Principle 13:
Scalable Judgment via Classification

Summary

To scale decision making without losing quality, you must implement systematic classification for Units of Effort. Clear, rule-based categorization enables structured delegation, consistent evaluation, and transparency across varying complexity and scale. Without systematic classification, judgement becomes either overly centralized or dangerously inconsistent.

 

Examples

Unit of Effort: Processing a Purchase Request (PR)

• FLOW A: If estimate is under $500 and the vendor is on “Standard Vendor” list

• FLOW B: If estimate is under $5000 and the vendor is on “Standard Vendor” list

• FLOW C: Any contracts that would require legal review and are under $100,000

• FLOW D: Any contracts that are expected to exceed $100,000

• FLOW S: Any contract that is classified as an emergency procurement

​

Unit of Effort: Responding to patient service complaints

• FLOW A: Missed food deliveries or excessive delay for food provisioning

• FLOW B: Billing questions involving defined insurance codes

• FLOW C: Complaints about the conduct of a physician or nurse

• FLOW D: Complaints that identify a safety failure that likely spans multiple departments

• FLOW S: Any complaint that relates to legal risk, including whistleblower complaints

​

Unit of Effort: Citizen feedback and proposal reviews

• FLOW A: Simple service requests related to potholes, trash, etc.

• FLOW B: Suggestions and requests in relation to Zoning permissions

• FLOW C: Any proposals to restructure funding for a specific department

• FLOW D: City wide governance proposals that affect more than one department

• FLOW S: Proposals or requests related to emergency preparedness and response

 

Quick Case Study

A procurement office handles thousands of Purchase Requests (PRs). By classifying each PR as FLOW A,B,C,D, or S based on complexity and scale, junior staff can handle FLOW A and B with confidence, while FLOW C and D are routed to experienced staff. This classification system allows more decisions to happen faster – without sacrificing judgement.

​

Common Mistakes/Red Flags

• Relying on intuition rather than defined classification rules

• Inconsistent classification across reviewers

• Classifications used only for reporting, not routing

• Delegating complex C/D work to junior staff

• Treating classification as static instead of revisiting over time

​

Key Diagnostic Questions

• Do we have a shared language to classify Units of Effort by complexity and scale?

• Is classification consistently applied across teams and tools?

• Are classification rules visible, explainable, and actionable?

• Does classification result in the right people doing the right work?

​​

Local Application Prompts

• Take 10 recent tasks and attempt to classify them into FLOW A-S. Who should have handled them?

• Review decisions made by junior staff. Were they aligned with the expected FLOW level?

• Ask the question: Could the classification system as set up help a new hire start contributing within one week?

​

Alignment Risks

• Classification logic is siloed in one team or is undocumented

• Leaders override classification without explanation

• The classification schema is too vague (e.g., “easy”, “medium”, “hard”, etc.)

• Staff and stakeholders don’t understand how classification affects delegation and authority.

​

Systems Design Anchors

• Build classification into intake forms and tools

• Display classification in dashboards used for routing and reporting

• Use classification to control which roles can act on which Units of Effort

• Include audit trails showing classification decisions and overrides

​

Role Implications

Managers: Must ensure classification are understood and followed

Analysts: Use classification to improve workflow routing and efficiency

Executives: Should treat classification as a scalability enabler, not a constraint