IDOYA has built a robust inclusiveness barometer for the design phase, based on four criteria:

1. Representativeness

2. Depth

3. Weight

4. Transparency

 

This barometer makes it possible to assess the quality of co-construction and the integration of stakeholders. It is regularly tested and adjusted with clients and external stakeholders, and its use is monitored by the firm’s governance body (the mission committee).

​

However, the measurement of inclusiveness in the rollout (or "downstream") phase still needs to be strengthened, in order to better objectify the impact of inclusiveness on the adoption, durability and performance of transformations. The questions raised are as follows:

• Should a separate, dedicated indicator be defined for the rollout phase?

• What lies behind the different levels of inclusiveness in the rollout of a transformation project or programme?

• Is it relevant to reuse the four criteria of the inclusiveness index (representativeness, depth, weight, transparency), reorienting them towards measuring inclusiveness at the point of rollout?

​

This rollout phase generally passes at some point under our clients’ responsibility, at the end of our support engagement. This "hand-over" occurs earlier or later in the rollout, but it presupposes that the measurement of the rollout’s inclusiveness is also carried out by our clients. This article therefore proposes avenues for measuring the inclusiveness of transformation rollouts over time, complementing the existing barometer.

​

1.What if we were to equip ourselves with dedicated indicators?

 

To complement the existing barometer, one option is to explore the introduction of criteria specific to the downstream phase, measuring inclusiveness in implementation and its concrete effects:

​

Rollout inclusiveness indicators

• Rate of genuine stakeholder involvement in implementation: % of stakeholders who actively took part in workshops, working groups or pilot actions during the rollout.

• Scope for initiative and adaptation left to teams: measurement of the degree of autonomy granted to teams to adapt solutions locally (e.g. existence of room for manoeuvre, local initiatives fed back and recognised).

• Stakeholder satisfaction with the rollout process: assessment (survey, interviews) of how stakeholders perceived their role and their ability to act and to be heard during the rollout phase.

• Transparency and continuous feedback: existence of regular feedback mechanisms, reporting back on the decisions taken, explanation of the trade-offs made during the rollout.

​​

Indicators of the impact of inclusiveness

• Rate of adoption of the changes: % of teams or individuals who have effectively adopted the new practices and processes (via self-assessment, observation, HR indicators).

• Change in satisfaction or engagement after rollout: comparison of engagement, satisfaction or workplace climate scores before and after rollout.

• Number and quality of adjustments arising from field feedback: number of changes made thanks to post-rollout feedback, and their impact on performance or buy-in.

• Durability of inclusiveness: measurement of the ability to maintain spaces for expression and adaptation beyond the project (e.g. continuous improvement groups, communities of practice).

​​

2. What if the criteria needed revising?

 

The four original criteria remain relevant, but could be adapted or supplemented for the rollout phase:

• Representativeness: broaden the scope to the diversity of actors involved in the actual rollout, not only in the design phase.

• Depth: measure the ability to influence adjustments along the way, not only to express a view.

• Weight: assess the real impact of field feedback on rollout adaptations.

• Transparency: track the reporting back of trade-offs and access to information throughout the rollout.

 

It would also be possible to add an adoption or durability criterion, to measure how sustainable inclusiveness proves to be over time.

​

Conclusion: the current criteria can be adapted to cover the downstream phase, but we could add:

• one adoption indicator;

• one autonomy indicator;

• indicators of continuous feedback and of impact on performance.

 

An enriched barometer, co-constructed with clients and stakeholders, will make it possible to better objectify the added value of inclusiveness in the success of transformations.

​

3. What can we recommend to clients for measuring inclusiveness during the rollout phase without adding to the burden on time and resources?

 

1. Use simple, quick self-assessment tools

• Streamlined inclusiveness barometer: adapt the assessment grid to the size and the stakes of the project (simplified scoring for small projects, focusing on a few key criteria such as representativeness and depth of expression).

• Short questionnaires: offer online questionnaires limited to 5–10 questions, to be completed in under 10 minutes by the main stakeholders.

​​

2. Build the measurement into existing collective moments

• Workshops or team meetings: take advantage of regular workshops or milestone reviews to include a short inclusiveness assessment sequence, in sub-groups of two or three people, allowing cross-feedback and the pooling of experience.

• Post-workshop debriefs: add a question on inclusiveness to workshop or meeting wrap-ups, without creating an additional process.

​​

3. Encourage collective self-assessment and pooling

• Cross-assessment: allow team members who have not worked directly on an engagement to bring an outside perspective, enriching the analysis without multiplying individual interviews.

• Sharing good practice: use lessons learned to quickly identify improvement levers and to pool effective solutions.

​​

4. Adapt the level of requirement to the context

• Modulation according to project scale: for smaller projects, favour lighter, qualitative scoring; reserve the full assessment for strategic or high-stakes projects.

• Choice of priority criteria: focus on two or three essential criteria (e.g. representativeness, depth, transparency) depending on the context, to avoid overload.

​​

5. Digitalise and automate collection

• Digital tools: use online forms (Google Forms, Typeform, etc.) or collaborative tools already in place to centralise and exploit feedback without manual re-entry.

• Use AI to ensure fast, automated analysis.

​​

6. Communicate about the purpose and the added value

• Make the rationale explicit: recall that the purpose of measurement is to improve collective effectiveness and engagement, not to make processes heavier.

• Transparency on how results are used: share the summaries and improvement areas arising from the assessments, so as to give meaning to the exercise.