We turn a diffuse symptom—"people don't use the software," "morale is low," "we're losing talent"—into a data-backed systemic diagnosis. Sequential mixed design, frameworks chosen for your problem, and an actionable roadmap. Diagnosis, not intervention.
Clients almost always arrive with a sentence like these. The usual market response is to opine, look for someone to blame, or buy generic training. We start by verifying what is actually going on.
We bought expensive software and nobody uses it.
Adoption and change resistance
Our best people are leaving and we don't know why.
Turnover, climate, and workload
Sales and operations don't talk to each other.
Silos, coordination, and conflict
Something feels off, but nobody says what.
Informal culture versus official discourse
We changed the org chart and nothing improved.
Congruence between structure and task
Each of these points to a different level of the system, which is why each is diagnosed with different frameworks.
Following Darío Rodríguez's situational logic, there is no single model applicable to every organization. These are the routes we use most: each starts from the stated pain, activates different theoretical frameworks, and defines which field techniques make sense.
Change and adoption
Frameworks
Techniques
Climate and transactional variables
Frameworks
Techniques
Bonds, coordination, and conflict
Frameworks
Techniques
Culture
Frameworks
Techniques
Macro-systemic
Frameworks
Techniques
We do not measure all eleven diagnostic variables in every project. We pick the four or five that explain the symptom at its root and concentrate budget and time there. That is what keeps the diagnosis focused and executable.
Sponsor alignment drives everything: measurement design, qualitative immersion, and the roadmap adapt to what your organization needs to validate. Quantitative data measures and isolates; qualitative data explains root causes.
Phases marked as tailored design are defined after the initial alignment.
Framing interview with senior management and counterparts, plus secondary information gathering (usage KPIs, prior surveys, management indicators). Here we define the focus and, with it, which frameworks and instruments apply to the rest of the diagnosis.
Deliverable: Kickoff brief + Stakeholder map
Structured survey using the instruments selected in the previous phase according to the agreed focus. We measure magnitude, isolate the problem, and depersonalize conflict with aggregated data.
Deliverable: Dashboard + extreme profiles
On the extreme profiles surfaced by the measurement: critical incident interviews, confidential focus groups, deconstruction of basic assumptions, and field observation where applicable. We understand the whys that numbers cannot explain.
Deliverable: Categorization matrix + verbatim
We cross quantitative and qualitative findings to build the systemic diagnosis: problem tree, culture mapping, and prioritization by impact and intervenability.
Deliverable: Integrated problem tree
We do not intervene in the system: we draw the map. We deliver a strategic-methodological roadmap with a multilevel systemic view and a debrief workshop with the sponsor to align priorities.
Deliverable: Executive report + Change roadmap
Under Quinn's compensatory principle, the roadmap adds the missing value instead of punishing what already exists. We do not intervene: we propose how to do it based on what was diagnosed.
Training and skill development where the diagnosis detects technical gaps.
Coaching and mentoring to deconstruct incompatible commitments and build self-efficacy.
Team building, horizontal role design, and integrative negotiation (Harvard model).
Redesign of coordination flows, corporate rituals, and formal incentives.
These are starting prices. Final scope is quoted after the framing phase, once we know what needs to be validated: we would rather publish the floor and adjust with evidence than throw out a number blindly.
From
UF 55 + VAT
Phases 1 and 2: framing, tailored instrument selection, and a dashboard with a brief executive report. Ideal as a first scan or for small teams.
From
UF 130 + VAT
All five phases: quantitative, qualitative immersion, triangulation, multilevel roadmap, and debrief workshop. End-to-end systemic diagnosis.
From
UF 160 + VAT
A variant of the full diagnosis for when adoption of new software or processes fails: change resistance (Oreg), individual change stages (ADKAR), and incompatible commitments (Kegan & Lahey), cross-analyzed with real usage data.
Phase 1 (sponsor framing, review of secondary information, and proposed design) is quoted separately at UF 15 + VAT and is fully credited toward the project if you decide to continue. You start with a methodological design of your own without committing to the full project.
Added to the chosen level only when scope requires it, and agreed in the proposal.
Scope is frozen when Phase 1 closes; any later expansion is quoted as a change order. Payment is 50% upfront and 50% on report delivery.
Methodological floor: below roughly 40 people in the affected population, quantitative analysis loses validity. In those cases we propose the Pulse level or a focused qualitative route.
When you launch new software or a process and people don't adopt it, the problem is rarely technical. We measure resistance across its cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions, identify which stage of change each group stalled at, and go deep into the incompatible commitments sustaining the blockage. The instrument mix depends on what the framing phase reveals.
The baseline is built by crossing real usage data with validated instruments—not loose perceptions.
Aggregated data shifts the debate from finding culprits to understanding system misalignment.
Software failure is rarely about code—it's about adoption. We focus budget on real pain points.
Involving people from phase 1 prevents reactive resistance and builds commitment.
I lead Obrii as a consulting psychologist and am completing the Master's in People and Organizational Management at Universidad Diego Portales. The frameworks I apply are the ones I studied and worked with there—not a proprietary method without sources: that is why every model appears here with its name and author, so you can look it up.
The design we use—sequential explanatory mixed methods, QUAN → qual—is the standard in Organizational Development: we first measure the magnitude of the problem with validated instruments, and only with those results do we define who to interview and what to ask. The qualitative phase does not replace the numbers: it explains them.
We are a small and deliberately focused team. We would rather tell you a scope does not fit us than promise a deployment we cannot sustain.
Obrii App is born from our consulting practice: it brings into one flow —from selection to cost structure— what you today solve with scattered tools. AI prepares the evidence; the decision stays yours. Built for Chile and all of Latin America.
No credit card · Set up your account in under a minute.
AI CV Screener and structured BEI/STAR interviews.
Psychometric suite and actionable competency maps.
Pulse climate surveys and early burnout detection.
LATAM labor costs and traceable decisions.
Quick answers on scope, instruments, confidentiality, and investment for our organizational diagnosis.
