Menu

Framework

Person-specific execution systems.

A proposed model for examining how outcomes, task demands, individual capabilities, behaviour and system design interact to produce reliable execution or recurring friction.

Definition

A person-specific execution system is the combination of behaviours, capabilities, workflows, tools, support structures, decision rules, environmental conditions and feedback mechanisms through which a particular individual produces required outcomes.

Six core objects

The developing framework keeps six objects distinct so that a preference, process habit or assessment result is not mistaken for the outcome itself.

  1. Required outcomes: the results and governing standards that must be achieved.
  2. Task demands: what producing those outcomes requires cognitively, behaviourally, socially and practically.
  3. Person supply: current capabilities, tendencies, knowledge, experience, energy patterns, resources and constraints.
  4. Execution system: workflows, tools, supports, decision rules, environment and feedback mechanisms.
  5. Execution behaviour: what the person observably does in the system.
  6. Performance evidence: observable evidence that behaviour, output, quality and outcomes meet the required standard.

See the working definitions for these terms.

Core model

Eight stages, treated as a learning loop.

The model moves from the required result to a designed intervention, then tests what changes in observed execution and performance evidence.

  1. Required Outcomes

    Define the measurable results the role must achieve. These stay fixed.

  2. Task Demands

    Identify the actions, decisions, interactions and sustained behaviours the outcome actually requires.

  3. Person Supply

    Describe the person's current capabilities, tendencies, knowledge, energy patterns and constraints.

  4. Execution Friction

    Locate delay, inconsistency, excessive effort or failure risk in the interaction between person, task and system.

  5. Designed Intervention

    Change capability, workflow, tools, support, sequencing, environment or decision rules deliberately.

  6. Execution Behaviour

    Observe what the person actually does inside the redesigned pathway.

  7. Performance Evidence

    Observe whether the required outcome is achieved reliably and to the governing standard.

  8. Continuous Learning

    Use the evidence to keep refining the fit between person, role and system.

Current status

Eight-stage working model · publicly documented · under refinement as definitions, evidence and practical cases develop.

Worked example

Follow one outcome through the full loop.

The framework is useful when it connects an actual result to the person, the demands of the work, the support designed and the evidence that follows.

  1. Required outcome: a weekly cash-flow review is completed and shared by Friday.
  2. Task demands: gather figures, begin an ambiguous task, decide what matters and communicate the result.
  3. Person supply: the owner is commercially capable but finds detail-heavy starts costly when the week is full.
  4. Execution friction: the review is delayed, remains in working memory and competes with urgent customer work.
  5. Designed intervention: define the first action, protect a short start window and add a visible prompt with clear ownership.
  6. Execution behaviour: observe whether the review begins, progresses and closes through the redesigned path.
  7. Performance evidence: check timing, completeness, decision quality and whether the review changes next-week actions.
  8. Continuous learning: retain, revise or remove the support based on evidence and unintended effects.

Design boundary

What remains fixed—and what can adapt.

Adaptation is legitimate only when it preserves the outcome and its legal, safety, ethical, evidence and quality constraints.

Held constant

Fixed elements

These elements are not altered merely to accommodate an individual’s preferences.

  • Outcome
  • Legal requirements
  • Safety controls
  • Ethical boundaries
  • Evidence requirements
  • Quality thresholds

Responsibly designed

Adaptable elements

These parts of the execution pathway may change when doing so improves reliability without weakening the fixed elements.

  • Sequencing
  • Prompting
  • Work presentation
  • Communication channel
  • Decision support
  • Delegation
  • Timing
  • Feedback
  • Tool choice
  • Managerial support

Governing principle

Hold the outcome constant. Adapt the path.

In technical use: hold required outcomes and accountability constant. Adapt the execution system where the nature of the outcome permits.

Friction taxonomy

Recurring points where execution becomes harder or less reliable.

These categories are working definitions for investigation, not diagnoses or claims about a person’s fixed identity.

Initiation

Difficulty beginning a required action at the appropriate time.

Prioritisation

Difficulty deciding which action requires attention first among competing demands.

Sequencing

Difficulty organising actions into an effective order.

Structure

Difficulty performing reliably when expectations, boundaries or next steps are insufficiently defined.

Completion

Difficulty checking, closing, documenting or handing off work.

Decision

Delay or inconsistency created by uncertainty, excessive options or insufficient support.

Attention

Difficulty sustaining, shifting or protecting attention for the required task.

Interpersonal

Execution difficulty arising from communication, trust, conflict, influence or coordination.

Regulatory

Difficulty associated with self-regulation, stress response, impulse control or recovery—not legal regulation.

Capability

Difficulty caused primarily by insufficiently developed skill, knowledge, experience or practical capacity.

Designed interventions

A designed intervention may change capability, workflow, tools, sequencing, prompting, support, environment, decision rules or feedback. It may be delivered by the individual, a manager, team, process, training programme, software or AI system.

The intervention should be proportionate, contestable and evaluated against observable behaviour and outcomes. Support should reduce as capability and reliability develop where appropriate; a permanent scaffold that creates dependency is not an automatic success.

Explore how technology may enable adaptive supportand the questions that must be tested.