IGX Solutions
Talk to IGX

Example report

Process Deep Dive Assessment

A fictional sample, generated by the same scoring and report as a real result. The organisation, scope and answers are invented for illustration.

Confidence Moderate confidence 60/100
Process Deep Dive Assessment

Process Deep Dive: Customer complaints handling (example)

A useful basis exists but material confirmation or improvement remains. Identify specific gaps and owners.

The score reflects the declared maturity of each position and the basis on which the answer is given. It is not a certification, a valuation, an implementation approval or a guarantee of suitability, and it is not a measure of process quality or organisational maturity.

3 of 9 relevant gates need a condition. A favourable average cannot clear a gate. Treat each condition below as a blocker, or as a need for specialist confirmation, before relying on this result.

Confidence profile

Scored questions
48 of 76
Completion
100%
Unknown
4
Disputed
3
Not applicable
20 (20 in modules not relevant)
Gates
3 of 9 need a condition
Assessment type
Deep Dive completed online (not yet facilitated)
Scope assessed
Process: Customer complaints handling (example)
Assessment date
2026-10-01
12345678
1. Process scope and truth70/100
6 scored
2. Fitness and case for change53/100
6 scored, 1 unknown, 1 disputed
3. Demand, decisions and variation69/100
6 scored
4. Comparative operating fit54/100
6 scored, 1 disputed
5. Information and technology56/100
6 scored, 1 unknown
6. Consequence, control and rights70/100
6 scored
7. People and operational readiness40/100
6 scored, 1 unknown, 1 disputed
8. Assurance, justification and decision70/100
6 scored

Conditional findings

Reported separately. These scores are not part of the overall figure.

Human-ledNot relevant
Recorded reason: Not a credible option for this example scope
Workflow43/100
4 scored, 1 unknown
Task automationNot relevant
Recorded reason: Not a credible option for this example scope
Technology assistance65/100
4 scored
Supervised Agentic AINot relevant
Recorded reason: Not a credible option for this example scope
Governed autonomyNot relevant
Recorded reason: Not a credible option for this example scope

Gates and conditions

  • Condition Quality thresholds. Condition needed: Unknown.
  • Condition Access and segregation. Condition needed: Below 60% confidence.
  • Condition Exception routing. Condition needed: Unknown.
  • Clear Accountable ownership. No condition.
  • Clear Consequence assessment. No condition.
  • Clear Obligations. No condition.
  • Clear Containment and recovery. No condition.
  • Clear Acceptance thresholds. No condition.
  • Clear Representative assurance. No condition.

Operating-fit direction

Direction is a judgement made from the pattern of answers, the gates and the modules you completed. It is not the highest score, and it is not inferred from the overall percentage. Use the conditional findings and gate conditions above as the evidence, and agree the direction with the process owner.

Information that would improve confidence

Unknown 4 items

Information is currently unknown. Identify an accountable source and clarify the position.

Fitness and case for change
  • D2.6 Review conditions0%

    Operating fit is time- and context-dependent.

    Expected basis: Decision record

Information and technology
  • D5.2 Quality thresholds0%

    Reporting-quality information may not support operational action.

    Expected basis: Quality criteria

People and operational readiness
  • D7.4 Capacity0%

    Automation can conceal transferred or increased human work.

    Expected basis: Operating-capacity confirmation

Workflow conditional module
  • CW.2 Exception routing0%

    Exceptions determine operational reliability.

    Expected basis: Scenario review

Disagreement 3 items

Relevant participants disagree. Reconcile the different views before relying on this conclusion.

Fitness and case for change
  • D2.4 Problem evidence13%

    Treating symptoms can select the wrong intervention.

    Expected basis: Root-cause challenge

Comparative operating fit
  • D4.6 Hybrid design13%

    The most appropriate target is commonly a controlled combination.

    Expected basis: Target operating design

People and operational readiness
  • D7.2 Front-line involvement13%

    Front-line knowledge is essential to practical fitness.

    Expected basis: Workshop participation

Limited confidence 4 items

Confidence is limited. Establish the position, owner and supporting internal basis.

Demand, decisions and variation
  • D3.2 Rule stability13%

    Deterministic and adaptive work need different controls.

    Expected basis: Rule and policy review

Information and technology
  • D5.4 Access and segregation13%

    The target mode must not bypass established control boundaries.

    Expected basis: Security and control review

People and operational readiness
  • D7.6 Accountable operation13%

    Project delivery does not ensure operational ownership.

    Expected basis: Operational-owner confirmation

Workflow conditional module
  • CW.4 Controlled change13%

    Uncontrolled workflow change creates process drift.

    Expected basis: Governance design

Moderate confidence 21 items

Confidence is moderate. Clarify gaps and obtain accountable-owner confirmation.

Process scope and truth
  • D1.6 Dependencies43%

    The selected mode must work across the operating environment.

    Expected basis: Dependency analysis

  • D1.5 Definition confidence53%

    A sophisticated solution cannot compensate for an unreliable process definition.

    Expected basis: Repository and owner review

  • D1.1 End-to-end scope64%

    A deep decision requires an agreed unit of analysis.

    Expected basis: Facilitated validation

Comparative operating fit
  • D4.2 Human-led fit43%

    Human-led work may be appropriate where judgement and relationships dominate.

    Expected basis: Options comparison

  • D4.1 Current mode allocation53%

    Activity-level analysis avoids forcing one solution across the process.

    Expected basis: Facilitated mapping

  • D4.5 Agentic fit53%

    Agentic capability should address a need that simpler modes cannot.

    Expected basis: Options comparison

  • D4.4 Task automation fit64%

    Deterministic automation may offer simpler and more controllable value.

    Expected basis: Options comparison

Consequence, control and rights
  • D6.4 Control effectiveness43%

    Controls must work in the intended operating context.

    Expected basis: Control assessment

  • D6.3 Affected people53%

    Efficiency cannot displace legitimate affected-person rights.

    Expected basis: Legal, HR or customer review

  • D6.6 Residual decision64%

    Delivery teams should not implicitly accept business risk.

    Expected basis: Decision authority confirmation

Assurance, justification and decision
  • D8.6 Owned path forward43%

    A conclusion has limited value without an executable path.

    Expected basis: Roadmap

  • D8.5 Decision record53%

    A transparent record supports governance and reassessment.

    Expected basis: Decision record

  • D8.1 Acceptance thresholds64%

    Predefined criteria reduce confirmation bias.

    Expected basis: Acceptance plan

Technology-assistance conditional module
  • CA.2 Output evaluation43%

    Users must be able to challenge assisted outputs.

    Expected basis: User testing

  • CA.1 Human decision ownership53%

    Assistance should strengthen rather than obscure human accountability.

    Expected basis: Role design

  • CA.4 Attribution64%

    Clear attribution supports accountability and learning.

    Expected basis: Record design

Fitness and case for change
  • D2.3 Retained value53%

    Change can destroy value as well as create it.

    Expected basis: Participant and control review

  • D2.2 Current performance64%

    A baseline supports a reasoned retain-or-change decision.

    Expected basis: Non-confidential performance confirmation

People and operational readiness
  • D7.1 Role allocation53%

    Ambiguity creates duplicated work and control gaps.

    Expected basis: Operating-model design

Demand, decisions and variation
  • D3.3 Decision inventory64%

    The future allocation of decisions cannot otherwise be designed.

    Expected basis: Decision inventory

Information and technology
  • D5.5 Traceability64%

    Traceability supports assurance, investigation and learning.

    Expected basis: Logging and record review

Prioritised actions

Owner for every action: To be confirmed.

  1. High Confidence improvement. Identify an accountable source and establish the position:
    • Quality thresholds D5.2, gate G02
    • Exception routing CW.2, gate WG01
    • Review conditions D2.6
    • Capacity D7.4
  2. High Capability improvement. Establish or strengthen:
    • Access and segregation D5.4, gate G03
    • Rule stability D3.2
    • Accountable operation D7.6
    • Controlled change CW.4
  3. High Capability improvement. Reconcile the differing views:
    • Problem evidence D2.4
    • Hybrid design D4.6
    • Front-line involvement D7.2
  4. Medium Capability improvement. Establish or strengthen:
    • Dependencies D1.6

Assumptions and limitations

This result rests on the answers and the basis you declared. IGX has not independently validated them, and no confidential evidence was requested or reviewed. It was completed online without a facilitator, so it should not be compared directly with a facilitated Deep Dive. A self-assessment may be compared with another only where the scope, the respondent basis and the completion rate are alike.

Recommended engagement

Work through the prioritised actions with their owners, resolve every gate condition, then reassess.

Get your own result

It takes a few minutes. Your result appears on screen when you finish, and a private link to it is emailed to you.

Start the assessment