Below the waterline of an international consortium: the Iceberg model in Athmos practice

• The technological partner launches a prototype at the local level without consultation, much to the frustration of the other members.

• Meetings are bogged down in discussions about pace, authority, and terminology.

• One of the advocates is threatening to withdraw due to “lack of participation”.

• The philanthropic partner asks questions about impact but receives little response.

• External communication is difficult: conflicting messages about purpose and target group.

Athmos Pulse makes cultural differences and simmering tensions visible as actual signals.

This makes it clear where cooperation fails: not because of unwillingness, but because of different habits, decision-making logic and expectations.

• Every consultation starts constructively, but ends in subcutaneous friction: people feel insufficiently understood and drop out.

• User group representatives block steps that are not 100% supported.

• “We can't afford to make a mistake.” versus “We have to show that this works, otherwise we risk losing funding.”

• The tech partner talks about delaying “political maneuvers”.

• Individual motives play a role: personal convictions, ideological preferences, sensitivity to reputation.

• Decisions are made formally but informally questioned.

Athmos Atlas mentions recurring reflexes — such as national sensitivities or power differences — without falling into stereotyping.

This way, teams get language to better understand each other and differences are converted into workable agreements instead of a source of conflict.

• There is no shared framework for decision-making: some partners follow internal hierarchy, while others work bottom-up.

• The division of roles is unclear: who decides about content, timing, resources?

• KPIs are different: the tech partner focuses on speed and reach, the philanthropic partner on social impact, and the advocates on representativeness.

• The consortium leadership has no mandate to address conflict.

Athmos Atlas recalibrates consultation structures and decision-making logic so that diversity in speed, hierarchy and accountability can be managed.

This brings clarity to who decides, how agreements apply in different cultures and how coordination can be faster and more consistent.

• “Technologists don't understand people.”

• “The slowness of politics is sabotaging real progress.”

• “Philanthropists want great reports, not real impact.”

• “We share the social interest — they make a business out of it.”

• “If we don't intervene now, it will soon be too late.”

• “Consensus is more important than speed.”

Atmos Compass reveals the implicit beliefs that block cooperation — from entrenched national reflexes to ingrained ideas about power and influence. By making these assumptions negotiable, a shared language and a new narrative are created in which differences no longer feed suspicion, but strengthen coherence and trust. This way, a consortium not only gets a strategic plan, but also a credible story that leaders and teams can support.