Could it have anything to do with time?

Order is what we know. Chaos is what we don’t know. Most people talk about the past, up to the present time. It is tangible and concrete. By studying the patterns and trends of the past, we can forecast the future, with some reliability. At least for a day. After two days, that reliability begins to break down and by the time a week is passed, reliability becomes a crapshoot with probabilities and margins for error.

The leader is not the person who can best predict. The leader is the person who is comfortable with and can effectively adapt to the uncertainty of the future. The lynchpin in organizational structure is timespan.

Discretion is about decision making. The timespan of discretion defines the uncertainty in a role. We reserve certain decisions for certain roles based on timespan. Timespan helps us understand specific levels of decision making. And there is appropriate decision making at every level of work.

• S-I – appropriate decision making from 1 day to 3 months
• S-II – appropriate decision making from 3 months to 12 months
• S-III – appropriate decision making from 1 year to 2 years
• S-IV – appropriate decision making from 2 years to 5 years
• S-V – appropriate decision making from 5 years to 10 years

Timespan helps us understand specific levels of problem solving. And there is appropriate problem solving at every level of work.

• S-I – effective problem solving using trial and error
• S-II – effective problem solving using documented processes and best practices
• S-III – effective problem solving using root cause analysis
• S-IV – effective problem solving using multi-system analysis
• S-V – effective problem solving using internal system and external system analysis

Timespan is the lynchpin that defines the framework for organizational structure. It provides guidance to the complexity of the work. It provides guidance on who should make which decisions. Timespan provides guidance of who should be whose manager.

Most importantly, timespan structures the value stream necessary for a hierarchy of competence. This hierarchy of competence defines accountability and authority. Elliott describes this as a management accountability hierarchy (MAH).