Principle 11: Distributed Ownership Prevents Bottlenecks

Summary

When responsibility for Units of Effort is concentrated in a single individual or role, the system becomes vulnerable to bottlenecks and failure. Distributed ownership – across roles, time zones, or levels – enables resiliency, faster throughput, and better scale.

 

Examples

Scenario: A buyer performs a quick compliance check on a standard low-value contract template (FLOW A)

Ownership: Assigned directly to the individual buyer. No backup.

Risk: Minimal – the task is simple and delays are rare

 

Scenario: A team of three junior buyers rotate weekly to review standard contracts coming from a regional office (FLOW B)

Ownership: Distributed by rotation schedule. Each member can perform the task; one is always primary.

Risk: Minimal – the load is balanced, with minimal disruption during vacation or other types of leave

​

Scenario: A technical contract requires coordination with legal, finance, and engineering (FLOW C)

Ownership: A seasoned buyer is assigned the contract given their unique understanding of the coordination required.

Risk: Moderate – depending on whether or not another buyer has the same skillset and can take over without disruption

​

Scenario: The agency realizes the contracting review pipeline is broken and initiates a redesign effort (FLOW D)

Ownership: The agency assigns the only project manager that has undertaken similar efforts in the past

Risk: High – the highly centralized structure and specialized skillset required makes non-disruptive transfer very difficult

 

Quick Case Study

A procurement team centralizes all emergency requests with one senior buyer. During a crisis, that buyer goes on leave – and the entire process halts. In contrast, a team using a shared protocol for triaging emergencies sees no interruption when any one person is unavailable.

 

Common Mistakes

• Assigning all FLOW D or FLOW C efforts to a single “expert” without backup

• Assuming “ownership” means “exclusive control” instead of “shared accountability”

• Failing to document or delegate, leading to orphaned efforts when people exit

• Thinking distributed ownership means everyone is responsible for everything

​

Red Flags

• A project or task pauses every time one person is on vacation

• Stakeholders say “Only x knows how to do that”

• Multiple urgent tasks are funneled to a single inbox or Slack thread

• Workload distribution varies wildly between peers with the same role

 

Key Diagnostic Questions

• What happens if the current owner disappears?

• Is ownership backed up by a structure, or is it person-dependent?

• How is ownership rotated or shared across time and capacity?

• Are escalation paths clear and distributed?

 

Local Application Prompts

• Identify three Units of Effort where ownership is too centralized – design a shared structure.

• Map the current “single points of failure” in your team or org

• Redesign one FLOW C Unit of Effort with shared checkpoints across multiple owners

​

Alignment Risks

• Distributed ownership without clear communication can increase confusion

• Overlapping ownership can lead to duplicated effort or turf battles

• Rigidly assigning effort to avoid bottlenecks may reduce needed specialization

​

Systems Design Anchors

• Use role-based protocols for FLOW C and FLOW D tasks

• Create handoff mechanisms with documented state transitions

• Build coverage maps showing ownership layers and escalation paths

• Use rotational duty cycles for recurring FLOW B and FLOW C responsibilities

​

Role Implications

Team Leads: Must ensure critical Units of Effort have coverage

System Designers: Should build ownership into workflow architecture

Executives: Need to model distributed responsibility, not hero culture

Analysts: Should track throughput patterns to spot ownership blockages