A complete example for a fictional team, section by section: the team's identity, its health check across 18 KPIs, where the team agrees and where it only looks aligned, and the one thing to work on first.
Example team: 7 members, product development
Snapshot survey · 7 of 7 answered · fictional
- Team identity
- The Guild
- Team Net Value
- 60 / 100
- Overall health
- 3.8 / 5
- Biggest lever
- Delivery Methodology
Every number on this page is invented to show the shape of the report. A real report is generated from your team's answers and appears only once at least 3 members have responded (the owner's own answer excluded). Individual answers are never shown.
Four dimensions, sixteen identities. The report tells the team which one it is, what that is good for and where it gets in the way.
Team identity · Executors family
The Guild
“Mastery above all.”
- Internal
- Stable
- Consensus
- Optimization
Specialized artisans who care deeply about their craft and each other. They protect quality standards and support one another like a tight-knit family.
Focus
Structure
Interaction
Value Creation
Strengths
- Highest quality output
- Deep specialized expertise
- Strong retention
Blind spots
- Elitism
- Speed
- Resistance to "good enough"
Growth edge
A high-performing Guild understands that shipping a B+ product today is often better than an A+ product next year, and learns to take pride in efficiency as much as in quality.
Read the full profile of The Guild (ISCO) or browse all 16 team identities.
Fictional team, invented scores. A real report shows aggregated results only once at least 3 team members have answered (the owner's own answer does not count); individual answers are never shown.
Team Net Value in one number, then the 18 KPIs behind it. Each KPI links to its definition on the methodology page.
Your team generates real value—reduce friction to reach excellence
How the 60 comes about
- Input · Process · Output
- 3.8 · 3.8 · 3.6
- Value points created
- 68 / 100
- Friction tax (friction 2.4 / 5)
- −12 %
- Team Net Value
- 60
Friction multiplies rather than subtracts: a team that creates little value gains nothing from low friction, and high friction can erase a strong team's work. Strongest KPI here: Trust & Safety (4.5). Weakest: Delivery Methodology (2.9).
How Team Net Value is computedInput5 KPIs
What the team starts with: purpose, resources, organisation and leadership.
- Purpose & Objectives3.9/ 5
- Values & Vision4.1/ 5
- Environment & Resources3.6/ 5
- Team Organization3.8/ 5
- Leadership Principles3.4/ 5
Process10 KPIs
How the team works together day to day.
- Social Cohesion4.4/ 5
- Innovation & Growth3.1/ 5
- Delivery Methodology2.9/ 5
- Inner Drive4.2/ 5
- Feedback & Development3.3/ 5
- Motivation & Focus3.7/ 5
- Trust & Safety4.5/ 5
- Communication Culture3.8/ 5
- Conflict Navigation3.5/ 5
Output2 KPIs
What the team delivers and what it changes.
- Team Output4.3/ 5
- Organizational Impact3.0/ 5
Friction1 KPI
Energy lost on the way. The only KPI where a high score is bad.
- Friction & Consumption2.4/ 5
Fictional team, invented scores. A real report shows aggregated results only once at least 3 team members have answered (the owner's own answer does not count); individual answers are never shown.
The Consensus Matrix plots each KPI by its average score and by how closely the members agree. A high score with low agreement is a hidden concern: the average looks fine but part of the team disagrees.
Team alignment
71 / 100
How consistently the members answered across all 18 KPIs.
Hidden concerns
1
KPIs that score 3.5 or higher where the spread of answers is wide (σ ≥ 1.0).
Strengths
2
High score, high agreement. Open the debrief here.
| KPI | Average | Agreement | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trust & Safety | 4.5 | Highσ 0.5 | Strength Everyone agrees people can speak up. The foundation for the harder conversations below. |
| Social Cohesion | 4.4 | Highσ 0.6 | Strength High score, tight spread: the team values its bonds, and says so with one voice. Worth naming in the workshop. |
| Team Output | 4.3 | Lowσ 1.2 | Hidden concern The average looks good, but the answers run from 2 to 5: some members rate the craft top marks, others see too little shipped. A 4.3 that part of the team does not believe is not a strength yet. |
| Feedback & Development | 3.3 | Mediumσ 0.9 | Known challenge A middling score the team broadly agrees on: no surprise, but also no plan yet. |
| Organizational Impact | 3.0 | Highσ 0.7 | Known challenge Everyone agrees the team does not see the effect of what it ships. A known gap, not a disputed one. |
| Delivery Methodology | 2.9 | Lowσ 1.3 | Unclear The lowest KPI in the report, and the members do not even agree on what is wrong with the way of working. The One Big Thing starts here. |
- Trust & SafetyStrength
- Average
- 4.5
- Agreement
- Highσ 0.5
Everyone agrees people can speak up. The foundation for the harder conversations below.
- Social CohesionStrength
- Average
- 4.4
- Agreement
- Highσ 0.6
High score, tight spread: the team values its bonds, and says so with one voice. Worth naming in the workshop.
- Team OutputHidden concern
- Average
- 4.3
- Agreement
- Lowσ 1.2
The average looks good, but the answers run from 2 to 5: some members rate the craft top marks, others see too little shipped. A 4.3 that part of the team does not believe is not a strength yet.
- Feedback & DevelopmentKnown challenge
- Average
- 3.3
- Agreement
- Mediumσ 0.9
A middling score the team broadly agrees on: no surprise, but also no plan yet.
- Organizational ImpactKnown challenge
- Average
- 3.0
- Agreement
- Highσ 0.7
Everyone agrees the team does not see the effect of what it ships. A known gap, not a disputed one.
- Delivery MethodologyUnclear
- Average
- 2.9
- Agreement
- Lowσ 1.3
The lowest KPI in the report, and the members do not even agree on what is wrong with the way of working. The One Big Thing starts here.
Six of the 18 KPIs are shown here; the real report lists all of them. Agreement is the spread of the members' answers: high below σ 0.8, low from σ 1.2.
Fictional team, invented scores. A real report shows aggregated results only once at least 3 team members have answered (the owner's own answer does not count); individual answers are never shown.
Rule-based, not hand-written: the report checks the team in a fixed order, Trust & Safety first (below 2.5), then Purpose & Objectives (below 3.0), then Friction (above 4.0), then a hidden concern in a key KPI, and only then takes the lowest-scoring KPI. The first trigger it hits becomes one recommendation with concrete actions.
Agree what "done" means before the next release
Why this, why now
Trust & Safety (4.5), Purpose & Objectives (3.9) and Friction (2.4) are all healthy, and no high score in a key pillar is disputed by the team, so the report takes the lowest-scoring KPI: Delivery Methodology at 2.9, where the members do not even agree on what is wrong. For a Guild this is the typical pattern: work gets polished past the point where it creates value, and nobody has agreed when a piece of work is finished.
What to do
- 1
Pick the next piece of work and write a one-paragraph definition of "done" together before anyone starts.
Whole team · Low effort · This week
- 2
Add a fixed slot to the weekly review: what shipped, what it changed for the people who use it.
Team lead · Low effort · Next two weeks
- 3
Run a 60-minute retrospective on the last three deliveries: where did extra polish pay off, where did it only cost time?
Facilitator · Medium effort · Within four weeks
Expected impact
Delivery Methodology moves first and Organizational Impact follows once the team sees what it ships land; the re-survey shows whether the spread of answers on the way of working has narrowed.
Quick win: Name the strengths out loud
Trust & Safety (4.5) and Social Cohesion (4.4) are the team’s best scores. Open the debrief with them; the harder findings land better afterwards.
Quick win: Ask where the answers split
Delivery Methodology and Team Output are the KPIs the members disagree on most. One open question in the workshop ("what do we keep polishing that nobody asked for?") usually surfaces the concrete cases.
Fictional team, invented scores. A real report shows aggregated results only once at least 3 team members have answered (the owner's own answer does not count); individual answers are never shown.
A report is a snapshot. This is what the team, or the coach, does with it.
- 1
Debrief with the team
A 90-minute workshop: identity (15 min), health check (20 min), where the team agrees and where it is split (25 min), the One Big Thing and who does what (30 min).
- 2
Work the One Big Thing
Three actions, each with an owner and a date. Nothing else from the report is on the plan yet.
- 3
Re-survey after 90 days
Same 18 KPIs, same scale. The second report sits next to this one and shows what moved.
Create your team, invite the members, and get the real version of this report once enough of them have answered. About 12 minutes per member, 18 KPIs.
Free during early access, no credit card. Hosted in the EU.