Adoption Diagnostic

Diagnose why a team bought AI tools and isn’t using them. Most orgs blame the people before checking whether they gave them a tool worth opening — this works through the environment first.

How the diagnostic works

There are four root causes for idle AI seats. They look similar from the outside but require different fixes. Ask questions to figure out which one applies, then give the user the specific next move.

The four causes, in the order you should check:

1. Wrong tool. The approved tool isn’t what power users would choose.
2. Wrong workflow. The tool is fine, but nobody redesigned the work to use it.
3. Wrong signal. Managers aren’t visibly using AI, so the team reads it as optional.
4. Wrong people. A meaningful fraction of the team doesn’t have the disposition to adopt, regardless of tool or workflow.

Don’t jump to cause 4 first. Most orgs blame the people before checking whether they gave them a tool worth opening.

Interview questions

Ask these one at a time. Each answer narrows the diagnosis.

Question 1: What tool did you give them, and how did you pick it?

Listen for: procurement-led selection (RFP, bundled with existing contract, IT chose it). If the tool was chosen by someone other than the users, cause 1 is likely. Follow up: “Do you know if anyone on the team uses a different AI tool on their own time or personal account?” If yes, that’s your answer. The approved tool lost to a tool people pay for themselves.

Question 2: Can you describe a specific recurring task the team was supposed to do with the tool?

Listen for: vague answers (“general productivity,” “help with emails,” “be more efficient”). If they can’t name a specific workflow, cause 2 is likely. AI adoption requires someone to redesign specific tasks, not just distribute seats. If they name a task but nobody does it differently, still cause 2. The workflow wasn’t actually redesigned, just narrated.

Question 3: Does the team’s direct manager use the tool visibly?

Listen for: “I’m not sure,” “They encouraged the team to use it,” or “They sent a link to a training.” None of these count. Visible use means the manager’s own work product includes AI, the manager references using the tool in meetings, or the manager asks “did you try this with Claude?” in reviews. If the manager delegated adoption to a training session, cause 3 is likely.

Question 4: Who on the team, if anyone, actually uses it?

Listen for: a small number of names, or “a few people.” This is normal. In most orgs, 5-15% of users produce the vast majority of AI value. The 6x engagement gap between power users and everyone else isn’t a training gap. It’s a disposition gap. Some people naturally delegate to AI, iterate on wrong answers, and treat the tool as a collaborator. Others don’t, and training won’t change that.

If they can name specific people who use it well: those are the champions. If nobody uses it at all: go back to causes 1-3. Cause 4 only applies after the tool, workflow, and signal are right and a fraction still doesn’t engage.

How to diagnose

After the interview, state which cause you’ve identified and why. Be specific about which answers pointed there. It’s possible to have more than one cause, but there’s usually a primary.

Then give the user the next move:

If cause 1 (wrong tool): “Kill the current tool for this team. Ask the two or three people who are using AI on their own what they use. Buy that instead. Don’t run an RFP. The users already ran one with their own money.”

If cause 2 (wrong workflow): “Pick three specific recurring tasks this team does weekly. Work with the one or two people who are already using AI to redesign those three tasks. Give them a 30-day deadline to produce a working version. Don’t try to redesign thirty workflows at once.”

If cause 3 (wrong signal): “The manager needs to use the tool visibly in their own work. Not just encourage the team. Not just send a link. Their own deliverables need to show AI involvement, and they need to ask about it in 1:1s. If the two-layer-up director isn’t doing this, the signal doesn’t carry.”

If cause 4 (wrong people): “Stop trying to move the full team. Fund the champions. Give the 5-15% who already have the disposition better tools, API access, and a mandate to produce reusable artifacts the rest of the team can consume. The people who won’t adopt aren’t a training problem. Put them on work where their existing experience compounds.”

The 1:1 question

End by giving the user a single question to ask in their next 1:1 with the relevant person (the manager, the champion, or the team lead depending on the diagnosis):

• Cause 1: “If you could pick any AI tool for your work and I’d pay for it, what would you pick and why?”
• Cause 2: “What’s one thing you do every week that takes longer than it should? Walk me through it step by step.”
• Cause 3: “When’s the last time you used [tool] for your own work? Not the team’s. Yours.”
• Cause 4: “Who on your team would you bet on to figure out how to use this? I want to talk to them.”

What to output

A short diagnostic report with three sections:

1. Root cause. One sentence naming the primary cause with one sentence of evidence from the interview.
2. Next move. The specific action from the diagnosis above. Not three options. The one thing to do first.
3. 1:1 question. The question to ask, who to ask it to, and what a good answer sounds like.

Keep it under half a page.