Get started!
US launch campaign Adoption Recovery Review · a ten-day engagement · fixed scope, agreed in writing $25,000 $12,500 fixed · 50% off assumes a 50–100 person organization, up to 3 executives leading the transformation · launch cohort builds the case-study base

Renewal is coming. Make the AI spend defensible.

The Adoption Recovery Review runs AI-native diagnostics and simulation over your deployment and delivers the recovery decision with a 90-day intervention roadmap. The work a change program used to bill $150,000+ for.

$25,000$12,500fixed · ten-day engagement
50% launch pricing
Start your recovery this month See how it works
Tom Delaporte
Tom Delaporte · Founder, TDcatalyst

Every engagement is delivered personally. Built the workforce exchange practice at Eightfold AI from a standing start to eight-figure ARR across Fortune 100 and public-sector accounts; led organizational design and change at Capgemini; ran HR and transformation programs across five countries.

Eightfold AI · 8-figure ARR Capgemini · org design & change Fortune 100 · public sector CCMP · SAFe

Track record cited from prior roles. TDcatalyst is an independent practice, not affiliated with or endorsed by any prior employer.

Where you are starting from

Four situations, one discipline: the work has to change.

Enterprise AI rarely fails loudly. MIT found 95% of GenAI pilots show no measurable P&L impact, and adoption typically plateaus at 15–30%. Select your situation: the page tunes itself.

Stalled platform

25 programs delivered

The platform launched. Usage plateaued.

The problem

A department-level AI platform (talent, service, finance, operations): licensed, launched, and stuck at 15–30% adoption, most of it performative. People run the tool beside the old way, usage decays each quarter, and renewal approaches with log-ins as the only evidence.

The roadmap

Re-sequence the rollout around the workflows the platform was bought for: redesign three to five of them end to end, build the capability, and hold it in the team cadence, measured on feature depth per workflow.

This is us →

Frontier-lab seats

Flagship

Everyone got a seat. Every role changes.

Claude ChatGPT Copilot Gemini
The problem

Seats arrived for everyone at once, with no task-level answer to who does what now. Log-ins look fine, the work is unchanged, and every role carries quiet uncertainty about what it is becoming.

The roadmap

Redraw each role task by task into human-led, shared, and handed-to-AI lanes, name owners wherever work changes hands, and point the freed capacity at named work.

This is us →

The forty pilots

Emerging challenge

Every system you already own now ships agents.

The problem

The agentic push is arriving through the stack you already bought. Every platform in it now ships AI features and asks for credits to run them, so the spend compounds vendor by vendor while nobody can say which consumption is earning anything inside a workflow.

The roadmap

Decide which platforms matter and which AI features earn their consumption inside a named workflow. Every vendor ask scored on five criteria and decided in writing, with a standing cadence that keeps pace with what those vendors ship next quarter.

Score one platform's AI features on the five criteria:
Value evidence: it moves a named workflow metric
Workflow embed: over 30% in-flow use
Named sponsor funds and defends it
Consumption cost per unit of work falls with scale
Risk cleared: data, security, compliance
Answer all five: the verdict computes.
This is us →

Starting 0 → 1

Your one chance to start right

A handful use AI. Some are hiding it.

The problem

Leadership has barely touched the tools, no platform is chosen, no use policy exists, and the only reportable number is log-ins. A third of employees quietly read AI as replacement.

The roadmap

Vision and culture first: leadership writes the charter and goes first, managers coach the new work and repurpose the freed time visibly, and monthly builder events make augmentation something people can see.

This is us →

Selecting a situation highlights its 90-day outcome below and tells Tom where you are starting from.

Launch economics

The $150K change management project, at AI-native speed.

This diagnostic, simulation, and roadmap work is what a traditional change project scopes into its first phase and bills six figures for. AI-native delivery collapses the cost, and the launch campaign passes the difference on: fast, inexpensive, and professional enough to defend in front of your top leadership or board.

Traditional change project, phase one$150K+ · a quarter or more

A consulting team on site for months, interviewing toward a deck.

Internal working groupmonths of employee-hours

Cross-functional and part-time; the review rarely ends in a decision.

Adoption Recovery Review$12,500 · decision in ~4 weeks

Senior, independent, AI-native. A decision and a sequenced roadmap, produced while your team keeps its day jobs.

US launch campaign
$25,000 $12,500 fixed

Launch pricing: 50% off the $25,000 list fee, scoped in writing before it starts. The work a change program used to bill $150,000+ for.

Engagement window10 business days
Your team's involvement3–5 hrs / day, team total
Production & delivery+2 weeks
100% of the fee is credited toward an Adoption Reset started within 30 days of delivery.
Why this price: the launch cohort builds the practice's US case-study base. Every engagement produces a case study; your name is used only with your written approval.
Start your recovery this month
A 30-minute call. No proposal unless there is a fit.
Step 1 · Diagnose

Four ways rollouts stall. The diagnostic names yours.

Twelve questions map your deployment onto four researched archetypes, each read on six criteria. Select one: the profile redraws, and the dashed ring marks the deficit.

The Seam OrganizationCharacteristic profile

AI decisions sit in one function, individuals use it sporadically, managers are experimenting. Nobody has a cohesive plan to work with.

Deficit: People voice. Leadership and the people function did not make the conditions to change the way people work.
  1. Add workforce-side design to the AI strategy from the start: role redesign, manager enablement, the change work that turns access into usage.
  2. Map the seam between product, operations, and people: where handoffs break and accountability blurs.
  3. The 90-day work: redesign the room the transformation is run from.
Step 2 · Sequence

The plays are additive. The sequence is what compounds them.

Thirteen research-backed interventions, each one modeled. No single order is correct, and no plan needs all thirteen: what matters is that a play lands only once what it depends on is already there. Run a path below and watch the modeled 24 weeks.

Run a sequence There is no single correct order, and not every play is needed. Two paths reach self-sustaining; the ways it breaks are below.
Paths that reach self-sustaining
What most organizations run, and where it stops
The modeled 24 weeks. Press play, or select any play for its full model detail.

One modeled schedule, not the only one: the simulator packs two workstreams at a time, gates proof before the social plays, builds capability on the redesigned workflow, and holds sustainment late. Score your own order in the AI Adoption Simulator.

Step 3 · Deliver

You leave with working documents, and the loop that measures their impact.

This is the delivery engine, and the reason ten days of engagement is enough. Your context carries the same weight as the production system: the playbooks are written from it, pointed back at it, and wired to the dashboard that reads their effect. Select any document to see it up close.

The delivery flywheel each turn compounds
The loop Four turns, then it keeps turning.

Your context feeds the production system, the playbooks come back written for your teams, the dashboard reads what they did, and the next intervention is chosen on that evidence. Select a quarter of the wheel for what it needs and what it produces.

Library

The instrument library

Six engagement documents and thirteen intervention playbooks, applied to your rollout. Select any one to read it up close.

The six engagement documents ship with every Review. The thirteen playbooks are the plays the model scores today, selected from a much larger intervention library; the Review draws on the full shelf.

Where it leads

The Adoption Reset: the roadmap, executed in 90 days.

The Review hands you the plan. The Reset runs it with you: interventions in sequence, tracked on the dashboard, adjusted as the data comes in. Pick your situation to see what 90 days produces. The lanes overlap by design (the model schedules two workstreams at a time, matching real change capacity), and the fading bars continue past week 12.

Stalled platform25 programs delivered

Workflow-embedded use, past the plateau.

  • Compounding features in daily use, measured per workflow rather than per log-in
  • Three to five workflows redesigned end to end: augmented steps, new steps, capability built, held in the team cadence
  • License spend defensible at renewal, on output evidence
45–60%weekly in-workflow use, from a 15–30% plateau3–5workflows redesigned end to end2–4xdepth of feature use per redesigned workflow
Frontier-lab seatsFlagship

Every role redrawn: human-led, shared, handed to AI.

  • Each role's tasks sorted by the four questions, with owners named wherever work changes hands
  • Freed capacity pointed at named work, visible on the dashboard
  • Reviews measure the new work: performance criteria and rituals updated to match
60–80%of tasks in target roles sorted into lanes4–8 hrsper person per week freed and repointed100%of affected roles with updated review criteria
The forty pilotsEmerging challenge

A governed portfolio: every platform ask decided.

  • A decision on every line: scale, institutionalize, hold as experimentation, or stop, the vendor credit asks included
  • Winners institutionalized: policy, SOPs, named sponsors, budgets that survive review
  • A standing governance cadence that keeps pace with what vendors ship next quarter
100%of pilots and vendor asks decided in writing15–25%scale · 20–30% institutionalize · the rest is treated as experimentation or stops1standing governance cadence, owned internally
Starting 0 → 1Your one chance to start right

The majority have run AI on work they own by week 12.

  • Past the access-to-activation gap: Deloitte puts 55% of workers as open to AI but not activated and the gap unmoved year over year, so the 90 days are built to get each person onto a task they own
  • Charter and use policy written by leadership, who go first, visibly and imperfectly
  • Monthly builder events shipping working prototypes with named owners and a Monday cadence
  • A tracking cadence past log-ins: workflow use, value cases, manager rhythm
80%+of the leadership team using AI weekly, visibly55–60%of people having run AI on a task they own3builder events, 6–10 working prototypes on real data

About these numbers. Indicative 90-day targets for programs of this shape, drawn from adoption work of this kind and from anonymized enterprise delivery experience. They are the targets set against your own week-one baseline during the Review, never a promise.

The Review fee is the down payment. Start a Reset within 30 days of delivery and 100% of the $12,500 is credited toward the Reset. The full Adoption Reset engagement ($40K–$75K, fixed fee) is on the Grow page; the entry point for every situation is the same 30-minute call.

Get started

Bring the deployment as it actually is.

A 30-minute call, video or phone. Uneven usage and unclear ownership are the starting point; there is nothing to resolve beforehand.

Get started!
What the call produces
  1. Your adaptive challenge. Which of the four archetypes your deployment matches, and why.
  2. An AI transformation maturity read. Where your organization sits on the arc, from first seats to redesigned roles.
  3. Proposal scoping. The key elements a first proposal needs, or the honest read that this is not a fit.

Prefer email? tom@tdcatalyst.com

Note received. Tom will reply directly from tom@tdcatalyst.com within two business days.

Messages route to tom@tdcatalyst.com via FormSubmit. See Privacy.

Common questions

Before you ask.

If you have read this far, you are looking for the catch. Here is where people usually look.

Good: keep it. Vendor adoption teams are measured on your usage of their product; this review is measured on whether your work changed. Only an independent assessment reads the rollout against your outcomes rather than the vendor's dashboard, and the two run fine side by side.
Yes, and many organizations are: the working group is on month four and version eleven of the deck. The structural problem is that every initiative already has an internal owner, so the review rarely ends in a decision. Independence and the instrument stack are most of what you are buying.
The deliverable is a recovery plan on a 90-day calendar, wired into a tracking dashboard your team keeps. The playbooks are built to be run and measured; filing them would take deliberate effort. If the larger execution engagement is warranted, the full fee carries over.
Then you are in the 0→1 situation above, which is the cheapest moment to get the sequence right: the charter, the use policy, and the first builder events cost a fraction of a recovery. The same Review scopes the starting arc instead of a recovery plan.
This is the entry point, sized to fit inside an existing program budget, and it stands alone. $12,500, a ten-day engagement, one decision. The large engagement only exists if the plan proves it should.

Still reading? The next 30 minutes of research is the call itself: book it.

Not ready for a call? Run the preliminary diagnostic: twelve questions, no email required, and it names your archetype with the first move.