How to read this package
This package documents what each stakeholder group actually believes about the initiative, where those beliefs diverge, which assumptions were never validated across functions, how those divergences and assumptions could produce failure, and whether the initiative is currently structured to succeed. It is an advisory diagnostic: it surfaces and characterizes stakeholder beliefs and divergences; it does not direct the initiative.
1 · Stakeholder Belief Map (excerpt — 3 of 16 belief dimensions)
What each stakeholder group actually believes about the initiative. Read across a row to see six people describing what is nominally one project.
| Belief dimension | Q | Lab Director | Bench Lead | QA Manager | IT / Bioinformatics | Billing | Medical Director |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initiative purpose | Q1 | Expand testing capacity — roughly double throughput without adding headcount | Kill manual sample tracking and re-keying so the bench can run more per shift | Get an auditable, validated system that will survive a CAP/CLIA inspection | Replace the brittle legacy LIMS with an integrated, API-driven platform | Reduce claim denials and speed billing by capturing clean order data upfront | Faster, more reliable result reporting and sign-out to ordering physicians |
| Why now | Q2 | Volume up ~40% YoY; current LIMS caps us near 120 samples/day | Vendor is sunsetting support for our version in ~14 months | Two CAP findings last cycle on manual audit trails must be closed | Legacy DB is unsupported; we cannot add the new sequencer without replacing it | Denial rate hit 18%; payers are tightening documentation requirements | Physician complaints about turnaround time are now reaching the board |
| Problem definition | Q3 | Accessioning bottleneck caps daily volume and drives overtime | Techs retype data across three systems; transcription errors and rework | Audit trail is partly paper; chain of custody cannot be proven quickly | No API; every interface is a manual export/import that breaks | Order data arrives incomplete, so claims are denied downstream | Results sit in a queue; sign-out is delayed and hard to track |
2 · Divergence Register (excerpt — top 3 of the sample’s 6 entries)
An explicit catalog of where stakeholder beliefs diverge, ranked by severity of likely downstream impact.
| # | Divergence topic | Source Q | What the stakeholders disagree on | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Core purpose: throughput vs compliance vs cost | Q1 | The Lab Director and Bench Lead frame this as a throughput/capacity project; QA and the Medical Director frame it as a compliance-and-quality project; Billing frames it as a revenue-cycle project. There is no shared definition of what “done” means. | High |
| 2 | Completion timeline | Q7 | Target completion dates span Nov 2026 (Billing) to Jun 2027 (QA) — a ~7-month spread. QA’s validation gate is downstream of dates the other functions are already committing to. | High |
| 3 | Whether validation fits inside the go-live window | Q4 / Q15 | The Lab Director and Bench Lead assume validation completes inside the cutover window; QA states validation must gate patient testing and cannot be compressed. | High |
The full package — five sections, plus the workbook behind them
What a complete A1 engagement delivers. The two sections excerpted above are shown in part; the rest is walked through on the discovery call.
- Stakeholder Belief Map — all 16 belief dimensions across every stakeholder group · excerpted above
- Divergence Register — every divergence, severity-ranked, with the stakeholders implicated · excerpted above
- Implicit Assumption Surface — the assumptions each group made about scope, ownership, or success that were never validated with the others
- Failure-Mode Pre-Mortem — documented scenarios in which the divergences become project failures (root-cause analysis in post-mortem mode)
- Decision-Readiness Assessment — whether the initiative is currently structured to succeed, with the structural criteria and reasoning
Plus the interview workbook itself — every value in the package traces to a specific stakeholder response captured there, and the workbook is machine-checked for internal consistency before anything is delivered.
You’ve seen excerpts of two sections — the engagement delivers five.
The complete package — all five sections above in full, plus the interview workbook behind them — is walked through on the discovery call. Thirty minutes, no charge, and a free written go/no-go before any deposit.
Request a discovery call →