Execution gap

In plain terms

The execution gap is the potential left unrealized through execution that was available through the chosen direction. Unlike the intent and direction gaps, it can be indicated by comparing observable references, outcome targets with outcome results, although that comparison does not measure it directly and requires interpretation.

How it works

An execution gap may arise in two ways. The first is that the chosen direction is realized poorly or incompletely. The second is that reasoning continuity is lost during execution, so that significant divergence or emerging evidence is not understood in relation to the reasoning behind the direction and intent, and earlier reasoning is not reconsidered when needed.

Only the second source concerns intent integrity. How effectively the direction is realized is not itself a property of intent integrity. During execution, intent integrity concerns the quality of the reasoning used to guide judgments and adaptations, and especially the continuity that keeps those judgments connected to the established direction and intent.

Because the intent and direction gaps depend on counterfactual potential positions, they cannot be indicated through a direct comparison of observable references in the same way as the execution gap. Comparing targets with corresponding results can provide an indication of the execution gap, but does not measure it directly. The targets may not accurately or completely reflect what the chosen direction could reasonably achieve, the outcome results may not fully capture the realized outcomes, and the circumstances affecting those outcomes may have changed. A difference between targets and results therefore provides evidence of a possible execution shortfall, but requires interpretation.

Meeting the outcome targets provides evidence that the targeted outcomes were realized as expected, but does not establish that the targets reflected direction potential, that the intent was well founded, or that the chosen direction preserved the potential available within that intent. A change can meet its targets while potential was still lost in establishing the intent or choosing the direction.

Addressing the execution gap requires effective realization of the chosen direction and sound, connected reasoning as execution unfolds.

Intent tracing reduces the expected execution gap from lost continuity, not the whole of it.

Related concepts

Each relationship is stated as a claim, so it can be checked against the definitions it connects.

• The execution gap corresponds to execution, one of the three fundamental elements of change.
• It sits between direction potential and the realized outcome position in the Change Gap Model.
• It is one of the three gaps that together span the change gap, alongside the intent gap and the direction gap.
• Lost reasoning continuity is the characteristic vulnerability of the Execution function. Intent tracing reduces the expected execution gap arising from lost continuity, and does not address the part that arises from realizing the direction poorly.
• Silent drift is one form of lost continuity during execution.
• Comparing outcome targets with outcome results provides an indication of the execution gap that requires interpretation. Outcome validation is the practice that interprets it.

Referenced by

• Execution
• The Change Gap Model
• Intent gap
• Direction gap
• Change gap
• Outcome references
• Execution
• Intent tracing
• Silent drift
• Outcome validation