What the field claims — and what it can evidence.
Set the promises of the transformation category beside what it can actually put in front of a board. The distance between the two columns is the proof gap.
The field can't agree on the failure rate — because it never set a standard for proof.
Estimates of how often transformation falls short range wildly from source to source. That disagreement is the tell: there is no shared definition of what “changed” or “worked” actually means.
Everyone grades their own homework
With no agreed definition of proof, each firm scores its own success — and the numbers never reconcile.
Compliance stands in for structure
People adopted the new way; whether the model itself changed is a separate question the field rarely asks.
Asserted, not reconciled
A number in a board deck is claimed — not tied back to the governed work that supposedly produced it.
We compete on the one thing the category avoids: proof.
ETEGY doesn't promise a bigger number. We set a standard for evidence — the operating model read in its actual state, changed where the evidence demands, and the outcome traced to a governed origin.
Necessary disciplines stay necessary: change management drives adoption, process work trims waste. Neither answers whether the model itself can carry strategy all the way to proof. That question is ours.
The Traceability Ratio →
The standard itself — how much of a result reconciles to a governed origin.
The GSDPI lifecycle →
Where we read the model end to end and locate the break.
The ZBT Discovery →
The engagement that returns a baseline you can prove against.