New webinar on 3rd March 2026 | 9:00 am PT
In this webinar, discover how Sopact Sense revolutionizes data collection and analysis.
Multi-rater feedback is a measurement design where one subject is rated by multiple stakeholder groups at once. Three-subject anatomy, design principles, and AI synthesis for impact orgs and program evaluators.
Framework / Multi-rater feedback
The naming differs by industry. HR uses 360. Program evaluation, talent development, and impact measurement use multi-rater. The structural design is identical across all three.
Multi-rater feedback is a measurement design where one subject is rated by multiple stakeholder groups simultaneously, and the cross-group pattern is the unit of analysis. The subject can be a person (HR-style 360), a program (workforce, training, cohort), or a partnership (grantee-funder, vendor-client). This guide explains how to implement multi-rater feedback across all three subjects, what changes in rater rosters per subject type, and how AI coding turns multi-source open-text responses into stakeholder-by-stakeholder development signals. The worked example follows a foundation grantee organization assessed by program officer, technical advisor, peer grantees, and the grantee's own leadership team.
What this guide covers
Anatomy
A multi-rater design has the same structural shape regardless of what is being rated. The subject changes. The rater roster changes. The synthesis layer stays the same. Three subject types cover most of the field.
Subjects of multi-rater feedback
01 · A person
Subject: an individual
The HR-flavored case. Most familiar in leadership development.
Rater roster
Self
Peers in the same role
Direct reports
Manager
Synthesis output: an individual development narrative. Where the four perspectives diverge is the development priority.
02 · A program
Subject: a service or initiative
The program-evaluation case. Raters cross internal and participant lines.
Rater roster
Program participants
Peer programs running similar work
Supervising body or funder
Program team itself
Synthesis output: a program improvement profile. Where participant and team perceptions diverge is where iteration goes next.
03 · A partnership
Subject: a relationship between organizations
The stakeholder-wide case. Raters span organizational boundaries.
Rater roster
Funder or program officer
Technical advisor
Peer grantee leaders
Grantee organization leadership
Synthesis output: a partnership health profile. Where funder and grantee perceptions diverge is where the relationship needs renegotiation.
The shared architecture
Three subjects, three rater rosters, one architecture. Items routed to each rater group based on what they can credibly observe. Open text coded by group at response entry. Where the rater groups converge, the assessment is reliable. Where they diverge, the development signal lives.
Multi-rater design is subject-agnostic. Most software in the market assumes the subject is an individual; the three-subject framing extends the same measurement design to programs and partnerships without changing the synthesis layer. Sources: 360-degree feedback methodology established by Edwards and Ewen, 1996; multi-stakeholder evaluation patterns adapted by Sopact, 2024.
Definitions
Four definitional questions about the design pattern, the naming variations across industries, and the structural differences from related survey types. Each answer mirrors the corresponding FAQ entry verbatim.
Multi-rater feedback is a measurement design in which one subject is rated by multiple stakeholder groups at the same time. The naming differs by industry. HR and leadership development call it 360 feedback. Talent and program evaluation call it multi-rater feedback or multi-rater assessment. Organizational psychology calls it multi-source assessment. The structural definition is identical: the cross-group pattern is the unit of analysis, not any single rater's score. The subject of a multi-rater design can be a person, a program, or a partnership.
Multi-rater feedback and 360 feedback describe the same measurement design with different audiences in mind. 360 feedback is HR-flavored and assumes the subject is an individual employee, with rater groups drawn from the org chart. Multi-rater feedback is broader. The subject can be a person, a program, or a partnership, and rater groups follow stakeholder relationships rather than only the org chart. Programs assessed by participants, peer programs, supervisors, and self are a multi-rater design. So are grantees assessed by funders, technical advisors, peer grantees, and grantee leadership.
A multi-rater assessment tool, also marketed as a 360 multi-rater assessment tool when the subject is an individual employee, collects responses from multiple stakeholder groups about the same subject, routes the responses anonymously by group, and synthesizes the results so cross-group divergence remains visible. Most multi-rater assessments fail in the synthesis layer, where qualitative responses are either word-clouded or exported to a spreadsheet for manual coding. A purpose-built multi-rater assessment tool codes open-text by stakeholder group at the point of response entry, flags self-vs-consensus divergence, and generates an evidence-backed development narrative per subject.
A multi-source assessment includes responses from at least three distinct rater groups about the same subject, with each group answering items they can credibly observe from their position relative to the subject. The output of a working multi-source assessment includes quantitative ratings by source, qualitative themes by source, self-versus-consensus divergence analysis, and development priorities derived from cross-source pattern analysis. Multi-source assessment without per-source analysis collapses into the same problem as a single-rater survey: averages that hide the divergence the design exists to surface.
Adjacent terms
Stakeholder feedback is a broader category that includes any feedback from any stakeholder, including single-source surveys.
Multi-rater is a specific structural design within that category: cross-group comparison is primary, not derived after the fact.
The trade-off: stakeholder feedback is easier to scope; multi-rater is more methodologically rigorous.
Mixed methods combines quantitative and qualitative data within one rater group or one source.
Multi-rater uses multiple rater groups, often with both quant and qual items per group.
The trade-off: mixed methods deepens one source; multi-rater triangulates across sources. Both can co-exist.
Participatory evaluation centers the people affected by the program in shaping the evaluation itself.
Multi-rater includes them as one of several rater groups, alongside other stakeholders.
The trade-off: participatory work goes deeper with one group; multi-rater goes wider across groups.
Consensus building aims to converge multiple perspectives into a shared decision.
Multi-rater is the opposite: it preserves divergence as the development signal, not noise to resolve.
The trade-off: consensus produces alignment; multi-rater produces development direction.
Design principles
Multi-rater feedback is a measurement design before it is a survey product. Six choices determine whether the design produces signal or aggregated noise. Three principles overlap with HR-style 360. Three are specific to multi-rater work where the subject is broader than an individual.
01 · Subject framing
A person, a program, or a partnership.
The first design choice in multi-rater work is naming the subject. The subject determines which rater groups apply. A program rated by an org chart is a category error; a person rated by peer organizations is a different category error. Get the subject wrong and the rater roster cannot recover.
Most multi-rater design failures start at subject framing. Name the subject before naming the raters.
02 · Rater diversity
Stakeholder relationships, not org-chart positions.
In HR-style 360, rater groups are defined by org-chart hierarchy. In multi-rater designs at the program or partnership level, rater groups are defined by stakeholder relationship. A foundation grantee's rater roster crosses organizational boundaries. A program's rater roster crosses internal and participant lines. Rater diversity is a structural property, not a sampling preference.
Org-chart-only rater rosters miss most of the development signal in non-HR contexts. Map the stakeholder network first.
03 · Anonymity
A three-respondent floor per group is the minimum.
Stakeholder groups need at least three respondents per group to keep individual attribution invisible in the report. A peer-grantee group with only two responses lets the subject identify each rater by tone. The honesty premium of multi-rater design depends on the anonymity floor holding across every stakeholder group.
A breached anonymity floor poisons the next cycle. Hold the floor or the design fails.
04 · Cross-source coding
Themes by source. Word clouds across all sources lose the design.
The qualitative responses are where the development signal lives. Coding them by stakeholder group against the rubric surfaces patterns the cross-source word cloud cannot show. Funder open-text and grantee open-text say different things about the same partnership; mixing them in one theme bucket erases that.
AI coding by stakeholder group is the cost of a real multi-source design. Synthesis is the point.
05 · Cadence
Annual multi-rater data arrives too late to act on.
A multi-rater cycle once a year produces a snapshot. Quarterly cycles produce a trend. For programs and partnerships, an annual rhythm misses mid-cycle iteration windows entirely. The cohort, the grantee, or the program team has already moved on by the time the report lands.
The annual rhythm is a failure mode, not the standard form. Cadence shapes whether feedback drives change.
06 · Identity persistence
Identity carries across organizations, not only inside them.
When each cycle starts a new subject record, longitudinal patterns are unrecoverable. For partnerships specifically, the subject ID has to persist across organizational boundaries: a grantee record that resets every year cannot show the multi-year trajectory the partnership exists to produce.
Identity persistence is the foundation of multi-cycle and multi-year multi-rater work. Single-cycle multi-rater is a snapshot. Linked cycles are narratives.
Method choices
Each row below names a decision a multi-rater program owner has to make. The choices map across all three subject types (person, program, partnership). The broken column describes the workflow most teams fall into. The working column describes the choice that holds.
Subject framing
Default to person vs. naming the subject explicitly
Broken
Default to rating an individual because the tooling assumes that. Misses program-level and partnership-level multi-rater opportunities entirely.
Working
Name the subject explicitly: a person, a program, or a partnership. The choice determines which rater roster applies.
Whether the rater roster makes sense for the subject. Wrong subject framing cannot be recovered downstream.
Rater roster
Org-chart hierarchy vs. stakeholder-relationship sourcing
Broken
Source raters from the org chart only. For programs and partnerships, the most informative stakeholder voices are missing entirely.
Working
Map the stakeholder network of the subject. Source raters across organizational boundaries when the subject is a program or partnership.
Whether the design covers the right perspectives. Coverage is determined by the rater roster.
Anonymity model
Names attached vs. group-level anonymity ≥ 3
Broken
Names visible. Or fewer than three respondents per stakeholder group, letting the subject identify raters by tone.
Working
Group-level anonymity with a three-respondent floor per stakeholder group. Honest answers stay honest cycle over cycle.
Whether responses are honest. Honesty rises with the anonymity floor.
Synthesis approach
Manual coding or word cloud vs. AI coding by stakeholder group
Broken
Open-text exported to a spreadsheet. Read by an analyst weeks after collection. Themed in a Word doc that mixes all sources.
Working
Each response coded by stakeholder group against the rubric at response entry. Themes by source emerge as data arrives.
Whether the qualitative half of the design is usable. Most platforms stop here.
Identity model
Fresh records per cycle vs. persistent IDs across boundaries
Broken
Each cycle creates new subject records. The cycle-1 grantee perception gap is invisible in cycle 3. Multi-year trajectories are lost.
Working
Persistent subject IDs link every cycle, including across organizational boundaries when the subject is a partnership.
Whether longitudinal patterns are recoverable. Without identity, every cycle resets.
Cadence
Annual event vs. continuous quarterly
Broken
Once a year. Feedback arrives months after the behavior, the program activity, or the partnership decision. Iteration is impossible.
Working
Continuous quarterly cycles. Behavior change, program iteration, and partnership renegotiation become measurable across cycles.
Whether feedback drives change. Annual rhythms arrive too late.
Integration with outcomes
Standalone evaluation artifact vs. linked to outcome data
Broken
Multi-rater data lives in one tool. Outcome data lives in another. The two never connect on the same record.
Working
Multi-rater data feeds outcome tracking through shared subject identity. Development data and program data live on the same record.
Whether multi-rater contributes to organizational learning. Integration is what turns evaluation into intelligence.
Compounding effect
Subject framing controls the rest. If the subject is misnamed, no rater roster, synthesis approach, or cadence can recover the design. Multi-rater work that succeeds at row two has already won at row one.
Worked example
A real-world setup where the subject is a partnership rather than a person. Four stakeholder groups rate the same grantee org. The cross-source pattern is what the foundation acts on.
"We support 30 grantees across a portfolio. Two cycles ago, we ran our first multi-rater capacity assessment. The grantee leader self-rated the org as strong on stakeholder accountability. The program officer flagged it as a watch area. The technical advisor named the same gap, with specific examples from monthly check-ins. Peer grantee leaders, asked about cross-grantee learning behavior, painted a third picture entirely. None of those four perspectives was wrong. None of them was sufficient on its own. The renewal conversation in the next quarter started from the cross-source pattern, not from any single source's narrative."
Foundation program director, mid-cycle portfolio review
The axes that bind at collection
Quantitative ratings
Grantee leader (self)
4.3
Program officer
3.1
Technical advisor
3.0
Peer grantees
3.5
⟷
Bound by grantee ID at collection
Qualitative themes
Grantee leader (self)
Stakeholder accountability is a strength
Program officer
Accountability follow-through inconsistent
Technical advisor
Specific gaps in beneficiary feedback loop
Peer grantees
Strong on cross-grantee learning
Sopact Sense produces
Stakeholder-group theme coding
Each open-text response coded against the foundation's capacity rubric. The accountability gap surfaces from program officer and technical advisor responses by mid-cycle.
Self vs. external consensus map
Grantee leader self-rating 4.3. External consensus 3.2. The 1.1-point gap surfaces in the report with supporting quotes from each external source.
Partnership development brief
Auto-generated per grantee. Not a one-page score sheet. A structured brief the program officer reads before the renewal conversation.
Multi-year trajectory
Persistent grantee IDs link cycle 1 and cycle 3. The same accountability theme appearing in both cycles flags a capacity priority for the next grant year.
Why traditional tools fail
Single-source reporting
Grantee self-report and program officer report live in separate documents. The contradiction between them is never quantified or named.
Open text never read at portfolio scale
120 open-text responses across the portfolio sit in spreadsheets. Themes are never extracted at scale. The qualitative half is decoration.
Annual cycle, lagged action
By the time the report lands, the renewal decision has already been made on the program officer's narrative. The multi-rater design did not influence the decision.
Reset per cycle
Each cycle creates new grantee records. The cycle-1 capacity gap is invisible in cycle 3. Multi-year trajectories cannot be reconstructed.
Why the integration is structural
Sopact Sense codes the open text at response entry, against the foundation's capacity rubric, by stakeholder group. The partnership development brief is generated from the same record where the cross-source ratings live. There is no export step, no consultant engagement, no separate analytics tool. The development brief is the natural output of the architecture, not a feature bolted onto a survey collector.
Multi-rater feedback examples
The three program contexts below show how the same multi-rater design extends across subject types. The rater rosters change. The rubrics change. The synthesis layer stays the same.
01 · Subject: a person
Self + peers + reports + manager
Typical shape: A 25-participant leadership cohort runs for 12 months. Each participant rated by themselves, peer cohort members, their direct reports, and their own manager. Four rater groups. Six to eight competency dimensions per group.
What breaks: The cohort runs the multi-rater cycle once at intake as a baseline. The intent is to retest at the end. By month nine, the program team is buried in manual coding of baseline open-text responses. The end-line cycle ships late or gets cut. Pre-post comparison becomes impossible.
What works: Quarterly cycles instead of pre-post. Open text coded by rater group at entry. Each participant receives a development narrative every quarter. By month twelve, the cohort has four data points per participant per rater group, not two, and the development trajectory is visible across cycles rather than as a before-after compare.
Specific shape
25-participant cohort, four cycles per year, four rater groups, ten competency items per group. Cohort output: 100 individual development narratives per quarter, plus a cohort-level pattern summary the program lead uses to adjust curriculum mid-cycle.
02 · Subject: a program
Participants + peer programs + supervisor + program team
Typical shape: A workforce training program runs cohorts of 40 participants. The subject of the multi-rater cycle is the program itself, not any one staff member. Raters: the cohort participants, peer programs running similar work in adjacent regions, the supervising body or funder, and the program team's self-assessment.
What breaks: The program collects only post-program participant feedback. Peer-program input and funder input are gathered separately on different cadences. The four perspectives never sit on the same record at the same cycle. The multi-rater design exists in name only.
What works: A single quarterly cycle with all four rater groups bound to the same program record by persistent program ID. Open-text coded by stakeholder group. Cross-cycle patterns surface when the same divergence appears in cycle 1 and cycle 3, indicating a persistent program design priority.
Specific shape
14-week cohort, 40 participants, four rater groups per cycle, six program-design competencies coded by stakeholder. Cycle output: a program improvement profile the program team uses to adjust curriculum and delivery mid-cohort, not a retrospective post-program report.
03 · Subject: a partnership
Funder + advisor + peer grantees + grantee leadership
Typical shape: A foundation supports 30 grantees across a portfolio. Annual capacity assessments traditionally rely on a self-report by the grantee leader and a closing report by the program officer. Two perspectives. No triangulation. The renewal conversation rests on whichever document is most recent.
What breaks: Grantee self-reports tend toward the optimistic. Program officer reports tend toward the structural. Technical advisors who sit between the two see specific patterns neither side surfaces. Peer grantees, asked about cross-portfolio collaboration, paint a fourth picture entirely. The picture is never complete in any single document.
What works: A multi-rater design where four stakeholder groups all rate the grantee on the same competencies in the same cycle. Open text coded against the foundation's capacity rubric. The grantee record carries all four perspectives forward year over year. The renewal conversation starts from the cross-source pattern, not a single source narrative.
Specific shape
Annual capacity assessment across a 30-org portfolio. Four stakeholder groups, eight competency dimensions, persistent grantee IDs across multi-year grant cycles. Output: a grantee development brief that program officers reference in renewal conversations, with multi-year trajectories tracked automatically.
A note on tools
SurveyMonkey and Qualtrics are strong general-purpose collection platforms with deep customization on item types and routing. Culture Amp and Lattice handle HR-flavored 360 workflows at enterprise scale. Submittable and Foundant are well-positioned for grants management, with multi-stakeholder routing built into application and renewal workflows. Each handles the collection layer of multi-rater work adequately. The architectural gap sits at synthesis, where stakeholder-group qualitative coding, divergence mapping against self-assessment, and longitudinal narrative generation typically depend on either a separate analytics stack or a manual analyst engagement.
Sopact Sense closes that gap inside the same workflow. Multi-rater feedback automation platforms purpose-built for synthesis route 360 multi-source assessment data into individual stakeholder-group themes on a single subject record. The Intelligent Cell codes open-text responses by stakeholder group at entry against the program's competency or capacity rubric. The divergence between self-perception and external consensus surfaces as data, not as a downstream calculation step. Persistent subject IDs link every cycle, including across organizational boundaries when the subject is a partnership. The development brief is a structural output of the architecture, not a feature on top of a survey collector.
Frequently asked
Thirteen questions readers ask while designing or running a multi-rater program. Each answer mirrors the corresponding entry in the page's structured data verbatim.
FAQ 01
Multi-rater feedback is a measurement design in which one subject is rated by multiple stakeholder groups at the same time. The naming differs by industry. HR and leadership development call it 360 feedback. Talent and program evaluation call it multi-rater feedback or multi-rater assessment. Organizational psychology calls it multi-source assessment. The structural definition is identical: the cross-group pattern is the unit of analysis, not any single rater's score. The subject of a multi-rater design can be a person, a program, or a partnership.
FAQ 02
Multi-rater feedback and 360 feedback describe the same measurement design with different audiences in mind. 360 feedback is HR-flavored and assumes the subject is an individual employee, with rater groups drawn from the org chart. Multi-rater feedback is broader. The subject can be a person, a program, or a partnership, and rater groups follow stakeholder relationships rather than only the org chart. Programs assessed by participants, peer programs, supervisors, and self are a multi-rater design. So are grantees assessed by funders, technical advisors, peer grantees, and grantee leadership.
FAQ 03
A multi-rater assessment tool, also marketed as a 360 multi-rater assessment tool when the subject is an individual employee, collects responses from multiple stakeholder groups about the same subject, routes the responses anonymously by group, and synthesizes the results so cross-group divergence remains visible. Most multi-rater assessments fail in the synthesis layer, where qualitative responses are either word-clouded or exported to a spreadsheet for manual coding. A purpose-built multi-rater assessment tool codes open-text by stakeholder group at the point of response entry, flags self-vs-consensus divergence, and generates an evidence-backed development narrative per subject.
FAQ 04
The best tools for automating multi-rater feedback collection combine automated rater assignment, tiered reminder sequencing, anonymous response routing, and AI synthesis of open-text responses in a single system. Sopact Sense, modern multi-rater feedback automation platforms, and the best 360 degree feedback software handle the collection layer well. The architectural difference is whether the same platform synthesizes qualitative responses by stakeholder group, or whether synthesis requires a separate analytics tool downstream. For stakeholder-wide assessment designs, that capability gap is the defining selection criterion.
FAQ 05
Multi-rater feedback examples vary by subject. For a person, the rater groups are the participant, peers, direct reports, and the participant's manager. For a program, raters are program participants, peer programs, supervisors, and the program team itself. For a partnership, such as a foundation grantee, raters are the program officer, technical advisor, peer grantee leaders, and the grantee organization's own leadership. The design pattern is consistent: one subject, four to six stakeholder groups, qualitative responses coded by group, synthesized into an evidence-backed profile.
FAQ 06
Multi-rater feedback automation platforms are software systems that handle the rater assignment, reminder sequencing, anonymous response routing, and synthesis of qualitative responses for a multi-rater design. Most automation platforms in the market focus on the collection layer. AI-native multi-rater feedback automation platforms like Sopact Sense add synthesis: open-text coding by stakeholder group at response entry, divergence mapping against self-assessment, and individual development narratives generated automatically. The collection layer alone is administrative software. Adding synthesis turns it into a measurement system.
FAQ 07
Sopact Sense automates multi-rater feedback collection from rater assignment through AI-coded synthesis in a single workflow. For stakeholder-wide assessment designs that span organizational boundaries (foundations and grantees, programs and participants, vendors and clients), the platform handles cross-organizational rater rosters, anonymous routing per stakeholder group, and longitudinal tracking through persistent participant IDs. Setup for a 50-subject multi-rater cycle typically takes under two hours.
FAQ 08
A multi-source assessment includes responses from at least three distinct rater groups about the same subject, with each group answering items they can credibly observe from their position relative to the subject. The output of a working multi-source assessment includes quantitative ratings by source, qualitative themes by source, self-versus-consensus divergence analysis, and development priorities derived from cross-source pattern analysis. Multi-source assessment without per-source analysis collapses into the same problem as a single-rater survey: averages that hide the divergence the design exists to surface.
FAQ 09
AI insights in multi-rater feedback analysis (and in 360 feedback analysis, the HR-flavored equivalent) work by processing every open-text response through a competency or capacity rubric, assigning theme tags by stakeholder group, flagging outlier language, and identifying where self-assessment diverges from cross-group consensus. The processing happens at the point of response entry, not after collection closes. By the time a stakeholder group reaches completion, AI-coded development themes are already available alongside quantitative ratings, without any export to a separate analysis tool.
FAQ 10
Yes. The multi-rater design is subject-agnostic. When the subject is a program rather than a person, rater groups become program participants, peer programs running similar work, the funder or supervising body, and the program team itself rating its own delivery. The same architecture applies: items routed to each rater group based on what they can credibly observe, qualitative responses coded by group, divergence between groups treated as the development signal. Most program evaluation tools collect single-rater data; multi-rater design adds the triangulation layer.
FAQ 11
Stakeholder feedback is a broader term covering any feedback from any stakeholder group, in any structural form, including single-source surveys. Multi-rater feedback is a specific structural design within the stakeholder feedback category: one subject is rated by multiple stakeholder groups at once, and the cross-group pattern is the unit of analysis. Most stakeholder feedback in the field is collected as separate single-source surveys then merged in a report. Multi-rater design treats the cross-source comparison as primary, and structures the data architecture around it from the start.
FAQ 12
Google Forms and SurveyMonkey can collect multi-rater responses but cannot synthesize them. Both tools store responses as flat exports without stakeholder-group routing, anonymity protection by group, or qualitative coding. For a single-cycle pilot of fewer than ten subjects, the collection layer is functional. For a recurring multi-rater program, the manual coordination cost of free or general-purpose tools usually exceeds the licensing cost of purpose-built platforms within two cycles, and the qualitative coding workload scales linearly with response volume.
FAQ 13
Sopact Sense handles multi-rater feedback as a single workflow from rater assignment through AI-synthesized development reports. Stakeholder groups are defined per subject at setup. Reminders escalate by non-response cadence. Open-text responses pass through the Intelligent Cell at entry, coding themes by stakeholder group against the program's competency or capacity rubric. Self-assessment is mapped against cross-group consensus to flag divergence. Persistent subject IDs link every cycle, so longitudinal patterns surface automatically across multi-year grant cycles, multi-cohort programs, and multi-quarter leadership cycles.
Related guides
Pillar
The HR-flavored cousin of multi-rater feedback. Four-rater anatomy, design principles, and AI synthesis when the subject is a person.
Read →
Sister
What a multi-rater report should contain. Five elements, a sample walkthrough, and what most reports leave out.
Read →
Sister
How to evaluate multi-rater feedback automation platforms. The two-layer architecture: collection vs. synthesis.
Read →
Methodology
The bracketed measurement design multi-rater cycles often pair with: a baseline at intake and an end-line at completion linked by persistent ID.
Read →
Methodology
The cycle-over-cycle measurement design that turns single multi-rater cycles into multi-cycle development narratives.
Read →
Survey design
Why the rated-item plus open-text pattern carries more signal than either format alone, and how to bind both halves to the same record.
Read →
Book a multi-rater working session
A 30-minute working session with the multi-rater architecture applied to your subject, whether that is a leadership cohort, a workforce program, or a foundation portfolio. Walk away with a worked rater roster and a sample synthesis brief, not a generic demo with placeholder data.
Format
Live working session, 30 minutes, with Unmesh Sheth, Founder and CEO.
What to bring
A subject (person, program, or partnership), a competency or capacity rubric, and a rough stakeholder list.
What you leave with
A worked rater roster, a sample synthesis brief against your rubric, and a candid read on whether Sopact fits.
