Conceptual foundations
Clarify definitions and proposed relationships among required outcomes, task demands, individual strengths and energy patterns, alignment and friction, system design, execution and performance evidence.
Research
Questions before claims.
The Institute’s programme is at an early stage. Its immediate work is conceptual, comparative and methodological: define its constructs, examine overlap with established disciplines, test proposed models and establish the limits of responsible application.
Current programme
Four areas of development.
These are research intentions and open workstreams, not completed studies or evidence of impact.
Adjacent-field review
Map overlap and difference across behavioural science, psychology, human factors, implementation science, ergonomics and systems thinking without renaming established work.
Methods and measurement
Develop proportionate ways to describe individual strengths, energy patterns, task demands and friction; observe execution; and distinguish practical signal from causal evidence.
Ethics and governance
Build explicit principles for autonomy, consent, equity, privacy, contestability and the detection of unintended effects.
Research questions
A testable agenda for the developing discipline.
These questions are priorities for study. Their inclusion does not imply that the Institute has already produced evidence answering them.
- Can recurring forms of execution friction be identified and measured reliably?
- Do person-specific workflow adaptations improve completion, quality or consistency compared with a standard execution pathway?
- Which parts of an execution pathway can be adapted without weakening accountability, safety or quality?
- Which interventions produce short-term compliance but fail to build long-term capability?
- Can observed execution behaviour improve intervention selection beyond self-report assessment alone?
- Can adaptive prompting reduce missed or delayed actions without creating prompt dependency?
- Which forms of AI support improve judgement, and which create automation bias or reduced capability?
- How should person-specific systems distinguish between preference, capability, energy and avoidance?
- How stable are execution-friction patterns across roles, environments and time?
- What minimum evidence should be required before behavioural data is used in high-stakes organisational decisions?
- Can person-specific support improve performance without increasing surveillance or perceived loss of autonomy?
- How should users challenge, correct or override an AI-generated interpretation of their behaviour?
Validation roadmap
A transparent route from proposition to evidence.
The roadmap separates work that is currently documented from work that is planned or has not yet commenced. It is developmental and may change as evidence emerges; no stage below implies completed validation unless it says so.
- Stage 1
Concept development
In progressDefinitions, the eight-stage framework, item bank and versioned scoring logic are documented as working material.
- Stage 2
Content review
PlannedExpert review, cognitive interviews and item refinement have not yet been completed as a formal programme.
- Stage 3
Pilot testing
PlannedResponse patterns, completion quality and initial reliability analysis remain to be established with an appropriate sample.
- Stage 4
Construct evaluation
Not commencedFactor structure, convergent validity and discriminant validity have not yet been published.
- Stage 5
Outcome research
Not commencedRelationships with relevant execution and business measures remain research questions, not outcome claims.
- Stage 6
Fairness and limitations
In progressPopulation limits, self-report limitations and responsible-use boundaries are published; formal bias analysis is not yet complete.
- Stage 7
Ongoing revision
OngoingThe work is versioned and open to critique, with material revisions recorded as the public account develops.
Methods must match the claim
Conceptual analysis, adjacent-field review, self-report, behavioural observation, implementation evidence and causal evaluation answer different questions. The programme should keep those distinctions visible and report null, mixed and adverse findings.
When should an intervention not proceed?
Not every desired behaviour or performance outcome is legitimate. Research and application require proportionate review of power, consent, privacy, autonomy, fairness, contestability, surveillance risk and unintended effects.
See the technology safeguards, the working terminology and the contribution principles.
Latest publications
Published work, with status attached.
The publications section brings working papers and other document types together without presenting development-stage work as settled research.
Designing Execution Pathways That Support Performance
A working method for designing roles and systems around individual strengths and energy patterns while holding required outcomes constant, including design moves, evidence standards and ethical practice.
Read paperThe Foundations of Behavioural Performance
A working account of the field’s core constructs — strengths, energy patterns, task demands, alignment, friction, system design and engagement — and the eight-stage pathway model that connects them.
Read paper