Each section is scored out of 10 points.
9–10 → Installed System (Controlled Execution)
You have defined rules. Work is processed consistently. Execution is predictable.
5–8 → Partial System (Inconsistent Execution)
Some structure exists, but execution varies. People fill the gaps.
0–4 → No System (Reactive Execution) ⚠️
No defined rules. Work relies on reaction, follow-up, and individual effort.
1. PROCESS
Score: X / 10
What This Measures
Whether your operation has clearly defined processing rules for how work moves from:
Input → Action → Outcome
Or if work is handled differently each time.
What This Looks Like in Practice
Strong Process:
- Every RFI follows the same path
- Every project kickoff follows the same structure
- Every bid moves through defined stages
Weak Process:
- "It depends on the PM"
- Steps are skipped or reordered
- Workflows live in people's heads
What We're Seeing
- Inputs (bids, RFIs, tasks) are handled differently depending on the person
- No consistent "next step" when work enters the system
- Execution relies on memory instead of structure
Why This Matters
Without defined processing rules:
- Work gets recreated every time
- Execution becomes inconsistent
- Small issues compound into larger problems
Recommended Actions
- Map your top 5 workflows (bid → kickoff → execution → closeout)
- Define "when X happens → do Y" for each step
- Standardize sequence, ownership, and required inputs
Resource / Exercise
Write down:
- The last 3 projects you ran
- Step-by-step what actually happened
That—not what you think—is your current process
2. ACCOUNTABILITY
Score: X / 10
What This Measures
Whether ownership is built into your system—or depends on follow-up.
What This Looks Like in Practice
Strong Accountability:
- Every task has a clearly assigned owner
- Ownership is visible and tracked
- Work doesn't move without responsibility
Weak Accountability:
- "The team is handling it"
- Tasks sit until someone follows up
- Ownership changes depending on the situation
What We're Seeing
- Ownership unclear across RFIs, closeout, and field coordination
- Tasks depend on reminders rather than assignment
- Work is completed inconsistently
Why This Matters
Without ownership:
- Work gets delayed
- Issues fall through the cracks
- No one is responsible for outcomes
Recommended Actions
- Assign an owner to every step in your workflows
- Make ownership visible in a system
- Eliminate shared responsibility without clarity
Resource / Exercise
Take one workflow (RFIs, submittals, etc.):
For each step, answer:
"Who is responsible for this being completed?"
If you hesitate—you found a gap.
3. FAILURE MODE
Score: X / 10
What This Measures
Whether your system detects problems early—or relies on people to notice them.
What This Looks Like in Practice
Strong Failure Detection:
- Aging RFIs are flagged automatically
- Schedule delays are visible early
- Issues are surfaced before impact
Weak Failure Detection:
- Problems discovered during meetings
- Issues identified after delays occur
- Reliance on escalation
What We're Seeing
- Issues discovered late in the process
- No early warning indicators
- Problems identified through communication, not systems
Why This Matters
Late detection leads to:
- Rework
- Delays
- Increased cost
Recommended Actions
- Track aging items (RFIs, tasks, approvals)
- Define thresholds (e.g., "RFI > 5 days = flagged")
- Surface issues automatically
Resource / Exercise
Ask:
"How would I know something is off—without asking anyone?"
If the answer is unclear → no detection system exists.
4. PEOPLE DEPENDENCY
Score: X / 10
What This Measures
How much your operation depends on specific individuals vs system-driven execution.
What This Looks Like in Practice
Low Dependency:
- Work continues regardless of who is present
- Knowledge is captured in systems
- Processes are transferable
High Dependency:
- "Only X knows how to do this"
- Work stalls when people are unavailable
- Knowledge lives in experience, not systems
What We're Seeing
- Heavy reliance on PMs and foremen
- Knowledge not documented or systemized
- Execution varies based on experience
Why This Matters
High dependency creates:
- Bottlenecks
- Risk
- Limited scalability
Recommended Actions
- Document repeatable workflows
- Capture decision logic in systems
- Train teams on standardized processes
Resource / Exercise
Ask:
"If this person left tomorrow, what breaks?"
That's your dependency risk.
5. VISIBILITY
Score: X / 10
What This Measures
Whether you can see what's happening in real time—or rely on updates and communication.
What This Looks Like in Practice
High Visibility:
- Project status visible instantly
- Tasks, budgets, and timelines accessible
- No need to ask for updates
Low Visibility:
- Status requires meetings or calls
- Information is scattered
- Teams operate with partial information
What We're Seeing
- No single source of truth
- Requires manual updates to understand status
- Information fragmented across tools
Why This Matters
Without visibility:
- Decisions are delayed
- Issues stay hidden
- Teams become misaligned
Recommended Actions
- Create a centralized system for tracking work
- Build dashboards for key metrics
- Eliminate duplicate tracking
Resource / Exercise
Ask:
"Can I see the status of every active project in under 30 seconds?"
If not → visibility gap.
6. COST / CASH
Score: X / 10
What This Measures
How operational inefficiencies translate into financial impact.
What This Looks Like in Practice
Controlled Cost:
- Delays and inefficiencies are tracked
- Financial impact is visible
- Decisions are tied to cost
Uncontrolled Cost:
- Time loss is untracked
- Delays go unnoticed financially
- Margins erode without visibility
What We're Seeing
- Time loss in execution and coordination
- Delays impacting profitability
- No direct tie between workflow and cost
Why This Matters
Operational gaps =
- Lost labor
- Delayed payments
- Reduced margins
Recommended Actions
- Track time and delays by workflow
- Connect operational issues to cost impact
- Identify high-cost inefficiencies
Resource / Exercise
Ask:
"Where are we losing time—but not measuring it?"
That's where margin is leaking.
7. SCALABILITY
Score: X / 10
What This Measures
Whether your operation can handle increased volume without breaking.
What This Looks Like in Practice
Scalable:
- Systems handle increased workload
- Workflows remain consistent
- Teams don't rely on hero effort
Not Scalable:
- More work = more chaos
- Teams become overloaded
- Quality drops
What We're Seeing
- Increased workload creates coordination issues
- Systems rely on capacity, not structure
- Execution breaks under pressure
Why This Matters
If it doesn't scale:
- Growth creates risk
- Teams burn out
- Execution quality drops
Recommended Actions
- Standardize workflows
- Reduce manual steps
- Build systems that handle volume
Resource / Exercise
Ask:
"If we doubled our workload tomorrow, what breaks first?"
That's your scalability limit.
🔥 FINAL NOTE (TO TIE IT ALL TOGETHER)
This isn't about fixing isolated issues.
It's about installing a system where:
Inputs are processed consistently, without relying on memory, follow-up, or individual effort
Right now, most operations run on:
Input → Reaction → Outcome
The goal is:
Input → Rule → Action → Controlled Outcome