AMAIZE MAGAZINE

The world of A.I. will send a shockwave through the consultancy industry. Even when merging of the consultants’ natural intelligence with artificial intelligence will be a natural albeit inevitable process.

After all, consultants advise about digital transformation but are themselves one the most under-automated industries. And 99% of consultants serve less than 0,01% of organizations worldwide. In a world that essentially is becoming friction-free, the consultants’ business model is still built on friction.

AMAIZE Magazine bridges the gap between consultants’ daily practice and academia. Its focus is to marry scientifically underpinned research, expert opinions, and the latest news about the application of A.I. in consultancy.

THEME: DIGITAL SOURCING

With Covid19 there is a lot – a lot! – to win for consultants with automated consultancy. Do more – instead of less – with your current clients. And expand to new ones.

Starting now, consider ‘digital’ as the main route to the client. Web shops give unprecedented access, 24*7; online configurators take clients by the hand; chatbots and 1-800 customer service lines immediately answer to any question there might be. Our feature article explains how you as a consultant can get truly digital. And that’s way more than you think.

Plus, read about client journey’s, Funnel Boost algorithms and why BP’s chief purchasing buyer says: “Rate cards are dead!”

THEME: NUDGING

A tool in B2C communication but never used in organizational transformation: nudging.

Nudging is about giving a subtle push in the right direction, without restricting liberties or imposing obligations. And that subtle push is all around us. When we walk the streets. When we’re using an ATM. When we drive. It’s a concept that has been rewarded with a Noble prize. And when applied correctly it’s an enormous step forward in truly managing transformations.

In fact, the Feature Article summarizes this revolutionary approach as “traction control for transformations”. And Ronald Meijers (Deloitte’s transformation expert) explains how the carrot – and not the stick – is key to a successful transformation.

THEME: THE ANATOMY OF TEAMS

Artificial intelligence is driven by algorithms, patterns and predictions. This issue of AMAIZE introduces you to some patterns that are around you everyday, yet, until recently, unnoticed.

We all work in a team, whether formally or informally. Pattern recognition among 1,700 employees in 138 teams shows that there are only 6 flavours of team effectiveness.

Algorithms need clean fuel to calculate patterns that are free of noise and biases. After all, garbage in – garbage out. The lead article clearly explains why the so often used Likert scales are bad fuel for algorithms. Very bad fuel, actually. AMAIZE explains how to exchange the Likert scale for a much better alternative. Plus, a lot of other interesting content.

ACADEMIC RESEARCH

Artificial Intelligence can do the magic when it comes to managing organizations. Yet, as consequences for organisations may be hefty, our algorithms must be rooted in solid scientific research. Therefore, Transparency Lab has founded the TLab Research Institute to structurally work on the scientific foundation of our SaaS platform.

We collaborate with universities and offer ample opportunities for students and PhD candidates alike. The TLab Research Institute regularly publishes blogs and scientific articles. We are listed in the GRID (Global Research Identifier Database) (https://grid.ac/institutes/grid.510418.9

thesis

Clearly, it’s no longer an almighty CEO or Board of Management that decides about the strategy of an organization based on some numbers out of the company’s data warehouse. The new source of additional insight for strategic decision-making are the employees. In fact, they are the eyes and ears of the organization. 

This thesis fills in the gaps to enable employees to truly be a source fo strategic added value. First, it introduces a new survey scale: the “Guttman-Poll” scale. After decades of misuse of biased Likert scales, this  scale finally enables to objectively get employee input. Then, objective input is great fuel for algorithms that drive pattern recognition. This thesis unearths patterns about employee ambition that explains why so many transformation projects go haywire.

Dr. Jan van de Poll received his PhD at Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e) in september 2018. 

PRAIORITIZE uses an academically underpinned methodology to calculate results and validate patterns. This requires formal academic writing like writing a doctoral dissertation and publish academic papers. Getting published in academic papers is based on ‘peer reviews’: scientific scholars dissect the submitted research, will require additional explanations or even research and may also reject a paper. Such a process can take months, even years.

We have composed an extensive list of dissertations and papers that have been published or recently have been submitted to journals for review. In case of publications, you’ll find a link. In case of a paper under review, you will find the abstract and keywords.

graduation cap icon
ACADEMIC PAPERS ABOUT THE PRAIORITIZE METHOD

1. An alternative to the Likert scale when polling employees

[Status] currently under submission at scientific journals

[Abstract] The input from employees is a crucial source of information for strategic decision-making in organizations. The Likert scale is the scale most often used for employee polls but results in a variety of biases – including socially acceptable answers – influencing the overall scores. Hence, to offer an alternative, we improved a Guttman scale specifically for employee polling (Guttman-Poll). This improvement asks employees about verifiable facts and -behavior, taps actual situation and the employees’ ambition, caters to target setting, and provides additional managerial insights into, e.g., organizational alignment and knowledge sharing. We compared this scale to a Likert scale in 5 different employee polls. The answers following a Likert scale were normally distributed but were significantly more biased to the higher end of the scale: almost 80% of questions scored higher than five on a scale from zero to ten. The answers on the Guttman-Poll scale were normally distributed across the entire scale. The Guttman-Poll scale delivers relatively noise-free input (tallying verifiable facts/-behavior rather than averaging opinions), which may drive algorithms and A.I.

[Keywords] Employee polling, survey design, Likert, Guttman-Poll, alignment, knowledge sharing

2. The business case of answering a questionnaire

[Status] currently under submission at scientific journals

[Abstract] The input from managers and employees is vital for strategic decision making. Yet, they have enough on their plates if not overwhelmed by their to-do lists. So, is there a way to free up time? To work smarter? Or, from an economic perspective, create more productivity? First, we designed a different survey scale to ask people for input objectively. Next, we analyzed such input of over 32,000 respondents in more than 900 teams answering on more than 150 strategic topics. To free up time, we compared were the respondents’ improvement items deviated from the priorities of their management. To work smarter, we focused on knowledge sharing: how could one employee that already had improved on a specific aspect help a colleague that still had to improve? On average, we found a productivity increase of 75 hours, or €2,500.- per respondent. Of his productivity, 85% was due to stop working on non-priorities and 15% due to sharing knowledge. This productivity increase of 75 hours required an average time investment of 15 minutes to answer a questionnaire.

[Keywords] Employee polling, productivity, knowledge sharing, Guttman-Poll

3. Extending the vitality curve to teams

[Status] currently under submission at scientific journals

[Abstract] General Electric’s Jack Welch brought us the 20-70-10 rule: the “vitality curve.” The top 20% of the workforce is most useful while the next 70% work satisfactory. The bottom 10% are considered to be not productive at all and should be fired. This rule has both become a cornerstone of employee performance management as well as being heavily criticized. Nevertheless, in management, such a rule-of-thumb is useful for focusing the managerial attention. Hence, could this vitality curve be extended from applying to individual employees to applying to teams? Is there a similar rule-of-thumb that concentrates on specific groups and addresses some original vitality curve criticism? We researched more than 1,600 teams with in total over 110,000 employees. We did not examine financial KPI’s but instead focused on the level of activity of a team within a specific strategic construct. These constructs were in the form of a questionnaire: more than 300 different ones in our sample. We checked how employees scored on their questionnaire and divided them – comparable to the vitality curve – into three groups (Red, Amber, Green) within each team. Then, we clustered the teams, given their RAG-mix of individuals. Roughly, 40% of the teams had predominantly green employees, 40% mostly amber employees, and 20% of the teams had a large contingent of red employees. Various control variables related to using questionnaires did not influence the 40-40-20 mix.

[Keywords] Employee polling, vitality curve, 20-70-10, clustering, K-means

4. The absence of focused change in employee ambition

[Status] currently under submission at scientific journals

[Abstract] Employees’ input is generally regarded as a welcome, if not mandatory, part of any organizational transformation. Yet, we found no literature studying what that input materially meant for the organizational change itself. To start with such research, we objectively measured the ambition of almost 120,000 employees in more than 2,500 teams. Virtually all of these teams unconsciously eschewed the ideal change focus as described in the literature: “Do a few things and do them well. Then, repeat.” We calculated a rule-of-thumb of 20% teams with no ambition, 55% of teams having no focus, and 25% having no realism. The perceived generic application of this rule has profound ramifications for the planning and implementation of organizational transformation.

[Keywords] Employee polling, organizational transformation, ambition patterns, Guttman-Poll

5. Outperforming managers in setting strategic targets

[Status] currently under submission at scientific journals

[Abstract] When managers set strategic targets, they base their decision, e.g., on data about the market, competition, and the available budgets. The minimal availability of scientific literature indicates managers hardly consider the internal organizational consequences of their targets. Our analysis focuses on three of such consequences that would make the target’s implementation nearly impossible: too little organizational alignment (being right versus getting it right), overeating (too much to chew), and too little capacity to change. We first quantified – in terms of these three consequences – how 3,300 managers in 500+ organizations set targets by themselves. Then, in the second batch of 1,000 managers in 90 organizations, we provided managers with an algorithm that quantified their targets’ internal consequences. This second group of managers chose targets with a “consequence score” six times better than without the algorithm.

[Keywords] Employee polling, organizational transformation, ambition patterns, Guttman-Poll

6. Strategic priorities for employees deviate from Pareto

[Status] currently under submission at scientific journals

[Abstract] During an organizational transformation, improvements must be dosed. Usually, an organization cannot change in lockstep. A more diverse and tailor-made target setting enables managers and employees to sufficiently transform while doing their day job and keeping their sanity. When it comes to where to focus management attention on the topics and respondents most behind the target, Pareto’s 80-20 rule is the usual answer. Only 20% of X is responsible for 80% of Y. This seems a very general approach and still doesn’t tell where to focus, only that there is an unequal relationship between input and output. To verify whether Pareto’s 80-20 rule also applies in organizational transformation, we conducted surveys during 320 different transformation projects covering almost 2,500 teams and more than 100,000 employees. We found that we had to adjust Pareto’s 80-20 rule to a “50-20” rule-of-thumb. Approx. 20% of questions and 20% of respondents covered approx. 50% of the target. Additionally, the underlying visualizations yielded benefits in transformation planning and knowledge sharing.

[Keywords] Pareto, organizational transformation, Guttman-Poll, Gap Map, PRAIORITIZE

7. Nudging in organizational transformation: an A/B test

[Status] currently under submission at scientific journals

[Abstract] Nudging is a Nobel prize-winning concept that has been adopted by government agencies and Business-to-Consumer companies alike. Until now, nudging hadn’t found its way into changing employee behavior during an organizational transformation, nevertheless apparent advantages. The main problem: how to deliver, repeatedly, a personal message to a large number (potentially thousands) in an organization? Usually, behavioral data cannot be found in the company data warehouse; you have to ask people. We designed a different survey scale than the usual Likert scale and used an A.I. platform to deliver personal dashboards to managers and employees. These dashboards showed – tailor-made – why to improve as well as what to improve, how to do that, and which colleague could improve. We sent a comparable questionnaire plus dashboards to the same audience (approx. 700 people in one organization) twice. The first time without nudging; the second time, they were accompanied by email nudges that guided respondents in using their dashboard. The second time, we saw 40% more clicks and 20% better clicks as an indicative figure. We defined better clicks as looking at dashboard pages that bring respondents in the ‘action mode’: what and how to improve and who can help whom.

[Keywords] Employee polling, organizational transformation, nudging, Guttman-Poll, PRAIORITIZE

graduation cap icon
ACADEMIC PAPERS ABOUT SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS

1. Improving corporate communication: a cluster analysis

[Status] currently under submission at scientific journals

[Abstract] The scientific literature clearly describes how the corporate communications function needs to be integrated within the entire organization in a world that becomes more connected and reacts lightning fast to events. Corporate communications need to represent the whole corporation, and synchronization among the different departments and regions is paramount. We tested a new survey scale to assess the status of the corporate communications function objectively and the likely improvement in the near future. The respondents’ K-means clustering calculated five clusters for the actual situation and the managers’ ambition for the next six months. The clusters unearthed different viewpoints on the corporate communication function’s status as its improvement priorities. Objectively tallying and clustering how organizations plan to improve the corporate communications function will help design more effective implementation roadmaps and support internal alignment.

[Keywords] Corporate communications, , ambition, clustering, k-means, PRAIORITIZE

2. Operationalizing purpose: a cluster analysis

[Status] currently under submission at scientific journals

[Abstract] Moving an organization beyond profit-making into positively and measurably adding value to society helps such organizations to grow in many aspects: the advantages of purpose have been widely documented. To gauge how organizations plan to implement purpose, we surveyed 96 respondents – all responsible for purpose in their organizations – in 61 different organizations on their actual situation regarding such implementation and their ambition to further operationalize that implementation in the near term. A K-means clustering of the respondents showed five clusters for the actual situation that neatly showed progression from starting with a purpose to fully implementing that purpose. However, when clustering the respondents’ ambition, we saw a dichotomy of very conservative ambitions and very ambitious. In the middle, there was no clear direction, let alone a clear migration path for implementation. With only one – or a few – respondents per organization, we could not verify whether such a dichotomy will also exist within one organization. Objectively tallying and clustering how organizations plan to operationalize purpose will help design implementation roadmaps and support internal alignment.

[Keywords] Purpose, purpose implementation, organizational adoption, clustering, K-means

PRAIORITIZE SUPPORT

While consultancy usually is considered a rather complex craft, PRAIORITIZE summarizes this process in just a couple of screens simply divided in two sections. Yet, these few screens are jam-packed with possibilities where a single click of yours triggers a whole set of artificial intelligence.

So when you need more context and tips & tricks, PRAIORITIZE offers a complete helpdesk and video tutorials.

AMAIZE MAGAZINE

The world of A.I. will send a shockwave through the consultancy industry. Even when merging of the consultants’ natural intelligence with artificial intelligence will be a natural albeit inevitable process.

After all, consultants advise about digital transformation but are themselves one the most under-automated industries. And 99% of consultants serve less than 0,01% of organizations worldwide. In a world that essentially is becoming friction-free, the consultants’ business model is still built on friction.

AMAIZE Magazine bridges the gap between consultants’ daily practice and academia. Its focus is to marry scientifically underpinned research, expert opinions, and the latest news about the application of A.I. in consultancy.

THEME:

DIGITAL SOURCING

With Covid19 there is a lot – a lot! – to win for consultants with automated consultancy. Do more – instead of less – with your current clients. And expand to new ones.

Starting now, consider ‘digital’ as the main route to the client. Web shops give unprecedented access, 24*7; online configurators take clients by the hand; chatbots and 1-800 customer service lines immediately answer to any question there might be. Our feature article explains how you as a consultant can get truly digital. And that’s way more than you think.

Plus, read about client journey’s, Funnel Boost algorithms and why BP’s chief purchasing buyer says: “Rate cards are dead!”

THEME:

NUDGING

A tool in B2C communication but never used in organizational transformation: nudging.

Nudging is about giving a subtle push in the right direction, without restricting liberties or imposing obligations. And that subtle push is all around us. When we walk the streets. When we’re using an ATM. When we drive. It’s a concept that has been rewarded with a Noble prize. And when applied correctly it’s an enormous step forward in truly managing transformations.

In fact, the Feature Article summarizes this revolutionary approach as “traction control for transformations”. And Ronald Meijers (Deloitte’s transformation expert) explains how the carrot – and not the stick – is key to a successful transformation.

THEME:

THE ANATOMY OF TEAMS

Artificial intelligence is driven by algorithms, patterns and predictions. This issue of AMAIZE introduces you to some patterns that are around you everyday, yet, until recently, unnoticed.

We all work in a team, whether formally or informally. Pattern recognition among 1,700 employees in 138 teams shows that there are only 6 flavours of team effectiveness.

Algorithms need clean fuel to calculate patterns that are free of noise and biases. After all, garbage in – garbage out. The lead article clearly explains why the so often used Likert scales are bad fuel for algorithms. Very bad fuel, actually. AMAIZE explains how to exchange the Likert scale for a much better alternative. Plus, a lot of other interesting content.

ACADEMIC RESEARCH

Artificial Intelligence can do the magic when it comes to managing organizations. Yet, as consequences for organisations may be hefty, our algorithms must be rooted in solid scientific research. Therefore, Transparency Lab has founded the TLab Research Institute to structurally work on the scientific foundation of our SaaS platform.

We collaborate with universities and offer ample opportunities for students and PhD candidates alike. The TLab Research Institute regularly publishes blogs and scientific articles.

We are listed in the GRID (Global Research Identifier Database) (https://grid.ac/institutes/grid.510418.9

thesis

Clearly, it’s no longer an almighty CEO or Board of Management that decides about the strategy of an organization based on some numbers out of the company’s data warehouse. The new source of additional insight for strategic decision-making are the employees. In fact, they are the eyes and ears of the organization.

This thesis fills in the gaps to enable employees to truly be a source fo strategic added value. First, it introduces a new survey scale: the “Guttman-Poll” scale. After decades of misuse of biased Likert scales, this  scale finally enables to objectively get employee input. Then, objective input is great fuel for algorithms that drive pattern recognition. This thesis unearths patterns about employee ambition that explains why so many transformation projects go haywire.

Dr. Jan van de Poll received his PhD at Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e) in september 2018.

PRAIORITIZE uses an academically underpinned methodology to calculate results and validate patterns. This requires formal academic writing like writing a doctoral dissertation and publish academic papers. Getting published in academic papers is based on ‘peer reviews’: scientific scholars dissect the submitted research, will require additional explanations or even research and may also reject a paper. Such a process can take months, even years.

We have composed an extensive list of dissertations and papers that have been published or recently have been submitted to journals for review. In case of publications, you’ll find a link. In case of a paper under review, you will find the abstract and keywords.

graduation cap icon
ACADEMIC PAPERS ABOUT THE PRAIORITIZE METHOD

1. An alternative to the Likert scale when polling employees

[Status] currently under submission at scientific journals

[Abstract] The input from employees is a crucial source of information for strategic decision-making in organizations. The Likert scale is the scale most often used for employee polls but results in a variety of biases – including socially acceptable answers – influencing the overall scores. Hence, to offer an alternative, we improved a Guttman scale specifically for employee polling (Guttman-Poll). This improvement asks employees about verifiable facts and -behavior, taps actual situation and the employees’ ambition, caters to target setting, and provides additional managerial insights into, e.g., organizational alignment and knowledge sharing. We compared this scale to a Likert scale in 5 different employee polls. The answers following a Likert scale were normally distributed but were significantly more biased to the higher end of the scale: almost 80% of questions scored higher than five on a scale from zero to ten. The answers on the Guttman-Poll scale were normally distributed across the entire scale. The Guttman-Poll scale delivers relatively noise-free input (tallying verifiable facts/-behavior rather than averaging opinions), which may drive algorithms and A.I.

[Keywords] Employee polling, survey design, Likert, Guttman-Poll, alignment, knowledge sharing

2. The business case of answering a questionnaire

[Status] currently under submission at scientific journals

[Abstract] The input from managers and employees is vital for strategic decision making. Yet, they have enough on their plates if not overwhelmed by their to-do lists. So, is there a way to free up time? To work smarter? Or, from an economic perspective, create more productivity? First, we designed a different survey scale to ask people for input objectively. Next, we analyzed such input of over 32,000 respondents in more than 900 teams answering on more than 150 strategic topics. To free up time, we compared were the respondents’ improvement items deviated from the priorities of their management. To work smarter, we focused on knowledge sharing: how could one employee that already had improved on a specific aspect help a colleague that still had to improve? On average, we found a productivity increase of 75 hours, or €2,500.- per respondent. Of his productivity, 85% was due to stop working on non-priorities and 15% due to sharing knowledge. This productivity increase of 75 hours required an average time investment of 15 minutes to answer a questionnaire.

[Keywords] Employee polling, productivity, knowledge sharing, Guttman-Poll

3. Extending the vitality curve to teams

[Status] currently under submission at scientific journals

[Abstract] General Electric’s Jack Welch brought us the 20-70-10 rule: the “vitality curve.” The top 20% of the workforce is most useful while the next 70% work satisfactory. The bottom 10% are considered to be not productive at all and should be fired. This rule has both become a cornerstone of employee performance management as well as being heavily criticized. Nevertheless, in management, such a rule-of-thumb is useful for focusing the managerial attention. Hence, could this vitality curve be extended from applying to individual employees to applying to teams? Is there a similar rule-of-thumb that concentrates on specific groups and addresses some original vitality curve criticism? We researched more than 1,600 teams with in total over 110,000 employees. We did not examine financial KPI’s but instead focused on the level of activity of a team within a specific strategic construct. These constructs were in the form of a questionnaire: more than 300 different ones in our sample. We checked how employees scored on their questionnaire and divided them – comparable to the vitality curve – into three groups (Red, Amber, Green) within each team. Then, we clustered the teams, given their RAG-mix of individuals. Roughly, 40% of the teams had predominantly green employees, 40% mostly amber employees, and 20% of the teams had a large contingent of red employees. Various control variables related to using questionnaires did not influence the 40-40-20 mix.

[Keywords] Employee polling, vitality curve, 20-70-10, clustering, K-means

4. The absence of focused change in employee ambition

[Status] currently under submission at scientific journals

[Abstract] Employees’ input is generally regarded as a welcome, if not mandatory, part of any organizational transformation. Yet, we found no literature studying what that input materially meant for the organizational change itself. To start with such research, we objectively measured the ambition of almost 120,000 employees in more than 2,500 teams. Virtually all of these teams unconsciously eschewed the ideal change focus as described in the literature: “Do a few things and do them well. Then, repeat.” We calculated a rule-of-thumb of 20% teams with no ambition, 55% of teams having no focus, and 25% having no realism. The perceived generic application of this rule has profound ramifications for the planning and implementation of organizational transformation.

[Keywords] Employee polling, organizational transformation, ambition patterns, Guttman-Poll

5. OUTPERFORMING MANAGERS IN SETTING STRATEGIC TARGETS

[Status] currently under submission at scientific journals

[Abstract] When managers set strategic targets, they base their decision, e.g., on data about the market, competition, and the available budgets. The minimal availability of scientific literature indicates managers hardly consider the internal organizational consequences of their targets. Our analysis focuses on three of such consequences that would make the target’s implementation nearly impossible: too little organizational alignment (being right versus getting it right), overeating (too much to chew), and too little capacity to change. We first quantified – in terms of these three consequences – how 3,300 managers in 500+ organizations set targets by themselves. Then, in the second batch of 1,000 managers in 90 organizations, we provided managers with an algorithm that quantified their targets’ internal consequences. This second group of managers chose targets with a “consequence score” six times better than without the algorithm.

[Keywords] Employee polling, organizational transformation, ambition patterns, Guttman-Poll

6. Strategic priorities for employees deviate from Pareto

[Status] currently under submission at scientific journals

[Abstract] During an organizational transformation, improvements must be dosed. Usually, an organization cannot change in lockstep. A more diverse and tailor-made target setting enables managers and employees to sufficiently transform while doing their day job and keeping their sanity. When it comes to where to focus management attention on the topics and respondents most behind the target, Pareto’s 80-20 rule is the usual answer. Only 20% of X is responsible for 80% of Y. This seems a very general approach and still doesn’t tell where to focus, only that there is an unequal relationship between input and output. To verify whether Pareto’s 80-20 rule also applies in organizational transformation, we conducted surveys during 320 different transformation projects covering almost 2,500 teams and more than 100,000 employees. We found that we had to adjust Pareto’s 80-20 rule to a “50-20” rule-of-thumb. Approx. 20% of questions and 20% of respondents covered approx. 50% of the target. Additionally, the underlying visualizations yielded benefits in transformation planning and knowledge sharing.

[Keywords] Pareto, organizational transformation, Guttman-Poll, Gap Map, PRAIORITIZE

7. Nudging in organizational transformation: an A/B test

[Status] currently under submission at scientific journals

[Abstract] Nudging is a Nobel prize-winning concept that has been adopted by government agencies and Business-to-Consumer companies alike. Until now, nudging hadn’t found its way into changing employee behavior during an organizational transformation, nevertheless apparent advantages. The main problem: how to deliver, repeatedly, a personal message to a large number (potentially thousands) in an organization? Usually, behavioral data cannot be found in the company data warehouse; you have to ask people. We designed a different survey scale than the usual Likert scale and used an A.I. platform to deliver personal dashboards to managers and employees. These dashboards showed – tailor-made – why to improve as well as what to improve, how to do that, and which colleague could improve. We sent a comparable questionnaire plus dashboards to the same audience (approx. 700 people in one organization) twice. The first time without nudging; the second time, they were accompanied by email nudges that guided respondents in using their dashboard. The second time, we saw 40% more clicks and 20% better clicks as an indicative figure. We defined better clicks as looking at dashboard pages that bring respondents in the ‘action mode’: what and how to improve and who can help whom.

[Keywords] Employee polling, organizational transformation, nudging, Guttman-Poll, PRAIORITIZE

graduation cap icon
ACADEMIC PAPERS ABOUT SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS

1. Improving corporate communication: a cluster analysis

[Status] currently under submission at scientific journals

[Abstract] The scientific literature clearly describes how the corporate communications function needs to be integrated within the entire organization in a world that becomes more connected and reacts lightning fast to events. Corporate communications need to represent the whole corporation, and synchronization among the different departments and regions is paramount. We tested a new survey scale to assess the status of the corporate communications function objectively and the likely improvement in the near future. The respondents’ K-means clustering calculated five clusters for the actual situation and the managers’ ambition for the next six months. The clusters unearthed different viewpoints on the corporate communication function’s status as its improvement priorities. Objectively tallying and clustering how organizations plan to improve the corporate communications function will help design more effective implementation roadmaps and support internal alignment.

[Keywords] Corporate communications, , ambition, clustering, k-means, PRAIORITIZE

2. Operationalizing purpose: a cluster analysis

[Status] currently under submission at scientific journals

[Abstract] Moving an organization beyond profit-making into positively and measurably adding value to society helps such organizations to grow in many aspects: the advantages of purpose have been widely documented. To gauge how organizations plan to implement purpose, we surveyed 96 respondents – all responsible for purpose in their organizations – in 61 different organizations on their actual situation regarding such implementation and their ambition to further operationalize that implementation in the near term. A K-means clustering of the respondents showed five clusters for the actual situation that neatly showed progression from starting with a purpose to fully implementing that purpose. However, when clustering the respondents’ ambition, we saw a dichotomy of very conservative ambitions and very ambitious. In the middle, there was no clear direction, let alone a clear migration path for implementation. With only one – or a few – respondents per organization, we could not verify whether such a dichotomy will also exist within one organization. Objectively tallying and clustering how organizations plan to operationalize purpose will help design implementation roadmaps and support internal alignment.

[Keywords] Purpose, purpose implementation, organizational adoption, clustering, K-means

PRAIORITIZE SUPPORT

While consultancy usually is considered a rather complex craft, PRAIORITIZE summarizes this process in just a couple of screens simply divided in two sections. Yet, these few screens are jam-packed with possibilities where a single click of yours triggers a whole set of artificial intelligence.

So when you need more context and tips & tricks, PRAIORITIZE offers a complete helpdesk and video tutorials.

ROI CALCULATOR

Don't take our word for it. See for yourself.

FUNNELBOOST

A.I. explains consultants what they can sell to whom.

COMPETITION MAP

There is survey software. And then there is PRAIORITIZE.

PRICING PLANS

It's like having a weekly cup of coffee with every employee.

PLAYTIME!

Test the waters with two free assessments to get the full experience.

BUDDYTIME!

Your transformation network: who can help whom to improve with what.

QUIZTIME!

Get to know how much you actually know about automated consultancy.

QUESTIONNAIRES.AI (beta)

Setting up smart questions has never been so easy. Thanks to our A.I. engine.

LIBRARY

Browse our extensive catalog of more than 160 ready-to-use assessments.

SHOP

Satisfied? Then order your finalized assessment in our web shop. Open 24/7.

1. ASK PEOPLE

Send out an academically-proven questionnaire.

2. CHOOSE TARGETS

Let A.I. calculate smart targets, so you can play with the future.

3. GIVE DASHBOARDS

Real-time generated personal, group and global dashboards.

4. TRACK PROGRESS

Monitor  team activity with real-time graphs and nudging.

5. ACT IF NEEDED

Intervene and pivot activity if certain teams are lagging.

AMAIZE MAGAZINE

The world's first academic research publication on automated consultancy wrapped up in a glossy magazine.

ACADEMIC RESEARCH

We ate our own dogfood. So, we published numerous academic papers all initiated by our founder's thesis on Ambition Patterns.

SUPPORT

Our Support Desk brings you numerous tutorials, videos and a ticketing service ensuring you a smooth onboarding.