Growth Index™ · Hiya Marketing27 questions · about 12 minutes
Relativity FrameworkMain site
Growth Index™ · Hiya MarketingIf your organisation has been made more efficient several times over and growth is still getting harder, this is the thing nobody has measured.
Twenty-seven questions about how your commercial system actually behaves. You finish with a one page read of where it is holding growth back, and the first place to look. Part one takes two minutes, and it saves as you go.
An example finished read. Yours names your heaviest signal, the structural debt underneath it, and three questions to take to your next leadership meeting.
Which of the frictions you live with day to day is doing the most damage to growth. Not a feeling. A specific one, identified out of three.
Which conditions in your commercial system your answers point to underneath that signal, where what you feel and where you place your structure converge, and which growth outcome it is quietly taxing.
Not a plan and not a recommendation. The three questions that will tell your leadership team what to do next, drawn from where you placed your system lowest.
One person’s read is useful. A leadership team’s reads side by side are a diagnosis. Each person completes it alone, then you compare. Where the maps diverge is the misalignment none of you can see from a single seat.
Illustrative. Three members of one leadership team, same eight structural conditions, read from three different seats.
What your leadership team lives with day to day, and which of it is quietly making growth harder. Three areas: margin and pricing, alignment across teams, decision memory and technology spend.
The conditions underneath the symptoms, taken one at a time. Eight that determine whether your system is legible, four growth outcomes they drive, and four capacities that decide whether you can act.
Part two is where the diagnosis actually is. Part one tells you where it hurts. If you only have two minutes today, do part one and come back for the rest; your answers are kept in this browser.
Most organisations have run three or four efficiency programmes in the last five years. Each one optimises the parts. Almost none of them repair the joints between the parts, and that is where growth actually happens: a decision right that never quite settled, an incentive still paying for the old strategy, a handoff everyone has learned to work around.
None of it appears as a line item. All of it makes the next point of growth cost more than the last one did. Sometimes it shows up as revenue under pressure or margin squeezed for two quarters running. More often the numbers still look fine and the cost sits unread.
That accumulated, unread cost is Diagnosis Debt. Unlike your growth, it compounds reliably.
From the inside, none of these looks like the same problem, which is exactly why the debt keeps compounding. Mark the ones you recognise from your own board table, honestly. There are no wrong answers and nothing is scored against a benchmark. Nothing you tick leaves this browser, so answer as you would in the room rather than as you would in a board paper.
That is the first half. Part two is the structure underneath: the sixteen conditions that make growth cost more, taken one at a time, so you can see where what you feel and where you place your structure point to the same place.
Place only what you can defend, not what you are aiming for. For each one, pick the stage you could back with a specific, recent example.
Drawn from where you placed your system lowest, with converging evidence first. They are questions, not recommendations: what to do depends on things this tool cannot see.
Compare with your team: each person takes the read alone at growthindex.relativityframework.com
This is a directional read, not a diagnosis. It names where to look and what to ask. It deliberately stops short of telling you what to do, because the right move depends on your market, your people and your appetite, none of which twenty-seven questions can see.
How the read works: it links what you feel in part one to where you place the structure in part two. Where both point at the same place, that is a stronger hypothesis than either alone. It is still one person’s view from one seat, which is why the comparison with your team matters.