Assessments

Ask the whole team, then look at where they disagree

Frankee has three team assessments. Everyone answers the same questions independently, results come back aggregated with no individual attribution, and Frankee analyses both the scores and the spread. The disagreement is usually the interesting part.

The three assessments

Anti-Pattern Assessment

Six agile anti-patterns, scored for how strongly each shows up in your team:

• Feature Factory Syndrome
• Heavy Process Syndrome
• Fake Empowerment
• Autonomy Without Alignment
• Zombie Agile
• Innovation Theater

Useful when something feels off but nobody can name it. Putting six specific names on the table gives a team the vocabulary to describe what has been bothering them.

Team Health Check

Five dimensions of a high-performing team:

• Aligned Autonomy
• Stable, Right-Sized Teams
• Cross-Functional with T-Skills
• Culture of Continuous Improvement
• Psychological Safety

Each dimension is answered as a choice between a healthy statement and a warning statement, such as "we understand how our work connects to company goals" against "we don't know why our work matters". Concrete statements are harder to answer aspirationally than an abstract score.

Human+AI Health

Seven dimensions covering how your team works with AI:

• AI Over-Reliance
• AI Under-Utilization
• Human Judgment Preservation
• Workflow Integration
• Trust Calibration
• Psychological Safety with AI
• AI Output Quality Awareness

Over-reliance and under-utilization are both failure modes, and most teams have some of each in different places. This assessment is deliberately not a measure of how much AI you use.

How a session works

1. An admin opens a session

   Organization admins and team admins can open one, for a chosen team and assessment type. Only one session per team per assessment type can be open at a time, so responses cannot be split across two rounds of the same questions.

2. The team responds

   Each member answers independently. There is no deadline enforced, so give people a real window and tell them when you plan to close it.

3. Results aggregate

   Team results show scores per dimension along with the number of responses. Results are aggregated with no individual attribution, so nobody sees who said what.

4. Run the analysis

   Frankee reads the scores and the spread and writes up what it sees. This is the step that turns numbers into something a team can talk about.

5. The admin closes the session

   On closing you choose whether to save the results to history or discard them. Only the admin who opened a session can close it.

Perception gaps

Alongside the scores, Frankee flags dimensions where responses were widely spread, showing the range from lowest to highest.

This is often more useful than the average. A team scoring an even three out of five on psychological safety has a different problem from one where half the team scored five and half scored one, and both average the same. The second team has an experience gap: some people feel safe and some do not, in the same room, on the same team. An average hides that completely.

When a gap appears, the useful question is not "what is the right score" but "what is different about how people are experiencing this".

Using the results well

• Share the results with the team who produced them. An assessment run on a team and reported only upward is a surveillance exercise, and it will be answered as one next time.
• Lead with the gaps, not the low scores. The lowest score is usually already known. A gap is new information.
• Do not use these to compare teams or people. They measure perception within one team at one moment. Ranking teams by them is the fastest way to make everyone answer strategically.
• Change one thing, then re-run. Saved sessions build a history, so running the same assessment a quarter later shows movement. Re-running with nothing changed in between just re-measures the same thing.
• Pair it with a retrospective. The assessment says where to look; the retro is where the team works out what to do. See Retrospective Analysis.

A note on what these measure

Every one of these assessments measures perception, not fact. They record what your team believes about how it works, which is genuinely valuable and is not the same as an objective read on team performance. A team can score well and still be struggling, or score poorly during a bad month that is not representative.

Treat a result as the start of a conversation with the team, never as an evaluation of them.