OIA Client Presentation

Purpose

This recipe produces a complete client-facing presentation of Organizational Immune Analysis findings, including interactive health score dashboards, risk heat maps by organizational dimension, before/after network topology comparisons, a phased remediation roadmap, and an outcome-based retainer proposal. The presentation replaces the traditional 50-page slide deck with a living diagnostic that shows the organization as a biological system. [src1]

Prerequisites

• Organizational health scores available from consulting/oia/organizational-health-scoring/2026 — Health Scoring Framework
• Network topology data — anonymized ONA graph export from Microsoft Viva Insights or Slack analytics
• Risk assessment results — structured risk register from OIA diagnostic phase
• 30-day baseline measurement — minimum data collection period for before/after comparisons
• Audience profile — confirmed primary audience to calibrate language and depth

Constraints

• Anonymization: Never present individual employee names in network visualizations to non-HR audiences. Use role-based identifiers or team-level aggregation. [src2]
• Baseline requirement: Before/after comparisons require minimum 30 calendar days of baseline data. Presenting without baseline is speculation, not diagnosis.
• Pricing model: Retainer proposals must use outcome-based (metabolic recovery) pricing, never time-and-materials. [src3]
• Visual clarity: Follow Stephen Few's dashboard design principles — no 3D charts, no pie charts for >3 categories, no dual-axis charts. [src4]
• Narrative structure: Every visualization must answer a specific question. Uncontextualized charts create the "so what?" problem. [src5]

Tool Selection Decision

Which presentation format?
├── Audience is technical (CTO/CISO) AND mid/final stage
│   └── PATH A: Interactive HTML dashboard — D3.js + Observable
├── Audience is C-suite AND initial/final stage
│   └── PATH B: Narrative PDF report — Figma/Canva + static charts
├── Audience is mixed AND includes retainer proposal
│   └── PATH C: Hybrid — interactive dashboard + executive summary PDF
└── Budget minimal AND timeline compressed
    └── PATH D: Google Slides with embedded chart images

Execution Flow

Step 1: Structure the Narrative Arc

Duration: 1-2 hours · Tool: Outline document

Build the presentation around a four-act diagnostic narrative: (1) The Patient — current state with health scores, (2) The Diagnosis — structural defects via risk heat maps and network topology, (3) The Treatment Plan — phased remediation roadmap, (4) The Prognosis — expected outcomes with metabolic recovery milestones. Each visualization answers a specific question. [src5]

Verify: Each section has clear "question --> answer --> implication" structure. · If failed: Review with colleague — if takeaway per section is unclear in one sentence, restructure.

Step 2: Build Health Score Dashboard

Duration: 3-5 hours · Tool: D3.js or Chart.js

Create radar chart with 6-8 organizational dimensions (communication flow, decision velocity, knowledge distribution, structural resilience, compliance health, innovation capacity). Include industry benchmark overlay and trend arrows showing improvement/degradation since baseline.

Verify: All dimensions use 0-1 scale. Benchmark data from validated source. Color coding follows accessible red/yellow/green. · If failed: If benchmarks unavailable, show absolute scores with percentile annotations.

Step 3: Generate Risk Heat Maps

Duration: 2-4 hours · Tool: D3.js heatmap or Plotly

Build risk heat map matrix: organizational dimensions on one axis, risk categories (single point of failure, information bottleneck, complexity collapse, immune response) on the other. Each cell shows severity with supporting evidence from ONA data.

Verify: Every "Critical" cell has supporting evidence from diagnostic data. · If failed: Downgrade unsupported cells to "Insufficient Data" rather than guessing.

Step 4: Create Before/After Network Topology Comparison

Duration: 2-3 hours · Tool: D3.js force-directed graph [src2]

Visualize communication network as force-directed graph. Before state: bottlenecks highlighted (oversized nodes = single points of failure, red edges = broken pathways, gray clusters = isolated silos). After state (projected): distributed load, connected clusters. Use Swiss Cheese Model framing for structural "holes."

Verify: Node sizing correlates with actual betweenness centrality metrics, not artistic interpretation. · If failed: Aggregate to team-level topology if individual granularity insufficient.

Step 5: Build Remediation Roadmap

Duration: 1-2 hours · Tool: Mermaid.js or timeline library

Create phased timeline: Phase 1 (0-30d) quick wins, Phase 2 (30-90d) core remediation + WBC deployment, Phase 3 (90-180d) hardening + culture shift monitoring, Phase 4 (180d+) continuous immunity + retainer-based maintenance. Each phase includes quantified health score targets.

Verify: Each phase has quantified success criteria. · If failed: Use directional indicators ("improve by 15-20%") with confidence intervals.

Step 6: Draft Retainer Proposal with Metabolic Recovery Pricing

Duration: 2-3 hours · Tool: Document template [src3]

Build outcome-based pricing proposal: recovery fee (15-25% of documented waste reduction), monitoring retainer (fixed monthly for ongoing WBC operation), success milestones (health score targets triggering renewal), risk sharing (retainer waived if scores do not improve within 180 days).

Verify: Proposal includes explicit risk-sharing clause. Client never pays for time, only measurable improvement. · If failed: Offer "time + performance bonus" hybrid if procurement requires time-based billing.

Output Schema

{
  "output_type": "oia_presentation",
  "format": "HTML_dashboard_or_PDF",
  "components": [
    {"name": "health_score_dashboard", "type": "interactive_visualization", "required": true},
    {"name": "risk_heat_map", "type": "matrix_visualization", "required": true},
    {"name": "network_topology_comparison", "type": "graph_visualization", "required": true},
    {"name": "remediation_roadmap", "type": "timeline_diagram", "required": true},
    {"name": "retainer_proposal", "type": "document", "required": true},
    {"name": "executive_summary", "type": "1_page_PDF", "required": false}
  ]
}

Quality Benchmarks

If below minimum: Restructure around the four-act framework before presenting. Never present with unclear narrative.

Error Handling

Cost Breakdown

Anti-Patterns

Wrong: Presenting raw data without narrative structure

Dumping health scores and heat maps on executives without a connecting story is the digital equivalent of the 50-page slide deck — technically thorough but functionally useless. [src1]

Correct: Build every presentation around the four-act diagnostic narrative

Patient, Diagnosis, Treatment, Prognosis. Each visualization answers a specific question. The audience should never wonder "so what?" [src5]

Wrong: Using individual employee names in network topology visualizations

Presenting "Bob is a bottleneck" triggers defensive political reactions and kills trust. It turns structural diagnosis into personal attack. [src2]

Correct: Use anonymized role-based identifiers or team-level aggregation

Show "Engineering Team Lead (Node #7) has 4.2x average centrality" rather than naming individuals. Structural insight is identical; political risk is eliminated.

Wrong: Proposing time-and-materials retainers after OIA findings

Billing by the hour creates the exact perverse incentive OIA methodology was designed to eliminate. [src3]

Correct: Always propose outcome-based (metabolic recovery) pricing

The consultant's revenue depends on solving the problem, not studying it. This aligns incentives and differentiates OIA from traditional consulting.

When This Matters

Use when the agent needs to produce a client-facing presentation of OIA diagnostic findings with health score visualizations, risk heat maps, and remediation roadmaps. Requires completed organizational health scoring and ONA data as inputs.