Diagnostic Assessment

Constraint Framework
Explorer

Guided assessment using FORCES, GRAVITY, ANCHORS, and PRIMES frameworks. Systematically diagnose system health and identify leverage points for intervention.

Assessment Progress

πŸ”§
FORCES
Fundamental Vectors
βš–οΈ
GRAVITY
Inevitabilities
βš“
ANCHORS
Stabilization
πŸ”’
PRIMES
Constraints

What System Are You Analyzing?

This framework can be applied to organizations, communities, personal life, or any complex system. Providing context helps generate more relevant insights.

πŸ”§

FORCES Framework

Fundamental Operational Regimes and Constitutive Elements of Systems

FORCES maps six fundamental vectors that determine how systems function. Assess each dimension to identify pathological patterns and leverage points.

πŸ’§

Flow

Movement of energy, information, and resources through the system. Healthy systems have appropriate flow ratesβ€”too fast creates overwhelm, too slow creates stagnation.

How to Position This Slider:

0-25 (Blocked/Stagnant):
  • Information takes days/weeks to reach decision-makers
  • Approval processes have 5+ required steps
  • Resources locked in silos, rarely transferred
  • Knowledge hoarding is norm, not sharing
25-45 (Healthy Flow):
  • Information reaches relevant parties within hours/1 day
  • Clear channels for different information types
  • Resources can be reallocated when needed
  • Knowledge sharing has light structure
45-55 (Optimal Balance):
  • Real-time awareness of critical information
  • Filtering mechanisms prevent overload
  • Resource mobility balanced with stability
  • Information access without constant interruption
55-75 (Approaching Overload):
  • Constant notifications and interruptions
  • Difficulty focusing due to information volume
  • Resources shifting too frequently to settle
  • Communication channels always "hot"
75-100 (Overwhelming Flood):
  • Inboxes with 100+ unread messages daily
  • Meetings scheduled back-to-back with no breaks
  • No time to process before next input arrives
  • Paralysis from excessive options/information
Blocked/Stagnant Overwhelming Flood
Optimal flow balanced between access and overwhelm
πŸ”

Opacity

Visibility and transparency of system states and processes. Can actors see what's happening, understand why, and predict consequences?

How to Position This Slider:

0-25 (High Transparency): All decisions, processes, and data are openly accessible. Real-time dashboards show system status. Clear audit trails exist. Decision rationales are documented and shared. Users can predict consequences of actions.
25-45 (Appropriate Transparency): Key decisions are communicated with rationale. Performance metrics are visible. Some confidential information protected. Most stakeholders understand how things work. Feedback loops are clear.
45-55 (Balanced): Standard business transparency. Important information shared, some details private. Decision-making processes known but not all inputs visible. Reasonable predictability of outcomes.
55-75 (Limited Visibility): Decisions often made without explanation. Stakeholders surprised by changes. Unclear why certain outcomes occur. Limited access to system metrics. "Black box" processes exist.
75-100 (Opaque): Hidden agendas dominate. No visibility into decision-making. Outcomes are unpredictable. Stakeholders operate blind. No feedback on system state. Information deliberately obscured.
Fully Transparent Completely Opaque
Moderate transparency with appropriate privacy
πŸ—οΈ

Rigidity

Flexibility vs. brittleness in system structure. Rigid systems resist necessary adaptation; overly flexible systems lack stability and coherence.

How to Position This Slider:

0-25 (Highly Flexible): Processes change weekly/monthly. Few fixed structures. Easy to experiment. Quick adaptation to new conditions. May lack consistency. Decisions easily reversed. Core principles negotiable.
25-45 (Adaptive Flexibility): Structured flexibility within boundaries. Processes can be modified with good reason. Regular reviews and updates. Emergency protocols for rapid change. Balance of stability and agility.
45-55 (Balanced Structure): Clear processes with defined update cycles. Quarterly/annual reviews. Changes require justification but are possible. Some emergency override capacity. Predictable but not frozen.
55-75 (Increasing Rigidity): Established procedures rarely change. Months/years to modify processes. Exceptions require extensive approval. "We've always done it this way" mentality. Change initiatives often fail.
75-100 (Extreme Rigidity): Fixed rules and structures. No deviation permitted. Years of advocacy needed for small changes. System breaks under unexpected stress. Brittle responses to novel situations. Bureaucratic paralysis.
Highly Flexible Completely Rigid
Balanced structure with adaptive capacity
πŸ”—

Coupling

Degree of interdependence between system components. Tight coupling creates fragility through cascading failures; loose coupling enables resilience but may lack coordination.

How to Position This Slider:

0-25 (Loosely Coupled): Components operate independently. Failure in one area doesn't cascade. Easy to modify individual parts. May have coordination challenges. Redundant functions exist. Minimal dependencies.
25-45 (Modular Design): Clear interfaces between components. Buffering mechanisms exist. Some dependencies but with fallback options. Failures can be isolated. Changes localized to specific modules.
45-55 (Balanced Integration): Coordinated components with reasonable independence. Some shared dependencies managed carefully. Cascading effects are limited in scope. Both isolation and coordination possible.
55-75 (Increasing Interdependence): Many shared dependencies. Changes in one area ripple across multiple others. Limited redundancy. Single points of failure emerging. Difficult to modify parts independently.
75-100 (Tightly Coupled): Everything depends on everything. Small failures cascade system-wide. No redundancy or buffers. Cannot change one part without breaking others. Fragile coordination. Single points of failure throughout.
Loosely Coupled Tightly Coupled
Moderate coupling with buffering mechanisms
πŸŒͺ️

Entropy

Disorder and degradation tendencies. All systems face entropy; the question is whether maintenance energy exceeds decay rate.

How to Position This Slider:

0-25 (Self-Maintaining): System improves over time. Continuous learning and optimization. Documentation kept current. Knowledge widely distributed. Processes strengthen through use. Minimal maintenance required.
25-45 (Proactive Maintenance): Regular upkeep prevents major issues. Scheduled reviews and updates. Technical debt managed. Knowledge transfer occurs. Some degradation but actively countered. Improvement initiatives succeed.
45-55 (Steady State): Maintenance balances decay. Periodic refresh needed. Documentation occasionally outdated. Knowledge concentrated but accessible. Systems stable but not improving. Reactive fixes common.
55-75 (Gradual Decline): Decay outpaces maintenance. Growing technical debt. Documentation increasingly outdated. Key knowledge held by few people. Workarounds accumulate. Quality slowly degrading.
75-100 (Rapid Decay): Active degradation. No effective maintenance. Lost institutional knowledge. Undocumented processes. Increasing errors and failures. "Zombie" systems barely functioning. Crisis-driven operations.
Self-Maintaining Rapid Decay
Adequate maintenance counteracting decay
πŸ“

Scale

Size and scope of system operations. Scale mismatches occur when structures designed for one size are applied to another.

How to Position This Slider:

0-25 (Well-Matched): Structures fit current size perfectly. Communication patterns work. Decision-making matches scope. Resource allocation appropriate. Processes neither too complex nor too simple. Right tool for the job.
25-45 (Minor Adjustments Needed): Generally appropriate with some growing pains. A few processes outdated. Scaling challenges identified and being addressed. Mostly coherent but occasional friction from size changes.
45-55 (Noticeable Gaps): Some structures clearly don't fit current scale. Either "startup practices at enterprise scale" or "enterprise bureaucracy for small team." Recognizable inefficiencies from mismatch. Plans to adapt in progress.
55-75 (Significant Mismatch): Many processes wrong for current size. Major communication overhead or gaps. Decision-making too slow/fast for scale. Resource allocation doesn't match needs. Coherence struggling. Urgent adaptation needed.
75-100 (Severe Mismatch): Completely wrong structures for current scale. Total breakdown of coordination. Either suffocating bureaucracy for small operation or chaos from informal processes at scale. System functionality compromised. Crisis state.
Well-Matched Severe Mismatch
Structures appropriate for current size

FORCES Profile

Visual representation of system health across six fundamental vectors. Balanced profiles indicate healthy systems; extreme values signal pathologies.

System Diagnosis

πŸ’‘

Primary Leverage Points

Complete the assessment to identify specific intervention opportunities.