small group with its own mandate, outside daily routines.
- Agree your if-then signpost (below) with a named sponsor, and put the signpost on the monthly agenda.
Days 61–90
- Launch one six-week safe-to-fail probe with a success and a stop criterion agreed up front.
- Review your assumptions and update your pathway map.
- Move your signpost review to a monthly rhythm, weekly for transition work.
Your signpost commitment · Energy, climate and assets
IF carbon pricing, grid congestion or climate rules in our main market cross a level we set now (for example €100 per tonne CO₂, or a grid-connection wait of 12 months), THEN we freeze expansion of legacy assets and move that budget to our transition pathway within the quarter.
Signpost to watchCarbon pricing, climate rules, and scarcity of grid power, water or safe ground
Sponsor who acts
ReviewedMonthly, from now on
Why this works: plans in the form "if this happens, then I do that" roughly double the chance that people act when the moment comes (Gollwitzer and Sheeran, 2006; effect size d = 0.65). Combined with signposts and triggers from adaptive pathways planning (Haasnoot and colleagues), you decide once, calmly, instead of debating under pressure. You can edit the underlined parts before you save the PDF.
A question for your next leadership meeting
Picture an ordinary Tuesday five years from now, when your organization has come through the shift in energy, climate and assets well. Which strength did you keep that still makes you recognizably you? And which routine did you deliberately stop?
Seeing your future self clearly makes teams more willing to invest today (Hershfield, 2011–2023). A 5 to 10 year horizon works best.
Focus areas that fit your answers
Next step
Talk it through, free
A 20-minute call with one of our practitioners to test what this report means for your decision. No preparation needed: we read your report first.
A
Your answers and how we scored them
| # | Statement | Answer |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | We regularly scan for trends and weak signals outside our own sector. | Mostly |
| 2 | Our leadership team plans with several possible futures in mind. | Mostly |
| 3 | What people see on the front line reaches decision-makers quickly. | Partly |
| 4 | We know which assumptions our strategy depends on, and we track them. | Partly |
| 5 | We test new ideas with small experiments before committing large budgets. | Partly |
| 6 | We have agreed in advance what would make us change course. | Not yet |
| 7 | We can shift people and money to a new opportunity within a quarter. | Partly |
| 8 | People feel safe raising doubts and bad news early. | Mostly |
| 9 | When facing a major choice, we weigh how it will shape who we are 5 to 10 years from now, not only this year's targets. | Mostly |
| 10 | We use futures thinking not only to plan towards goals, but also to question our assumptions and spot new roles we could play. | Partly |
| 11 | We protect promising new initiatives from being watered down by the daily routines and politics of the core business. | Not yet |
| 12 | Our leadership believes we can help shape the rules and standards of our sector, and we weigh the wider impact of our choices. | Mostly |
- Environment
- A range of futures: many variables move at once, faster than our strategic plan.
- Transition position
- Experimenting: the core is stable enough; we are running small experiments or starting unproven ventures.
- Partners
- 3 groups · Moderate: cautious
- Main shift
- Energy, climate and assets
- Organization
- Nonprofit, foundation, association or NGO · horizon 1–3 years
- Bottleneck
- Strategy or alignment: leadership disagrees on what comes next, or our plan rests on a forecast we no longer trust.
- Rhythm
- Once a year, in the budget cycle
Method
- Each statement scores 0 (Not yet) to 3 (Fully). A group score is the sum divided by its maximum, × 100. Sensing = statements 1–4, acting = 5–8, leadership mindset = 9–12. The profile uses the same 50% split as the free readiness check.
- Internal maturity = all 12 statements (0–100), mapped to level 1 (under 25), 2 (25–49), 3 (50–74) or 4 (75+). Environmental need is your answer on volatility (level 1–4). Need minus maturity gives the future fitness posture: 0 or −1 vigilant, +1 vulnerable, +2 or more in danger, −2 or less ahead of need.
- Readiness Index = internal maturity minus 10 points for each level of foresight deficit. Bands: 0–39 forming, 40–69 developing, 70–100 strong.
- Ecosystem odds = partner readiness to the power of the number of partner groups. Risk-adjusted execution = internal maturity × ecosystem odds.
- Capacities: Bendable = statements 6–7; Attentive = 3 and 8; Neuroflexible = 2, 5 and 10; Interconnected = 75% statements 1 and 12, 25% ecosystem odds.
- Route: interim management when the core is destabilizing, leadership or execution is the bottleneck, or the profile is Exposed; otherwise staged investment for capital questions or a Pathfinder with odds under 65%; otherwise advisory for alignment gaps, Observers and Improvisers; otherwise a decision stress-test.
Status: a structured self-assessment, not an audit. Cut-offs are design choices informed by the research below, not yet calibrated on our own data. One respondent's view; results improve when several leaders answer separately. Method v1.0 · question set 2026-11.
Sources: Rohrbeck & Kum (2018) Corporate foresight and its impact on firm performance; Global Future Fitness Study (2023); Loorbach et al. (2017) and Hebinck et al. (2022) on the X-curve; Adner (2012) The Wide Lens; Haasnoot et al. (2013) Dynamic adaptive policy pathways; Gollwitzer & Sheeran (2006) Implementation intentions; Hershfield (2011) Future self-continuity; Lalot, Ahvenharju & Minkkinen (2021) Futures consciousness; Miller (2018) Transforming the future; Sharpe (2013) Three Horizons; Edmondson (1999) Psychological safety; Cascio (2020) BANI.