Who we are
DDA, short for Diagnostics, Dataflow, Analysis, is a diagnostic and analytical practice in Metro Vancouver, British Columbia. David Doyle leads each assignment from the first question to the final product. He frames the question, builds the evidence base, and owns the finding. Specialists join for the parts of a scope that need a professional qualification or local knowledge.
DDA works on problems where the evidence is fragmented, the important relationships cross professional boundaries, or a decision must carry more certainty than the record can support. The work finds what is occurring, explains what produces the outcome, states what is still uncertain, and shows what that means for the decision.
01 Built around the problem
Real problems seldom stay inside one profession. A growth target is also a problem of land, housing, infrastructure, finance, and municipal revenue. A workforce requirement depends on qualifications, mobility, project timing, accommodation, wages, and competing demand. A public policy question needs mandates, budgets, institutional behaviour, implementation evidence, and the responses of other actors in one view.
DDA follows those relationships because they belong to the same problem, even when different disciplines or organizations hold them. The aim is to reconstruct enough of the system to find which conditions shape the outcome and which relationships matter. That same reconstruction tells the analysis where to stop.
The work can cross economics, labour markets, land, infrastructure, policy, institutions, public records, project timing, spatial analysis, and financial analysis. The limits stay explicit. When a conclusion depends on legal, engineering, tax, accounting, Indigenous rights, environmental, or other regulated professional judgment, DDA identifies that dependency and brings the right specialist into the work.
02 What DDA looks for
Institutions publish a large amount about themselves: annual reports, budgets, plans, policy manuals, decisions, and statistics. Most readers take these documents one at a time. DDA reads them together, across years and departments, as the record of one system.
The most useful finding is often a gap between what an institution reports and what its system produces. A target can have no delivery rate that reaches it. A priority can have no budget that funds it. A public statement can have no support in the record. When the report and the system diverge, DDA measures the gap and explains what causes it.
03 One accountable lead, from question to final product
DDA is led by one person because continuity matters in analytical work. The person who frames the question also decides which sources to follow, which assumptions to test, and what the finding says. The person you talk to is accountable for the finding.
That continuity keeps evidence connected to conclusions. A source stays attached to the claim it supports. An assumption inside a model stays visible in the finding that depends on it. A contradiction found during research stays in the record when the work becomes a briefing or a final report.
When an assignment involves other consultants or specialists, DDA incorporates their work and keeps four categories separate: what is established, what is advice, what is inference, and what is still unresolved.
04 The standard
Every figure in DDA's work traces to a named primary source with its release date. Every gap is recorded with the organization that holds the missing information, and every proxy carries a label. Forecasts and assumptions stay separate from established facts.
DDA writes for the most skeptical reader the work will meet: a council member under pressure, opposing counsel, a journalist, or a ministry reviewer. The test for any finding is whether it survives that reader. When it cannot, the finding changes, or the uncertainty goes on the page. Each analysis also states the evidence that will weaken its conclusion or require a different decision.
05 How the work develops
DDA often starts before the question is fully settled. The starting point can be a target, a project, a public claim, a strategy that makes no progress, an unsupported number, conflicting records, a new mandate, or a concern that the accepted explanation is wrong.
The work first establishes the record. It separates what is known from what is claimed, inferred, disputed, forecast, or missing, and it identifies the dates, definitions, actors, decisions, and dependencies that matter. Then the analysis becomes diagnostic. DDA reconstructs the system that produces the result, tests competing explanations, examines incentives and constraints, and compares formal descriptions with how the system operates.
The last step is to find what the diagnosis changes. That can mean a test of what occurs if an apparent constraint goes away, which actor must respond, what becomes binding next, or what can fail in implementation.
The final product fits the problem. It can be a model, an evidence register, a chronology, a system or actor map, a scenario set, a strategy, a technical report, an implementation sequence, a decision brief, or a combination. In every form, the client gets a defensible account of the problem and a clear basis for action.
06 Working with DDA
DDA is built for municipalities and public bodies, associations, legal and advisory teams, and oversight and media organizations. They can engage DDA directly to investigate a problem, test a decision, build an analytical foundation, or take a defined piece of work to a finished product.
Consulting and specialist firms can also add DDA to a larger assignment. DDA can own a distinct analytical workstream, investigate a difficult dependency, reconcile evidence across disciplines, or build the analysis that connects specialist inputs to the wider decision. See For consulting teams.
A finished scope is not necessary for the first conversation. Start with the problem: what is occurring, what needs a decision, and what the current explanation has not resolved.