PortfolioEL-01

Engagement Leadership · Control room

Adoption & Change Readiness

SIMULATEDVerified Jul 2, 2026

A pilot that works technically still dies if the people don't adopt it. Score the six factors that decide adoption and the gate tells you whether to scale — and the plan tells you what to fix first.

Same instrument · three industries — pick a use-case to reconfigure the run

Readiness factors · weight shown

78

Is a visible leader actively backing this?

52

Do users believe the assist, and can they override?

64

Does it live in the tool they already use?

60

Role-based, or one all-hands and hope?

66

Two-way and fast, or broadcast-only?

45

Does the scorecard reward using it?

Composite readiness

63/100

Scale with conditions
Hold6075Scale

I gate below 60 because I've watched pilots that scaled anyway die at week six — the trust wasn't there and the floor knew it.

Two-week adoption plan

  1. FixIncentive alignmentat 45

    Fix the scorecard — reward assisted-handle quality, not raw handle time; drop the metric that punishes usage.

  2. FixTrust in outputat 52

    Publish an accuracy scorecard and a one-click override; run a 'show your work' session with the loudest skeptics.

  3. FixTraining coverageat 60

    Role-based training waves, not an all-hands; certify floor champions first.

Always on: one floor champion per ~15 users, a two-week feedback loop, and a visible fix log so users see their input ship.

Conditional go — fix the flagged factors in parallel with the ramp

The composite is dragged most by incentive alignment. Adoption is a trust problem wearing a training problem's clothes — spend the two weeks there, not on another demo.

Steering-committee takeaway: The model was never the risk. The 900 people who have to trust it were.

Resume echo — Gen AI rollouts at AMEX; the adoption half of the 4.5× scale story.

How this is built

Composite = weighted sum of six factors (sponsorship 25% · trust 20% · workflow 15% · training 15% · comms 15% · incentives 10%). Gate: ≥75 scale · 60–74 conditions · <60 hold.

The plan is generated from the weakest factors (below 70), each mapped to a concrete first move; the champion ratio scales with the population.

Stack: Next.js (static) + shared design system; client-side only.

Limitations: weights are defensible defaults, not calibrated against outcome data; scoring is judgment-based. The instrument structures the readiness conversation — it doesn't replace it.