Business Health Check

Why this question matters

When cash, customers and staff all seem to need attention, a business owner can spend the week reacting without identifying the main constraint. This health check brings several operating facts into one structured view. It combines twenty two questions about the business, money, customers, management routines and people. The purpose is to choose an investigation priority. It is not a medical style diagnosis, an audit opinion or a comparison with other businesses in your sector.

Collect the figures before answering. Use a consistent monthly basis for revenue and costs, current staff and customer counts, and clearly defined periods for new customers and departures. Check average collection, supplier and stock days against your records where possible. A service business without inventory can enter zero stock days. Your description of the main concern helps frame the discussion, but it does not alter the deterministic score.

Treat the management ratings as evidence questions. A named owner should have a recognisable responsibility, while a regular review should produce decisions and follow through. Written role descriptions should correspond to current staff, and the number of people able to cover a manager should not exceed the current staff count. The top three customer share cannot be smaller than the largest customer share. These checks improve consistency, although they cannot verify the truth of an answer.

Understand the method

1. Each dimension is normalised to 0 to 100 using the published rules shown below.
2. Overall health is the unweighted mean of five dimensions.
3. Free text is context only and never changes the deterministic score.

The output contains five dimensions: diagnosis clarity, growth readiness, operational discipline, automation foundations and funding readiness. Each dimension combines particular entered facts and ratings using the published formula. The overall result is the simple average of those five dimensions. Several underlying facts appear in more than one dimension because, for example, clear roles can affect both operating discipline and the ability to introduce automation.

Read the disclosed reference choices carefully. The rubric caps points, uses a three month cash cover reference, converts a twenty per cent operating margin to full margin points and uses a 120 day cycle reference. These are transparent planning choices, not verified sector benchmarks. The automation dimension is a proxy for process and role foundations. It does not inspect software, calculate savings or prove that an AI project is appropriate.

Begin with the lowest dimension, then inspect the inputs that created it. A low growth result might reflect customer dependence, weak contribution or staff departures, and those are different problems. Choose a narrow investigation that can distinguish the likely causes. For example, reconcile the cost basis before trying to improve margin, or review departed roles before attributing turnover to management. The result should concentrate effort without pretending that a single number explains the whole business.

Keep the result in perspective

This is a transparent planning calculation or self assessment, not a sector benchmark, professional valuation or a prediction of an outcome.

Automation readiness is a proxy for process clarity, not an estimate of savings. Staff turnover uses current staff count as its denominator. No verified sector benchmark is applied.

The score combines self assessment with simplified ratios. It does not validate bank balances, revenue recognition, customer records or staff information. Turnover uses current staff count as its denominator, which can distort comparisons where staffing changed substantially during the year. Acquisition points use new customers relative to current active customers; they do not measure customer quality, retention value or the cost of acquisition.

The tool applies no verified industry comparison. A score cannot certify funding readiness, operational safety or future growth. Do not compare unrelated businesses as if the numbers were league rankings. Keep the reporting scope and definitions stable when repeating the assessment. An apparent improvement may come from changed definitions or more generous ratings rather than improved operating conditions.

Read the full limitations or explore how Ayodeji approaches this work.