Principle 8:
Nested Accountability of Effort

Summary

A Unit of Effort can itself contain smaller Units of Effort, each of which may carry different FLOW classifications. Managing a large Unit of Effort requires awareness of the nested complexity and accountability that each junior Unit of Effort introduces. This structure supports delegation, modular design, and layered execution while maintaining traceability and control.

​​

Examples

Senior Unit of Effort: Reforming the acquisition strategy for all spare parts of x system (FLOW D – Large scale design)

Junior Units of Effort:

• Conducting multiple vendor risk analysis (FLOW B – moderate scale task with clear methodology - analysts)

• Revising procurement policy language (FLOW C – higher complexity – legal department)

• Updating supplier database with new POC information (FLOW A – simple data entry – admin support)

Insight: Even though it is one large initiative, each part must be classified and managed differently, with separate owners, timelines, and metrics. Misclassifying everything as FLOW D would overburden teams or stall progress.

 

Senior Unit of Effort: Deploying a new logistics model in a combat zone (FLOW D – Large scale design)

Junior Units of Effort:

• Transport schedule optimization (FLOW B – Transport Operations staff)

• Medical evacuation protocol revisions (FLOW S – highly sensitive and political – policy and legal)

• Daily delivery route briefings (FLOW A – repeated low complexity task, owned by junior logistics staff)

Insight: The junior FLOW S task demands elevated oversight and awareness, while the FLOW A items can be delegated. Without assigning FLOW levels and owners at the sub-unit level, the effort risks bottlenecks and blind spots.

 

Senior Unit of Effort: Creating a comprehensive FLOW application guide (FLOW D)

Junior Units of Effort:

• Drafting each principle summary (FLOW B – methodical but quantity means higher scale)

• Designing the visual glossary (FLOW C – high design judgement, iterative)

• Citation review (FLOW A – simple)

Insight: You shouldn’t treat all workstreams the same just because they live under the same final product. The visual glossary needs creative leadership, the proofreading can be outsourced, and the principles need structured consistency.

 

Quick Case Study

In a military logistics operation, a deployment plan (FLOW D) may contain supply line planning (FLOW B), convoy scheduling tasks (FLOW A), and diplomatic coordination efforts (FLOW S). The entire deployment is one Unit of Effort, but it has accountable junior Units of Effort, each with their own FLOW classification and owner.

​

Common Mistakes

• Assuming the FLOW classification of the whole applies to each part (e.g., treating every junior Unit of Effort as if they had the same FLOW classification as the senior Unit of Effort

• Failing to assign ownership to junior Units of Effort, which leads to a loss of visibility

• Over-fragmenting tasks until clarity is lost in the hierarchy

​

Red Flags

• No clear owner for each part of a large Unit of Effort

• Teams confused about the scope of their responsibilities

• High-level tasks stalling due to unresolved issues with Junior Units of Effort

 

Key Diagnostic Questions

• What are the distinct junior Units of Effort within this larger initiative?

• Does each junior Unit of Effort have a defined FLOW level?

• Who is accountable for each one of those Junior Units of Effort?

• Do we understand how complexity scales or collapses across layers?

​​

Local Application Prompts

• Break down a current project (Senior Unit of Effort) into component FLOW A-S Units of Effort

• Create a visual showing who owns each junior Unit of Effort

• Reassess whether the FLOW level of the project should be adjusted based on the complexity of the Sub Tasks

​

Alignment Risks

• Misalignment between team responsibilities and FLOW levels of junior Units of Effort

• Leadership overreaches by applying one-size-fits-all strategies to layered Units of Effort

• Miscommunication due to lack of visibility into Junior Units of Effort

​

Systems Design Anchors

• Use modular architecture where each FLOW Unit of Effort is self-contained but linked

• Implement junior Unit of Effort tracking and ownership at the appropriate level

• Design roll-up reporting to reflect layered progress

​

Role Implications

Leaders: Should prevent local optimization from undermining strategic senior Units of Effort

Analysts: Should always define the boundaries of what is being optimized.

Managers: Should evaluate improvements through a system lens, not just a team lens

​

Role Implications

Leads: Must escalate when junior Units of Effort reveal complexity that affects their performance

Managers: Must orchestrate junior Units of Effort without micromanaging

Executives: Must see top-level FLOW status without losing sight of critical junior Unit dependencies and their FLOWs