Adoption Logic Map

Adoption Logic Map - People Feeding People

You just mapped how decisions move inside this system.

What follows is a diagnostic lens — not a judgment.

Adoption Logic — At a Glance

A semantic snapshot (not a scorecard).

System Confidence

High — there is an explicit “yes” and activity is occurring, but movement is not yet converting into a funded, owned decision.

Rationale: Interest is confirmed, but decision ownership and funding alignment have not consolidated into a clear conversion path.

Primary Constraint

Unowned Risk — the system needs named individuals willing to take responsibility for creating “safe to proceed” conditions.

Rationale: High liability + mixed incentives means progress stalls unless someone absorbs decision risk and coordinates alignment.

Active Gates

Risk/Liability • Budget • Authority — the “yes” exists, but is not yet governed, funded, and owned.

Rationale: Budget exists in the system (not for this), risk is high, and influence is distributed across multiple actors.

What’s Protected

Liability exposure • Reputation • Operational safety — the system protects itself from harm, blame, and downstream accountability.

Rationale: In high-risk contexts, “who carries it” becomes the real decision logic.

Rational Moves

Name an owner • Create risk cover • Align incentives • Identify a funded pilot path

Rationale: Progress depends on decision ownership + a liability-safe pathway that makes funding and responsibility explicit.

Transparency

Somewhat clear — some visibility exists, but the conversion path from “yes” to funded action is still partial.

Rationale: Activity is informal and progress feels unclear, which usually signals unresolved ownership and incentives.

System Snapshot

Candidate: Imokhai Okolo · Organization: People Feeding People

System: Multi-stakeholder ecosystem · Community-based / Nonprofit context

Path: Agreement Without Ownership — “yes” exists, but conversion is blocked by unowned risk and unfunded action.

System Confidence: High — interest is real, but the system will not move until responsibility, funding, and risk cover are explicit.

Active Gate(s)

Primary Active Gate: Risk / Liability Budget Authority

When Risk/Liability is active, the system is not asking “Do we want this?” It is asking, “What could go wrong — and who absorbs the consequences if it does?”

When Budget is active, “budget exists” does not equal “budget exists for this.” Commitment requires a funded path that is explicitly allocated.

When Authority is active, influence is present across multiple actors, but no one has yet claimed responsibility for creating “safe to proceed” conditions.

Lab’s short take: The system is asking for decision cover. Progress begins when an owner is named and risk is made defensible.

What the System Is Protecting

In high-liability community systems, protection logic often outweighs enthusiasm. When Risk and Budget are active, the system commonly protects:

  • Liability exposure: legal and reputational consequences if outcomes go sideways.
  • Operational safety: ensuring decisions don’t create new harm or uncontrolled obligations.
  • Reputation: public trust and partner trust in the organization’s judgment.
  • Decision defensibility: being able to explain “why we moved forward” under scrutiny.

Lab’s short take: If risk is high and incentives are mixed, adoption requires explicit ownership — not informal consensus.

What This Is (and Is Not) Asking of You

What this asks right now.

  • Name an accountable owner: who is responsible for moving from “yes” to action.
  • Create risk cover: clarify guardrails, roles, and mitigations so proceeding becomes defensible.
  • Align incentives: identify where incentives diverge and what would make alignment stable.
  • Define a funded starting point: specify what gets funded first and what success triggers next.

What this is not asking right now

  • More conversation: informal activity without ownership tends to extend ambiguity.
  • Workflow redesign: it fits current workflows; the barrier is not operational fit.
  • More persuasion: the “yes” already exists.

Reminder: In high-risk contexts, progress is measured in defensibility and ownership — not enthusiasm.

Rational Moves Available

These are options that make sense given the terrain — not prescriptions.

  • Appoint a decision owner (or convening lead): a person or role who can coordinate commitments across stakeholders and carry responsibility.
  • Define a “safe to proceed” package: guardrails, liability boundaries, escalation paths, and who approves what.
  • Identify a funded pilot lane: small, allocated, defensible start that does not rely on “general budget” assumptions.
  • Surface incentive gaps explicitly: clarify who wins, who absorbs burden, and how to stabilize alignment.

Facilitation fit: This terrain often unlocks with a stakeholder/authority map + a risk-cover working session.

What Changed Because You Mapped This

  • You separated “interest” from “authorization,” preventing wasted effort chasing enthusiasm.
  • You named the real blocker: unowned liability + unfunded action.
  • You clarified what progress looks like: ownership, risk cover, and an allocated first step.

Lab’s short take: The system will move when responsibility is explicit and risk is made defensible.

Next Rooms (Available When Useful)

  • Stakeholders & Power: essential next (distributed influence + ownership gap).
  • Value Chain: useful to make funding legible and show where value concentrates.
  • Workflow / Integration: optional (fit is fine), useful only after a funded lane exists.