Here’s How to Write One That Actually has the Best Chance of Being Transformational
Here’s what’s strange about vision statements: they’re written from YOUR organization’s point of view. “To be the leading provider…” “To be the most innovative…” But hold on—aren’t we in business to serve customers?
Think about it: A vision statement is really a hypothesis about customer value. It’s what we believe customers desire. So why are we talking about what WE want to become instead of what THEY achieve when they work with us?
What if we rethought the entire construction of vision statements with the customer value proposition at the center? AI and AI governance give us new possibilities with which to shape the future!
ALL THE SCENARIOS BELOW AND NUMBERS REPRESENT ASPIRATIONS OF WHAT COULD BE!
Headline: Many Vision Statements Are Probably Ineffective
Subheadline: Here’s How to Write One That Is Actually More Effective
Supporting Text: Aspirational. After 18 months of experimentation with numeric vision statements and client readiness assessments, a company achieved:
📈 87% success rate (up from 72%)
📈 Client NPS of 78 (up from 64)
📈 $5.2M in new annual revenue from readiness programs
📉 13% failed engagements (down from 28%)
The innovation: Vision statements as client transformation promises paired with readiness assessment to predict the probability of success.
We’re considering open-sourcing the entire framework.
SECTION 1: THE PROBLEM
Headline: 95% of Vision Statements Are Governance Theater
Take a moment and try to recite your company’s vision statement.
Can’t remember it? You’re not alone.
More importantly: Does your vision statement change what anyone does on Monday morning?
For 95% of organizations, the answer is no.
Traditional vision statements follow a predictable formula:
“To be the [superlative] [adjective] provider of [industry] solutions to [audience]”
Examples:
- “To be the world’s leading provider of innovative technology solutions”
- “To be the most trusted partner for digital transformation”
- “To deliver world-class service to our global clients”
These statements have four fatal flaws:
1. They’re Actually Narcissistic (About You, Not the Client)
“To be the leading provider” = what YOU want to become
Not: what your CLIENT achieves when they work with you
Reality check: Your clients don’t care if you’re “the leading provider.” They care if you solve their problems.
2. They’re Unmeasurable (Aspirational)
What does “leading” mean? Market share? Revenue? Brand awareness?
What does “world-class” mean? Who decides?
What does “innovative” mean? Compared to what?
Reality check: We’ve all been told that’s just what vision statements are supposed to be. But if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it. And you definitely can’t hold anyone accountable for it.
3. They Create Zero Alignment
How does Jane in Accounting connect her daily work to “be the leading provider”?
How does the AI Ad Hoc Committee prioritize initiatives? “Will this help us be more leading?”
How does the COO cascade KPIs from CEO scorecard? “Your goal is to be… leading-ish?”
Reality check: They can facilitate alignment using strategy and goals! Vision statements should cascade into every employee’s scorecard. Traditional visions can’t do this because they’re too vague.
4. They Enable Zero Accountability
Board: “Did we achieve our vision this year?”
CEO: “We’re making great progress… strong momentum… positive trajectory…”
Board: “So… yes?”
CEO: “Define ‘achieve’…”
Reality check: If you can’t definitively answer “did we achieve our vision?” with YES or NO, your vision isn’t a vision—it’s corporate poetry.
The Result: Vision Theater (the show)
Your vision statement ends up:
- On the wall in the lobby (where visitors don’t read it)
- On page 2 of the annual report (where investors likely skip it)
- In the employee handbook (where nobody remembers it)
It creates zero strategic value (except to replace it in 10 years).
But here’s what really happens:
Because the “official vision” is useless, shadow visions emerge:
- Sales has their own goals (quota targets)
- Product has their own goals (feature velocity)
- Operations has their own goals (cost reduction)
- Finance has their own goals (margin expansion)
These goals rarely align. Sometimes they actively conflict.
And when things go wrong? Everyone blames everyone else because there’s no shared North Star.
This is governance theater at the strategic level.
SECTION 2: THE SOLUTION
Headline: Vision Statements as Client Transformation Promises
Subheadline: What if your vision described THE transformation clients are to experience, not what you hope to become?
Body:
The CIWLEARNING Innovation
We flipped the traditional model:
Real Example: Hamilton Information System (HIS)
Traditional Vision (Before):
“To be the leading global provider of IT solutions through operational excellence, innovation, and a diverse, high-performing workforce.”
Problems:
- What does “leading” mean? (Market share? Revenue? Brand? Because you say so?)
- What is “operational excellence”? (Who defines it? As compared to what?)
- How does this guide daily decisions? (It doesn’t. Impact the value stream?)
CIWLEARNING Vision (After):
“We deliver IT solutions that reduce client operational costs by 20% while accelerating their time to market by 30%, achieved through AI-powered project management, solution architecture, and continuous optimization.”
What Changed:
✅ Measurable: Did client achieve 20% cost reduction? YES or NO
✅ Client-centric: About THEIR outcomes, not our status
✅ Aligning: Scorecards cascade automatically (CEO → COO → VP → Team → Individual)
✅ Accountable: We track: % of clients achieving 20%/30%
The Seven Game-Changers of Numeric Visions
1. Automatic Alignment (Khadem Scorecards Work)
With numeric vision, scorecards (see Riaz and Linda Khadem (2017) Total Alignment) cascade naturally:
CEO SCORECARD:
- Client cost reduction: 20% (target)
- Client TTM acceleration: 30% (target)
COO SCORECARD (derives from CEO):
- On-time project delivery: 85% (drives TTM)
- Process waste reduction: 15% (drives cost savings)
VP DELIVERY SCORECARD (derives from COO):
- Project cycle time: 6 months (vs. 10 baseline)
TEAM PM SCORECARD:
- Team on-time delivery: 85%
INDIVIDUAL PM SCORECARD:
- My projects on-time: 85%Without numbers in vision: Every level argues about targets
With numbers in vision: Targets are obvious
2. Objective Initiative Prioritization
Scenario: Three AI initiatives competing for $10M budget
Without numeric vision:
“Which advances our vision of operational excellence?”
→ All three claim to improve operations
→ Decision becomes political
With numeric vision:
“Which gets us closest to 20% cost reduction / 30% faster TTM?”
- Initiative A: 30% faster delivery → HIGH (directly advances TTM)
- Initiative B: 12% cost reduction → MEDIUM (partial advance)
- Initiative C: Improves OUR marketing → LOW (doesn’t affect client outcomes)
Decision: Fund A (full), B (pilot), reject C
Numbers eliminate politics.
3. Binary Value Stream Validation
Without numeric vision:
“Did we deliver value to the client?”
“Well, they seemed happy… mostly… I think?”
With numeric vision:
“Did client achieve 20% cost reduction?” → YES or NO
“Did client achieve 30% faster TTM?” → YES or NO
If YES → Document best practices, replicate
If NO → Root cause analysis, process improvement
Binary validation forces learning. Fuzzy validation allows excuses.
4. Sales & Marketing Alignment
Without numeric vision:
Sales: “We improve your operations”
Prospect: “By how much?”
Sales: “Uh… significant improvements… depends on situation…”
Prospect: “So you don’t know?”
With numeric vision:
Sales: “We reduce your costs by 20% and accelerate TTM by 30%”
Prospect: “Can you prove that?”
Sales: “Here are 18 case studies. Average: 21.4% cost reduction, 32.1% TTM improvement”
Prospect: “I’m listening…”
Numeric vision creates credibility. Vague vision creates skepticism.
5. Talent Acquisition Becomes Purpose-Driven
Without numeric vision:
Recruiter: “Join HIS! We’re a leading IT solutions provider!”
Candidate: “So is everyone else…”
With numeric vision:
Recruiter: “Join HIS! We transform client businesses—20% cost reduction, 30% faster TTM. Your work directly delivers those outcomes. Here’s proof.”
Candidate: “Wait, you can measure MY impact on client outcomes?”
Recruiter: “Yes. Every employee has a scorecard connecting their work to client transformation.”
Numeric vision attracts mission-driven talent.
6. Board Governance Becomes Evidence-Based
Without numeric vision:
Board: “Did we achieve our vision?”
CEO: “We’re making great progress (:|)… strong momentum…”
Board: “Okay… I guess we’re good?”
With numeric vision:
Board: “What % of clients achieved 20% cost reduction?”
CEO: “82% exceeded 20%. Average was 21.4%”
Board: “And TTM?”
CEO: “86% exceeded 25% faster. Average was 32.1%”
Board: “Vision validated. What’s blocking the remaining 18%?”
Numeric vision creates accountability. Vague vision creates happy talk.
7. Continuous Improvement Becomes Systematic
Without numeric vision, you can’t use Kirkpatrick/Phillips ROI effectively to assess and evaluate outcomes because you don’t have a target.
With numeric vision:
Kirkpatrick Level 4 (Results):
- Pre-intervention: Clients achieving 18% avg cost reduction
- Post-intervention: Clients achieving 21.4% avg cost reduction
- Gap closed: 3.4 percentage points toward 20% target ✅
Phillips Level 5 (ROI):
- Client benefit: $2.4M additional savings
- HIS cost: $840K
- Client ROI: 286%
Numeric vision makes ROI measurement mandatory, not optional.
SECTION 3: How Customer-Centric Vision Complements (Not Replaces) Organizational Identity
You might be thinking: “If our vision is about CUSTOMER outcomes (I say customer value), what happens to our organizational purpose? Our mission? Our values?”
Good question. And the answer is: you keep all of them.
Customer-centric vision doesn’t REPLACE organizational identity—it just makes it measurable and accountable!
Aspirational. Here’s how it works together at Hamilton Information System (HIS):
OUR PURPOSE (Why We Exist):
“We exist to help organizations transform through the use of technology.”This hasn’t changed. Purpose is WHY the work matters. It’s aspirational and inspirational—it tells your team the deeper meaning behind their work.
OUR MISSION (What We Do):
“We deliver enterprise IT solutions for complex operational challenges”This hasn’t changed either. Mission describes WHAT you do—your scope and focus areas.
OUR VISION (What Customers Achieve, or at least our promise to them):
“We deliver 20% operational cost reduction and 30% faster time-to-market for clients”This is new. Instead of “To be the leading provider of innovative solutions,” we define success as client transformation with measurable outcomes.
OUR VALUES (How We Operate):
“Integrity, ethics, transparency, continuous improvement, client partnership”This hasn’t changed. Values describe HOW you behave while pursuing your mission.
Here’s the key insight:
Your PURPOSE is why you get out of bed.
Your VISION is how you prove you’re succeeding at your purpose.If your purpose is “help organizations transform,” then your vision should quantify what “transformed” looks like: 20% cost reduction, 30% faster TTM. Our goals describe what we must build or do to deliver that vision.
If your purpose is “improve healthcare outcomes,” then your vision should specify outcomes: “Reduce readmission rates by 15%, improve patient satisfaction by 25%.”
The hierarchy works like this:
PURPOSE (Aspirational, unchanging) ↓ MISSION (What we do, stable) ↓ VISION (What success looks like, measurable) ↓ STRATEGY (How we achieve vision, informed response, adaptive) ↓ GOALS (Strategic commitments, time-bound, translate strategy into outcomes) ↓ TACTICS (Initiatives, projects, always changing)
Customer-centric vision (above client assessment) sits between MISSION and STRATEGY. It translates your mission (“we deliver IT solutions”) into measurable client outcomes (“clients achieve 20% cost reduction”).
This gives you the best of both worlds:
✅ Inspiration – Purpose and mission remain aspirational
✅ Accountability – Vision is measurable (did clients achieve 20%/30%?)
✅ Alignment – Vision cascades to scorecards (CEO → COO → VP → Team → Individual)
✅ Validation – You can prove you’re living your purpose
Think of it this way:
Traditional companies say: “Our purpose is to transform organizations” (unmeasurable claim)
CIWLEARNING companies say: “Our purpose is to transform organizations. Here’s proof: 87% of our clients achieved 20%+ cost reduction last year.” (measurable proof of purpose)
Your purpose inspires. Your vision proves you delivered on that purpose.
This isn’t replacing organizational identity—it’s making it real. The Client Assessment speaks to the gap.
SECTION 4: THE CATCH (And How We Solved It)
Headline: “What If We Can’t Deliver?”
Subheadline: The accountability problem with numeric visions—and the readiness solution
Body:
The Problem with Numeric Visions
When we announced “We deliver 20% cost reduction and 30% faster TTM,” everyone said:
“What if you promise 20% and only deliver 15%? You’ve failed publicly!”
They were right to worry.
Numeric visions create massive accountability risk.
But here’s the deeper problem:
What if WE execute flawlessly, but the CLIENT can’t implement the necessary changes?
Our AI tools might be perfect.
Our solution architecture might be brilliant.
Our project management might be flawless.
But if the client:
- Has no change management capability
- Has executive misalignment
- Has terrible data quality
- Has insufficient budget
- Has toxic culture
They won’t achieve 20%/30%. And we’ll be blamed.
The Solution: Client Transformation Readiness Assessment (CTRA)
We invented a predictive diagnostic conceptual framework:
Before engagement, we assess 7 capability dimensions:
- Executive Alignment – Is C-suite aligned on priorities?
- Change Management Capability – Can they implement change?
- Technical Infrastructure – Can they integrate AI tools?
- Data Quality – Can we measure outcomes accurately?
- Talent Capability – Do they have people to execute?
- Budget Commitment – Are they funding this adequately?
- Organizational Culture – Will they resist or embrace change?
We score the client 0-100 points.
Then we predict their success probability:
┌────────────────────┬─────────────┬───────────────────────┐
│ READINESS SCORE │ TIER │ SUCCESS PROBABILITY │
├────────────────────┼─────────────┼───────────────────────┤
│ 90-100 │ Tier 1 │ 90-95% likely to │
│ │ (Optimal) │ achieve 20%/30% │
├────────────────────┼─────────────┼───────────────────────┤
│ 84-89 │ Tier 2 │ 80-89% likely │
│ │ (Strong) │ │
├────────────────────┼─────────────┼───────────────────────┤
│ 69-83 │ Tier 3 │ 65-79% likely │
│ │ (Moderate) │ Predicted: 16-19% │
│ │ │ cost reduction │
├────────────────────┼─────────────┼───────────────────────┤
│ 60-68 │ Tier 4 │ 50-64% likely │
│ │ (At Risk) │ Predicted: 13-16% │
│ │ │ cost reduction │
├────────────────────┼─────────────┼───────────────────────┤
│ Below 60 │ Tier 5 │ <50% likely │
│ │ (Not Ready) │ Recommend: Defer │
└────────────────────┴─────────────┴───────────────────────┘Engagement Decision Rules
Tier 1-2 (80-100 points):
✅ Proceed immediately
✅ Standard terms
✅ 80-95% success probability
Tier 3 (70-79 points):
⚠️ Proceed with conditions:
- Option A: 3-6 month readiness program first
- Option B: Enhanced support during engagement (+20% fee) ⚠️ 65-79% success probability
Tier 4 (60-69 points):
❌ Defer main engagement
✅ Offer 6-9 month readiness program
✅ Re-assess after readiness improves
⚠️ 50-64% success probability (too low for main engagement)
Tier 5 (<60 points):
❌ Decline engagement
✅ Offer diagnostic consulting only
❌ <50% success probability (not viable)
Real Example: ABC Manufacturing
Initial Assessment:
CTRA Score: 68/100 (Tier 4 – At Risk)
Dimension Breakdown:
1. Executive Alignment: 8/10 ✅
2. Change Management: 4/10 ❌ (No Program Manager, past failures)
3. Technical Infrastructure: 9/10 ✅
4. Data Quality: 7/10 ⚠️
5. Talent Capability: 5/10 ❌ (Stretched thin, no AI literacy)
6. Budget Commitment: 9/10 ✅
7. Culture & Learning: 6/10 ❌ (Blame culture, low psych safety)Success Probability: 55-60%
Predicted Outcome: 14% cost reduction (not 20%), 22% TTM acceleration (not 30%)
Our Recommendation:
“ABC, your readiness score is 68/100. We predict 55-60% likelihood of achieving our 20%/30% targets—more likely you’ll achieve 14%/22%.
We recommend a 6-month readiness improvement program ($350K) to address three critical gaps:
- Culture & Learning (6 → 8): Build psychological safety
- Talent Capability (5 → 7): Create capacity, build AI literacy
- Change Management (4 → 7): Establish PMO
After readiness program, we expect your score to reach 85 (Tier 2), giving you 80-85% success probability.
Alternative: We can proceed now with enhanced support, but success probability remains 55-60%. We don’t recommend this.”
ABC’s Response:
CFO: “We appreciate the honesty. Most consultants would just take our money. Let’s do the readiness program.”
CEO: “Agreed. If we’re only 55% likely to succeed, let’s improve the odds first.”
6 Months Later – Re-Assessment:
CTRA Score: 83/100 (Tier 2 – Strong) ✅
Improvements:
- Change Management: 4 → 7 (+3 points)
- Talent Capability: 5 → 7 (+2 points)
- Culture & Learning: 6 → 8 (+2 points)
New Success Probability: 80-85%
New Predicted Outcome: 18-20% cost reduction, 28-30% TTM
Decision: Proceed with main engagement
18 Months Later – Outcome Validation:
Actual Results:
- Cost reduction: 19.2% (target: 20%) ✅ Near-hit
- TTM acceleration: 29.1% (target: 30%) ✅ Near-hit
Analysis:
- Readiness at start: 83/100
- Predicted: 18-20% cost, 28-30% TTM
- Actual: 19.2% cost, 29.1% TTM
- Verdict: Prediction accurate ✅
Client Testimonial:
“HIS was upfront about our readiness gaps. They didn’t just take our money—they helped us get ready first. That 6-month readiness program was the difference between 55% and 85% success probability. We achieved 19.2% cost reduction, just shy of 20%, which is exactly what they predicted. I trust them completely.”
SECTION 5: THE RESULTS
Headline: What Happened When We Implemented This Model
Subheadline: 18 months of data across 22 client engagements
[Aspirational and Conceptual Only]
Business Performance Metrics
┌─────────────────────────────┬──────────┬──────────┬──────────┐
│ METRIC │ BEFORE │ AFTER │ CHANGE │
├─────────────────────────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│ Success Rate │ 72% │ 87% │ +15 pts │
│ (clients achieving 20%/30%) │ │ │ │
├─────────────────────────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│ Client NPS │ 64 │ 78 │ +14 pts │
├─────────────────────────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│ Client Satisfaction │ 8.2/10 │ 9.4/10 │ +1.2 │
├─────────────────────────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│ Failed Engagements │ 28% │ 13% │ -15 pts │
├─────────────────────────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│ Revenue (Annual) │ Baseline │ +$5.2M │ +$5.2M │
│ From Readiness Programs │ $0 │ $1.4M │ +$1.4M │
│ From Higher Close Rate │ Baseline │ +$2.6M │ +$2.6M │
│ From Premium Pricing │ Baseline │ +$1.2M │ +$1.2M │
├─────────────────────────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│ Average Deal Size │ $2.8M │ $3.2M │ +14% │
└─────────────────────────────┴──────────┴──────────┴──────────┘Client Readiness Distribution
22 clients assessed over 18 months (aspirational):
Tier 1 (90-100): 4 clients (18%)
→ All 4 proceeded immediately
→ 4 of 4 achieved 20%/30% (100% success rate)
→ Average: 22.1% cost reduction, 33.2% TTM
Tier 2 (80-89): 8 clients (36%)
→ All 8 proceeded immediately
→ 7 of 8 achieved 20%/30% (88% success rate)
→ Average: 20.8% cost reduction, 30.4% TTM
Tier 3 (70-79): 6 clients (27%)
→ 5 did readiness program first, 1 proceeded with enhanced support
→ 4 of 6 achieved 20%/30% (67% success rate)
→ Average: 18.2% cost reduction, 27.8% TTM
Tier 4 (60-69): 3 clients (14%)
→ All 3 did readiness program first
→ 2 improved to Tier 2, 1 stayed Tier 4 (deferred engagement)
→ 2 proceeded, both achieved 18-19% (near-hit)
Tier 5 (<60): 1 client (5%)
→ Declined engagement
→ Offered diagnostic onlyKey Insight: By filtering for readiness, we increased success rate from 72% → 87%.
What Clients Say
Before CTRA (Old Model):
“We hired HIS to reduce costs. They tried, but we only achieved 12% reduction. Not sure why they couldn’t deliver the 20% they promised.” – Former Client (2023)
After CTRA (New Model):
“HIS told us upfront our readiness was 68/100, and we’d likely achieve 14% cost reduction (not 20%) unless we improved readiness. We did the 6-month readiness program. Then we achieved 19.2%. They were honest from day one.” – ABC Manufacturing CFO (2025)
“Most consultants would have taken our money and hoped for the best. HIS assessed our readiness, told us we were 85/100 (strong), predicted 20-22% cost reduction. We achieved 21.8%. Their prediction was spot-on.” – Tech Services VP Operations (2025)
“We scored 58/100. HIS said we weren’t ready and declined the engagement. That honesty was refreshing. We spent a year improving internally, re-assessed at 82/100, and THEN engaged HIS. Now we’re achieving 20% cost reduction.” – Manufacturing COO (2026)
The Insight Nobody Expected
Transparency creates a forcing function.
When both parties know the readiness score:
✅ Clients hold themselves accountable for improving readiness
✅ We’re protected if they don’t uphold commitments
✅ Failed engagements become “prediction was accurate” not “consultant failed”
✅ Everyone is incentivized to be better
This is the game-changer.
SECTION 6: HOW IT WORKS (The Framework)
Headline: The Complete CIWLEARNING Vision Transformation Model
Body:
The Three-Layer Framework
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ LAYER 0: CLIENT READINESS ASSESSMENT (Prerequisite) │
│ Assess client capability to execute transformation │
│ Score: 0-100 across 7 dimensions │
│ Output: Success probability prediction (50-95%) │
├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ LAYER 1: BUSINESS VISION (Client Transformation Promise) │
│ "We deliver 20% cost reduction + 30% faster TTM" │
│ Not "what we want to become" but "what they achieve" │
├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ LAYER 2: AI AS ENABLER (How We Deliver) │
│ AI-powered project management, solution architecture, │
│ continuous optimization │
├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ LAYER 3: AI GOVERNANCE (How We Deliver Responsibly) │
│ Risk management, incident reporting, continuous learning │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The 7 Readiness Dimensions
Download the full assessment rubric below, but here’s the overview:
1. Executive Alignment (0-10 points)
- Is C-suite aligned on transformation priorities? (Kaizen, CPI)
- Are executive sponsors assigned with clear authority?
- Red flag: CFO and COO disagree on budget allocation
2. Change Management Capability (0-10 points)
- Can the client implement and sustain organizational change?
- Do they have change management methodology (Prosci, ADKAR, Kotter, PMI, Agile, Lean)?
- Red flag: Past 3 transformation attempts failed
3. Technical Infrastructure Readiness (0-10 points)
- Do they have technical foundation to adopt AI tools?
- Can we integrate with their systems?
- Red flag: Core systems on AS/400 with no APIs
4. Data Quality & Availability (0-10 points)
- Can we measure baseline and outcomes accurately?
- Do they know their current costs?
- Red flag: Finance and Operations report different cost figures
5. Talent Capability & Capacity (0-10 points)
- Do they have people to implement and sustain changes?
- Is AI literacy present?
- Red flag: Everyone at 110% utilization, zero capacity
6. Budget & Resource Commitment (0-10 points)
- Are they funding transformation adequately?
- Is budget ring-fenced or at risk?
- Red flag: “We need ROI in 6 months or funding gets cut”
7. Organizational Culture & Learning (0-10 points)
- Does culture support experimentation and change?
- Is there psychological safety?
- Red flag: Employees afraid to report problems
Total Score: 0-100 points
The Engagement Decision Framework (Conceptual)
Score 90-100 (Tier 1 - Optimal)
→ Proceed immediately
→ Standard terms, standard timeline
→ 90-95% success probability
→ Premium pricing applicable
Score 80-89 (Tier 2 - Strong)
→ Proceed immediately
→ Standard terms
→ 80-89% success probability
Score 70-79 (Tier 3 - Moderate)
→ Choice:
A. 3-6 month readiness program first ($150K-$350K)
B. Proceed with enhanced support (+20% fee)
→ 65-79% success probability
→ Realistic outcome: 16-19% cost reduction (not 20%)
Score 60-69 (Tier 4 - At Risk)
→ Mandatory: 6-9 month readiness program first ($350K-$500K)
→ Re-assess after program
→ If improved to 75+: Proceed
→ If still <75: Defer indefinitely
Score Below 60 (Tier 5 - Not Ready)
→ Decline engagement
→ Offer: Diagnostic consulting only
→ Revisit after 12-18 months if client improves readinessImplementation Timeline (Aspirational)
Phase 1: Assessment (2 weeks)
- On-site diagnostic (2 days)
- C-suite interviews
- Operations tour
- Data quality review
- Scoring & analysis
Phase 2: Readiness Program (If Needed: 3-9 months)
- Address top 2-3 readiness gaps
- Build change management capability
- Improve culture & learning
- Re-assess at end
Phase 3: Main Engagement (12-24 months)
- AI tool deployment
- Solution architecture optimization
- Continuous improvement cycles
- Quarterly readiness monitoring
Phase 4: Outcome Validation (Month 18-24)
- Kirkpatrick Level 4: Did client achieve 20%/30%?
- Phillips Level 5: What was ROI?
- Predicted vs. Actual analysis
SECTION 7: RESOURCES & DOWNLOADS
Headline: Get the Complete Framework (Free, TBD)
We’re open-sourcing the entire CIWLEARNING Vision Transformation methodology.
Available Downloads
📄 The Complete CTRA Assessment Rubric
Multi-page guide with:
- Detailed scoring criteria for all 7 dimensions
- Interview questions for each dimension
- Red flag indicators
- Scoring calculator (Excel)
[RUBRIC TBD]
📊 Vision Statement Template Library
15 industry-specific templates:
- IT Services
- Manufacturing
- Healthcare
- Professional Services
- SaaS / Technology
- Financial Services
- Retail
- Education
- Non-Profit
- Government / Public Sector
[TEMPLATES TBD]
📈 Readiness Program Design Guide
How to build 3-6-9 month readiness programs:
- Curriculum design
- Pricing models (TBD)
- ROI justification
- Before/after case studies
[GUIDE TBD]
🎯 Scorecard Cascade Workbook
Excel workbook for cascading numeric visions:
- CEO → COO → VP → Team → Individual
- Automated KPI derivation
- Quarterly review templates
- Khadem-style individual scorecards
[WORKBOOK TBD] (Excel)
📚 Case Study Collection
5 detailed case studies:
- ABC Manufacturing (68 → 83 readiness, 19.2% outcome)
- Tech Services Co. (Tier 1, 22% outcome)
- Healthcare Provider (Tier 3, readiness program success)
- Financial Services (Tier 4, deferred then succeeded)
- Manufacturing Co. (Tier 5, declined engagement)
[CASE STUDIES TBD]
🎓 Implementation Playbook
Step-by-step guide to implement at your organization:
- Months 1-3: Build assessment capability
- Months 4-6: Pilot with 5 clients
- Months 7-12: Scale to all prospects
- Year 2+: Refine and optimize
[PLAYBOOK TBD]
💡 ROI Calculator
Calculate expected ROI from:
- Improved success rates (72% → 87%)
- Readiness program revenue ($1.4M annually)
- Premium pricing for Tier 1 clients
- Higher close rates
[CALCULATOR TBD] (Excel)