This report shows how well Harbourline is set up to keep the promises it makes to its customers, as seen by its own managers.
38 managers, from the executive team to team leads, answered the same questions about how the organisation really works day to day. The report brings their answers together to show where Harbourline is strong, where it is held back, and where its managers see things differently. It is not a test with a pass mark. It gives the leadership team a shared picture to decide where to start, and a way to check whether the changes they make are working. This is Harbourline’s third round, so it also shows what has changed since the first one in November 2025.
The Foundation Score is the average of the six foundations. The Execution Score combines the five pillars so that the weakest one counts most, because an organisation can only deliver as well as its weakest link. The Agility Score shows how often the leadership team revisits and updates its plan.
Harbourline understands its customers well (Understand 73) but is slow to change what it does in response (Adapt 47). Like a chain, the organisation is only as strong as its weakest link, so improving Adapt by 10 points would do more for the Execution Score than improving Understand by the same amount.
The outer ring shows the dimensions being measured: the six foundations, or the 21 execution dimensions grouped by pillar. Each shape inside is one management level, so you can see where the levels agree and where they see a different organisation. Switch to Round 3 vs Baseline to see how far the organisation has moved.
Each cell is the average score given by managers at that level. The last column shows how far apart people’s answers were. Where they were far apart (marked ▲), the leadership team does not share one picture of how that area works. Levels with fewer than three people are combined into “Other”, so nobody can be identified.
The biggest opportunities are usually where a low score and wide disagreement come together. The team does not do these things well and does not agree on how well it does them, so the first step is to build a shared picture, then fix it.
Events such as a reorganisation or a new system can be marked on the timeline, so it is easier to see what may have caused a change. The Agility Score starts from the first round after a change programme begins.
In Round 2, people were also asked to look back and re-score where they had been at the start. Scoring the past lower with hindsight is common and a good sign: it means their idea of “good” has risen.
Each round comes with a short written review of the combined results. It uses the actual figures, ignores small movements that are just normal ups and downs, and suggests possible causes for the team to check rather than stating them as fact.
Five dimensions show real change since the Baseline: Across (+17), Structured Collaboration (+14), Respond (+12), Strategy Deployment (+11) and Agility (+10). Most of the gains came after the new operating model was launched, so it is worth testing whether the clearer handoff agreements it introduced are the cause. The Agility Score rose from 38 to 51, which means the team is revisiting its canvas more often.
Every person gets their own result the moment they finish, set against the organisation's average for the round.
The questionnaire takes about 15 minutes per person. Results appear as soon as three people in your organisation have answered.
Start the ABEC Diagnostic