Performance Consultant AI
Describe the situation in your own words. Performance Consultant establishes the gap, weighs six conditions, tells you which ones are binding, and hands you a report you can take into a decision. It works with whatever you have.
The whole diagnosis runs as a conversation.
Four reports, ready to send.
The gap established, six conditions weighed.
Four steps, and you only do the first one.
Type it, record the intake with your internal client, or drop in an audio file, a video, a document or a spreadsheet. In the language the conversation happened in.
The gap and what it costs, who already reaches the target, and which of six conditions is actually binding. It shows the reasoning as it goes, and it works with what is there.
The full analysis, an executive page, a manager's page, and a deck for the meeting. Each in the language your reader needs, with a plain-language switch on all of them.
Every report says how far its evidence reaches and what that is already good enough for. Where one more source would move it, you are told once, with the effort.
The full report.
Performance consulting has been the right answer since 1962. It stayed with specialists for one reason: running it properly took a trained person about a week per question, and almost nobody has that week.
So this is built the other way around. You bring the conversation you were going to have anyway. Nothing is required, nothing is blocked, and no report waits on data you do not have. When something would make the analysis more reliable, you get told once, with the effort it takes and what it would change. Then you decide.
The skill was never the arithmetic. It was knowing which sum to do.
Clinical reasoning did not change when imaging arrived. The examination got faster and the evidence got harder, and nobody thought less of the physician.
You are asked for things people can count: how many people, how many days, how often a month. Rates, loaded costs and standard durations come from our own country tables, filled in silently and editable if you care to look.
Many organisations have no financial figures and never will. The gap can be sized in hours, in full-time equivalents, or in waiting days, incidents and complaints. Missing money never lowers the confidence in the diagnosis, because money is not evidence of cause.
Suggestions for more reliable evidence appear in one place, ranked by what they add per hour of work, and they can be dismissed. Decline once and you will not be asked again.
Same method, same six conditions, same report. What differs is who is holding it when it lands.
A number is going the wrong way and there are already three remedies on the table: reorganise, replace the system, run a programme. Everyone in the room is certain, and each is certain of something different.
For the manager or director who owns the result, and for quality, safety, OD and continuous improvement
Someone has already named the solution and asked you to deliver it. Every request is real, and most of them arrive as a course because that is what the market sells. Whether this one will move the number is the question nobody has asked out loud yet.
For L&D, learning advisors and HR business partners, who receive most of these
And the answer is often yes. Across the cases behind this site, in nearly half of them the requested remedy turned out to be the right kind of answer, usually at a different size. A tool that can conclude "run the course" is a tool worth trusting when it concludes something else.
Not a grade on your data. A statement about which decisions this evidence will carry, so you can act at the level you are at instead of waiting for a level you may never reach.
One account, nothing tested against an independent source
Directing a first conversation. Not for committing money.
A testable statement, and what would confirm it named
Deciding where to look, and holding a commitment while you look.
One independent source supports it
Stopping or resizing a proposed remedy, and starting a pilot.
Two independent sources of different kinds agree
A funding decision, and the conversation with the board.
Tested three ways, one of them a system record
A contested decision, and a business case that will be attacked.
Arranged around the performer, by somebody else
Expectations, the standard, and feedback that arrives while it can still be used.
Tools, materials, time, authority, and the process the work has to travel through.
What the organisation pays for, tolerates and counts, including what it pays for by accident.
Carried by the performer
Whether the person can do it at all, having been taught and having practised.
Whether this person could, under any instruction: aptitude, health, physical fit.
Whether the work matches what the person came for.
Six conditions, after Thomas Gilbert (1978).
Every condition is scored on what holds the result back and on what is already pushing it forward. The cheapest fix is often strengthening something that works rather than installing something new.
A condition explaining a fifth of the gap that a manager can change next week usually goes before one explaining half that needs two directors to agree. You get both numbers. You decide the order.
The method knows which condition is binding. It cannot know who in your organisation can change it or how long that takes. So it suggests, marks the suggestion as typical, and asks you.
A reorganisation can be exactly right. So can a platform, a culture programme and the training that was asked for.
Nobody here needs to be taught their job. What changes is that the analysis takes minutes instead of a week, and that the conclusion arrives with its evidence attached.
You own the number, so you own the consequence. Now you can establish the cause before the budget moves, in the week you actually have.
The conversation with the business happens in the business's own currency, and the request that lands on your desk gets tested before it gets scheduled.
Most requests still arrive as a course. Some of them should be. You will know which, and you will be able to show why.
The same discipline you apply to a process, applied to the human side of it, with the same insistence on measuring before changing.
Environment before person, by design. The conditions that produce the behaviour come first, and the report says which are binding.
Culture programmes get a cause to aim at, and the ones that would not have moved the number get stopped before the kickoff.
Each carries the same findings and the same confidence level. What changes is length, register and what the reader is being asked to do. A plain-language switch sits on all of them.
Gap, six conditions with their evidence and share, both sides of the force field, ruled out, direction for the solution, and what would raise the level.
Bottom line, the size of the problem, the decision, what we need from you, and the confidence level with what it supports.
Advice, four numbered actions with effort and owner, and what to watch for to know the diagnosis held.
A deck for the room where the decision is taken, including the plate that shows who inside the organisation already reaches the target.
It counts, and it never judges. Free, unlimited, no login, in money, in time or in your own units. Nothing on this panel is a claim about what you will save.
$670,150
Across thirty years of this work the return on the analysis ran to multiples of its cost, and more than once to ten or twenty times.
How to read the numbers on this site. Practice cases carry a named practitioner and an unnamed client, with arithmetic that reconciles. Simulations are labelled as simulations and show how the reasoning runs, never to claim a result. A diagnosis is a prediction until it is measured, so every engagement is re-measured at six and twelve months, and the annual index reports what actually moved.
The book behind the product and the first three white papers of the series, published in full as pages you can read right here.
One prevented mid-size commitment funds the entry licence for years, and the calculator shows you why on your own numbers.
$0 forever
$19,000 / year
Per unit not per seat
Site licence
A seat gives you the instrument. Certification makes your people certified performance consultants. Pricing the problem is free for everyone, forever. You pay for the diagnosis, not for the arithmetic.
Prices in US dollars. Regional pricing applies outside North America and Western Europe. Certification: Foundation $2,900 per participant, Master Investigator $6,900 per participant. Enterprise purchases through Azure Marketplace can count against an existing Microsoft Azure consumption commitment.
None beyond a description of the situation: the diagnosis runs on what you bring, states honestly what that supports, and tells you once, at the end, what would make it stronger.
Then the gap is sized in hours or in your own units, which is common in public and not-for-profit work, and the confidence in the diagnosis is unaffected because money is not evidence of cause.
No, and this site opens on a reorganisation for that reason: training is one of six conditions the method weighs, and most of the money sits in the other five.
Nobody is proposing six months: the analysis takes minutes when the material is there and the report names its own limits, so the meter stops running while you decide rather than while you research.
It shows its reasoning, tags every cause with how far the evidence reaches, prints a confidence level with what that level supports, and never assumes who in your organisation can change what.
Every report has a plain-language switch, every large number carries a comparison, and any sentence can be selected for a simpler explanation drawn from your own case.
On Microsoft Azure in the region you choose, with isolated per-customer storage and enterprise controls, and our own security attestation covers the application layer that Azure's does not.
One predictable investment with no meter and no per-diagnosis charge, and the calculator stays free and unlimited for everyone in your organisation, forever.
Bring the commitment that is about to be made, with whatever you happen to have about it. We run it end to end, you keep the report either way, and you decide afterwards whether the instrument belongs in your organisation.
The site is in English and Dutch. The diagnosis runs in your team's own language, and the report comes back in the language your board reads.