A team can move fast—in the wrong direction. From the inside, you can't tell.
An anonymous 9-minute survey for teams of 5 to 20 people. Once complete, the team gets a clear shared snapshot of where it stands on relationships and clarity, plus a concrete place to start. It is free because it is an open validation study.
Three steps, no setup
Two dimensions, one hypothesis to test
The Clarity-Relationship Framework crosses two dimensions decades of team research point to: relationship quality (trust, psychological safety, communication, conflict, belonging, emotions) and team clarity (goals, roles, processes). Organizational context clarity is measured separately, as an indicator: it describes the weather in the organization, not a merit of the team.
The central hypothesis — that the two dimensions amplify each other, rather than merely add up — is stated as a falsifiable proposition and is undergoing validation. Every participating team helps test it, anonymously and in aggregate.
Two open releases, verifiable by anyone
The model and the instrument are deposited on Zenodo with permanent DOIs. You can read the paper, download the item bank as a spreadsheet and run it yourself: this page is the cloud version of the same thing.
Luca Troso
The Clarity-Relationship Framework comes out of the work of Luca Troso (ORCID 0009-0007-0230-0786), an independent organizational consultant and trainer, and the author of books on OKRs and organizational culture, on NoCode and artificial intelligence, and on how organizations frame their own problems. He has spent years working in the field with teams on objectives, roles and relationship quality; a pilot with roughly fifty teams led to the redesign of the instrument presented here.
One question, however, is left implicit by most team effectiveness models: do clarity and relationship quality add up, or do they amplify one another? And is the clarity a team builds internally the same thing as the clarity it receives from the organization around it? The CRF states both questions as testable propositions and pairs them with an item bank, scoring rules and a phased validation plan, released openly.
The purpose of this research is not to promote a model, but to put it in a position to be proven wrong.
The questions you would ask
Is it truly anonymous?
Yes. No name, email or IP address; answers exist only in aggregate and the report appears only from 5 answers up. Not even the person who invited you can know whether you responded.
How long does it take?
About 8 minutes for the full form (42 statements in 4 parts; 45 if your team enabled the optional module), about 4 for the short form. You can pause and resume on the same device.
What does it cost?
Nothing. The tool is the data-collection engine of published scientific research: by taking part you contribute anonymous data to the validation study.
Can we compare teams with each other?
No, and it is not a technical limit: the tool produces no rankings or benchmarks. Each report speaks only to the team that generated it, as a basis for discussion.
Is a low score a bad grade?
No. Scores show where to look first; they do not grade. Quadrants are named after their improvement focus, never after a judgement.
What if fewer than 5 of us respond?
The report is not generated: that threshold protects anonymity. You can extend the collection window and re-share the link with the team.