Every week, decisions are made at department level about how growth weighs against margin, or speed against care. This page shows how the tool captures that in four steps, what you supply for it, and what happens at each step. More on the structure of vision, vision state, target and target state can be found on What it is; what the report concretely delivers is on Outcomes.
You supply a list of participants: management and a broader layer, each with their own scope. The tool sends invitations and brings everyone to the same starting point via a short module — the same definitions of vision, vision state, target and target state, so that no one later applies their own interpretation of those same words. This step requires no joint time: everyone goes through the module at their own moment, from board member to team lead. The time goes into compiling the list, not into scheduling a session.
Structured theme questionnaires are sent out organization-wide. You supply nothing but the participants themselves: everyone fills in from their own position what is at play on the theme, because the work floor often knows the playing field better than management does. The questionnaires are divided among multiple people — no one fills in the whole, and no one needs to be at the table at the same time to do so. The tool collects the answers and places them side by side; this is where the first view emerges of where the organization already agrees and where it does not.
Based on the theme answers, every participant writes ambitions. This is the moment when words must become concrete: not "grow" but a target state with a completion percentage and a date. The tool detects overlap between ambitions from different participants, enforces measurability — you cannot save a target state without a completion percentage — and closes the round with a weighted vote that produces the priorities. This round, too, is asynchronous: everyone writes and votes at their own moment, spread across the organization. The time goes into formulating, not into aligning with each other — the tool does that.
Every prioritized ambition goes through eight readiness dimensions and five confidence gates. This is where the input is tested on something other than language: is there budget, is the capacity there, is the dependency on another team identified. What does not pass a gate is not silently let through — the tool adjusts or phases the ambition, and records the reason with the ambition. What passes the check receives recognition signals: observable signs showing that the ambition is progressing, not only visible upon completion. This step is machine work on the supplied answers — no interpretation added, which makes the outcome explainable: every decision in the report can be traced back to an answer from step 2 or 3, a detected conflict, or a gate that was not passed.
The result is a dossier per ambition: the capability gaps, the roles that go with them, where the decision rights lie, a quarterly rhythm, the recognition-signal checklist and agenda templates for your own quarterly review. This is route 1 — the report as a standalone working document. If you want to go through the ambition round physically with management instead of only digitally, there is route 2: a partner facilitates that session on top of the digital round, and the tool remains the dossier. Route 3 is a full ambition process at the partner, with the report as the starting dossier. In all three routes, the tool does not prescribe the vision for you — the words remain yours, and only then does someone steer by them.
The report is not a snapshot that stands still after delivery. Going through it again a quarter later shows which recognition signals actually occurred and which ambitions got stuck on a gate that was already doubtful earlier. Because the first round is recorded as a dossier, a repeat is not a new discussion about definitions, but a comparison of the same targets against new answers. This makes visible whether the weighing between growth and margin, or between speed and care, still matches what is happening in the organization — or whether that weighing itself is due for revision. For those who want to go deeper into the background of the method, further explanation is available in the knowledge base.
A strategic theme only becomes reality once it lands in tasks, hours and systems — and that is a different scale than a quarterly ambition. Those who want to know what that looks like concretely will find on ftetoai.com the work scan that connects to it.
Vertel wat u wilt bereiken, dan kijken we samen wat daarvoor moet staan.
Answers come from this site’s knowledge base. Not tailored advice, and not a scan of your company.