Engagements described without naming them
AI Readiness & Adoption Advisory
Two departments were backing different AI tools, each with its own usage figures. Working from access logs rather than internal surveys, the gap explained itself: one tool counted logins, the other open sessions. The roadmap was built on actual usage, and several projects were dropped as a result.
Independent Data Quality Audit
Two systems produced conflicting figures for the same indicator, but only at month end. The gap came from the cut-off date: one closed on the 30th, the other on the last working day. That single point took three days to isolate; the eleven other flaws were ranked by their impact on the board decision, which was made weeks after the debrief.
Monthly Reporting Framework
Each regional team counted beneficiaries its own way: some by enrolment, others by completion. Two regions rejected the shared framework for six weeks, arguing it understated their results. The resolution was to publish both measures side by side for one cycle, then move to the single definition in Impact Nova.
Built by Diamnova: Impact Nova
Reporting Framework Design
The executive committee had dashboards nobody opened: they answered questions no one was asking anymore. We rebuilt the architecture from the decisions actually made in session, which meant removing more indicators than we added. The client kept two indicators against our advice — they are still there, and that was their call.
Our references are anonymous for the same reason your data never leaves your browser: we do not talk about our clients without their written consent. References available on request.
We do not publish our clients, but we do publish our method. An anonymised deliverable extract — report structure, indicator framework, debrief format — is available below — six pages, no form required.
Download the deliverable extract (PDF, 6 pages)
