Principle 4:
FLOW Is Contextual

Summary

FLOW is relative. The complexity and scale of a Unit of Effort must be judged within its specific context, not in isolation. A task that is simple in one environment may trigger a redesign or coordination challenge in another.

 

Examples

Unit of Effort: Submitting a travel voucher.

FLOW A: In a garrison office with automated systems and trained staff-standard process.

FLOW D: In forward-deployed unit using paper forms and limited connectivity – requires process redesign and coordination.

​

Unit of Effort: Updating a vendor in a system.

FLOW A: Central office with direct database access and authority.

FLOW C or D: In compliance-heavy zone where changes trigger audits and multi-agency reviews.

​

Unit of Effort: Placing a requisition for medical supplies.

FLOW A or B: At a base with stable suppliers and procurement templates.

FLOW D: In humanitarian relief zones requiring alternate routing, substitution approvals, and NGO coordination.

​

Unit of Effort: Delivering a training brief

FLOW A: Routine monthly update within the same team.

FLOW C: Same brief now delivered to a joint interagency task force needing translation, alignment, and new visuals.

FLOW D: Delivered in an international setting with legal sensitivities, cultural tailoring, and diplomatic clearance.

​

Unit of Effort: Launching a report in Power BI

FLOW A: Using an existing dataset with a standard template.

FLOW C or D: When integrating cross-domain data, with new modeling logic, and publishing to external stakeholders with   layered access control.

 

Quick Case Study

Scenario: A buyer is processing a purchase or for a common supply item.

In Base Supply Office: This may be a routine action in that office. (FLOW A)

In Deployed Military Zone with no Standard Vendors: The same task becomes part of a redesigned supply workaround involving coordination across continents and special approvals. (FLOW D)

​

Common Mistakes

• Assuming FLOW level is universal – treating a Unit of Effort as inherently FLOW B or C across all domains.

• Failing to reassess context when the Unit of Effort shifts organizations, geographies or technologies.

• Relying solely on surface attributes (e.g., dollar value or file size) without evaluating how and where the Unit is executed.

 

Red Flag Indicators

• "It’s always FLOW B when we do this.”

• “This should be easy – we’ve done it before back at HQ.”

• “Let’s use the same approach in the new office.”

• The task keeps triggering unexpected delays in a new context.

 

Key Diagnostic Questions

• What about this setting might increase complexity or coordination?

• Is the team, tooling, or environment different from the norm?

• Would this task require special attention, review, or design in this case?

 

Local Application Prompts

• Take a Unit of Effort you perform daily. Could it be assigned a different FLOW in a different office, country, or environment?

• Map out how the FLOW classification of a Unit of Effort changes when given to a junior team vs. a seasoned one.

​

Alignment Risks

• Under-designing for complexity in a high-stakes setting.

• Over-designing for simplicity because it was FLOW C elsewhere.

• Creating one-size-fits-all SOPs without local FLOW calibration.

​

Systems Design Anchors

• Build systems that allow reclassification of units based on context.

• Include FLOW determination guidelines in cross-team SOPs.

• Train team to identify when a routine unit might become complex in a different zone.

​

Role Implications

Analysts: Should compare FLOW classification across teams and flag discrepancies.

Leaders: Must recognize when a common directive creates system-wide load in new contexts.

Planners: Should not assume a Unit of Effort will remain the same FLOW level during migration or scaling.