Glossary

Intent integrity is the quality and continuity of the reasoning that connects a change's intent, direction, execution, outcomes, and learning throughout its lifecycle.

Not implementation fidelity, which asks whether the design was delivered unchanged. Not benefits realization, which tracks the benefits rather than the reasoning that produced them. Not delivery success, which a change can have in full while its intent integrity is at its weakest.

• Intent integrity has two dimensions, quality of reasoning and continuity of reasoning.
• Intent integrity has two dimensions, quality of reasoning and continuity of reasoning.
• It is protected across the four stages of the Intent Loop, and weakened by the four vulnerabilities that loop names.
• Where it is high, the intent gap is expected to be smaller.

Intent is what a change is meant to achieve and why: the problem or opportunity it addresses, the outcomes it seeks, and the reasons those outcomes are valuable.

Not the plan, the scope, or the business case, which are artifacts produced from it. Not a long-term strategic ambition of the kind meant by strategic intent: intent here belongs to one particular change and ends when that change ends.

• Intent is the reference point a direction is chosen to serve.
• Defining it explicitly is the first job of decision quality.

The Intent Loop is a four-stage lifecycle framework describing how intent integrity is established, maintained, tested, and strengthened as change unfolds.

Not a project methodology or delivery model, and not a replacement for concern with execution quality. It adds the layer those leave out. Not a maturity model or a stage gate: the stages describe where intent integrity can be lost, not approvals a change must pass.

• Each stage carries one characteristic vulnerability and one protective practice against it.
• The loop is where the two gaps open, the decision gap in the first stage and the execution gap in the second.
• The loop is where the two gaps open, the decision gap in the first stage and the execution gap in the second.
• Intent integrity is a property of the whole loop rather than of any single stage.

The intent gap is the total distance between what an organization could reasonably have achieved and what it actually achieved.

Not the variance between plan and actual, which measures only delivery against a target already chosen. The intent gap includes the loss created by choosing that target in the first place.

• The intent gap decomposes into the decision gap and the execution gap, which have different causes and require different responses.
• The intent gap decomposes into the decision gap and the execution gap, which have different causes and require different responses.
• Its three reference points are the best feasible outcome, the target outcome, and the realized outcome.
• Higher intent integrity is expected to produce a smaller intent gap.

The decision gap is the distance between the best feasible outcome and the target outcome.

Not an estimating error or a missed forecast, which concern whether a target was hit. The decision gap concerns whether that target was the right one to aim at.

• The decision gap is one of the two components of the intent gap.
• Decision quality is the practice that reduces its expected size, and outcome validation is what makes its symptoms visible.
• Decision quality is the practice that reduces its expected size, and outcome validation is what makes its symptoms visible.

The execution gap is the distance between the target outcome and the realized outcome.

Not simply late or over-budget delivery. A change can be delivered on time and within budget and still leave a large execution gap, because the gap is measured in outcomes rather than in effort or schedule.

• The execution gap is the second component of the intent gap.
• It opens through silent drift, and tracing intent is the practice that reduces its avoidable part.
• It opens through silent drift, and tracing intent is the practice that reduces its avoidable part.

Direction is where the organization chooses to move: the course of action selected to realize the intent.

Not the intent itself. Intent is what should improve and why; direction is the chosen way to bring that improvement about. The distinction has consequences: a revised direction continues the change, while a replaced intent begins a new one.

• A direction is selected to serve the intent, and selecting it well is the second job of decision quality.
• A direction is selected to serve the intent, and selecting it well is the second job of decision quality.
• The distance between the chosen direction's expected outcome and the best available one is the decision gap.

Execution is how effectively the organization moves in the direction it has chosen.

Not the same as delivery management. Execution here is one of two dimensions of change, paired with direction, rather than a set of practices.

• Execution is the dimension paired with direction, and the second stage of the Intent Loop.
• Execution is the dimension paired with direction, and the second stage of the Intent Loop.
• Its shortfall against the target outcome is the execution gap.

The best feasible outcome is the strongest outcome the organization could reasonably have pursued in response to the problem or opportunity, given the information, perspectives, and options available or reasonably discoverable at the time.

Not the theoretical optimum, and not what hindsight shows was possible. It is bounded by what was reasonably discoverable at the time the direction was chosen.

• The best feasible outcome is the upper reference point of the intent gap, and the distance from it to the target outcome is the decision gap.
• The best feasible outcome is the upper reference point of the intent gap, and the distance from it to the target outcome is the decision gap.

The target outcome is the outcome the chosen direction was expected to produce.

Not a measure of success in itself. A change can hit its target outcome exactly and still leave most of the intent gap open, if the target was weakly chosen.

• The target outcome closes the decision gap and opens the execution gap.
• The target outcome closes the decision gap and opens the execution gap.
• It is what the chosen direction commits the organization to.

The realized outcome is the outcome that actually occurs following execution.

Not the delivered output. What was delivered is the work; the realized outcome is what changed as a result.

• The realized outcome is the lower reference point of the intent gap, and the distance from the target outcome to it is the execution gap.
• The realized outcome is the lower reference point of the intent gap, and the distance from the target outcome to it is the execution gap.
• Establishing it is the work of outcome validation.

Quality of reasoning is whether the intent and the chosen direction are well reasoned.

Not the quality of the outcome. A well reasoned change can fail and a careless one can succeed, so the outcome is not evidence of the reasoning that produced it.

• Quality is one of the two dimensions of intent integrity, paired with continuity.
• It is established by decision quality and lost through weak intent or direction.
• It is established by decision quality and lost through weak intent or direction.

Continuity of reasoning is whether the reasoning behind a change remains visible and connected as the change unfolds.

Not stability of the plan, and not fidelity to the original design. The unit of evaluation is the reasoning, not the artifact: a change that holds its design but abandons its rationale has lost continuity, and a change that revises its design for stated reasons has kept it.

• Continuity is the second dimension of intent integrity, paired with quality.
• It is maintained by tracing intent, broken by silent drift, and preserved through revision by reasoned adaptation.
• It is maintained by tracing intent, broken by silent drift, and preserved through revision by reasoned adaptation.
• It is maintained by tracing intent, broken by silent drift, and preserved through revision by reasoned adaptation.

Decision quality is the practice that protects intent integrity at the decision point, by defining the intent explicitly and selecting the direction that offers the strongest credible way to realize it.

Not decisiveness or speed of commitment, and not the quality of the result. Decision quality is scored on the reasoning at the moment of commitment, which is why a high score can precede a disappointing outcome.

• Decision quality is the practice of the decision stage, protecting against weak intent or direction.
• Decision quality is the practice of the decision stage, protecting against weak intent or direction.
• It produces the explicit intent that tracing intent carries and outcome validation tests.
• It produces the explicit intent that tracing intent carries and outcome validation tests.

Tracing intent is the practice that protects intent integrity during execution, by keeping the reasoning from purpose through chosen direction to the work at hand present where delivery decisions are made.

Not requirements traceability, which links artifacts to each other rather than to the reasoning that makes them worth having. Not design rationale, which records why a decision was made without testing whether it still holds. Not change control, which approves departures from the plan rather than weighing them against the purpose.

• Tracing intent is the practice of the execution stage, protecting against silent drift.
• Tracing intent is the practice of the execution stage, protecting against silent drift.
• It requires an explicit intent, which decision quality produces.
• It is what converts drift into reasoned adaptation.

Outcome validation is the practice that protects intent integrity after delivery, by asking whether the change produced the outcomes it was meant to achieve rather than only whether the work was delivered.

Not a post-implementation review of how delivery went, and not benefits reporting against a re-baselined case. Validation tests the outcomes against the intent as it stood, not against a target revised to match what was delivered.

• Outcome validation is the practice of the outcome stage, protecting against assumed success.
• Outcome validation is the practice of the outcome stage, protecting against assumed success.
• It establishes the realized outcome, and it is the only route by which a decision gap becomes visible after the fact.
• It establishes the realized outcome, and it is the only route by which a decision gap becomes visible after the fact.

Evolving the organization is the practice that protects intent integrity in future change, by turning the lessons of one change into updates to the practices and governance through which the organization decides, delivers, validates, and learns.

Not a lessons-learned document or a retrospective record. Evolution is the change to how the organization works, not the capture of what it noticed.

• Evolving the organization is the practice of the evolution stage, protecting against wasted learning.
• Evolving the organization is the practice of the evolution stage, protecting against wasted learning.
• It requires validated outcomes to have something to learn from, and it raises the starting conditions for every later initiative.

Silent drift is the accumulation of small, local delivery decisions that move a change away from its chosen direction without any of them being recognized as doing so.

Not scope creep, which adds visible work and is usually noticed and approved. Drift subtracts meaning rather than adding scope, and its defining feature is that no one registers it happening. Not resistance to change either: drift is produced by people delivering the change in good faith.

• Silent drift is the vulnerability of the execution stage, and the mechanism by which the execution gap opens.
• Silent drift is the vulnerability of the execution stage, and the mechanism by which the execution gap opens.
• Tracing intent is what makes it visible, and what turns it into either reasoned adaptation or a reversal.
• Tracing intent is what makes it visible, and what turns it into either reasoned adaptation or a reversal.

Weak intent or direction is the characteristic vulnerability of the decision stage: committing to a direction on reasoning that is poor, or on an intent never made explicit.

Not a bad outcome. The weakness is in the reasoning, and it is present whether or not the change later succeeds.

• Weak intent or direction is what decision quality protects against, and what opens the decision gap.
• Weak intent or direction is what decision quality protects against, and what opens the decision gap.

Assumed success is the characteristic vulnerability of the outcome stage: treating the delivery of the work as proof that the intended outcomes occurred.

Not a reporting failure. The information usually exists; what is missing is the question of whether the outcomes arrived.

• Assumed success is what outcome validation protects against.
• It leaves both gaps invisible, and it starves evolution of anything to learn from.

Wasted learning is the characteristic vulnerability of the evolution stage: experience that produces evidence the organization never converts into changes to how it works.

Not a failure to record. Documented lessons that change nothing are still wasted learning.

• Wasted learning is what evolving the organization protects against.
• It is the reason intent integrity fails to compound across initiatives.

The decision stage is the stage in which the organization defines its intent and commits to a direction for realizing it.

• The decision stage is where the decision gap opens.
• Its vulnerability is weak intent or direction and its protective practice is decision quality.
• Its vulnerability is weak intent or direction and its protective practice is decision quality.

The execution stage is the stage in which the chosen direction is translated into action and delivered.

• The execution stage is where the execution gap opens.
• Its vulnerability is silent drift and its protective practice is tracing intent.
• Its vulnerability is silent drift and its protective practice is tracing intent.

The outcome stage is the stage in which the effects of the delivered change are tested against the outcomes the intent defined.

• The outcome stage is where both gaps first become visible. Its vulnerability is assumed success and its protective practice is outcome validation.
• The outcome stage is where both gaps first become visible. Its vulnerability is assumed success and its protective practice is outcome validation.

The evolution stage is the stage in which what is learned from the change updates how the organization works, improving future change.

• The evolution stage closes the loop by changing the conditions the next decision starts from. Its vulnerability is wasted learning and its protective practice is evolving the organization.
• The evolution stage closes the loop by changing the conditions the next decision starts from. Its vulnerability is wasted learning and its protective practice is evolving the organization.

Reasoned adaptation is a change to plan, scope, or direction that is made with explicit reference to purpose and evidence.

Not a change request approved through governance. Approval records that a change was permitted; reasoned adaptation records why it still serves the purpose.

• Reasoned adaptation is what tracing intent converts silent drift into.
• It is how continuity of reasoning survives revision.

Delivery success is completion on time, on budget, and within scope. Outcome success is the realized value the change was meant to produce.

Not two points on one scale. They are separate judgments, and treating the first as evidence of the second is the vulnerability named assumed success.

• The divergence of the two is the phenomenon intent integrity explains.
• Delivery success reflects execution; outcome success reflects both the direction chosen and the execution of it.
• Treating delivery success as evidence of outcome success is the vulnerability named assumed success.

A deliberate change initiative is the unit to which intent integrity applies: a change with an identifiable decision, an execution that can be distinguished from it, a coherent owner of its intent, and assessable outcomes.

Not any organizational change whatsoever. Change that emerges without a locatable decision falls outside the unit, though not necessarily outside the diagnostic.

• The deliberate change initiative is defined by the four boundary conditions, and it is the unit across which the Intent Loop runs.
• The deliberate change initiative is defined by the four boundary conditions, and it is the unit across which the Intent Loop runs.

The boundary conditions are the four conditions that keep a traceable line of intent intact, and whose weakening marks the limits of where intent integrity applies cleanly.

Not a checklist for qualifying an initiative. The conditions describe how cleanly the framework applies, not whether a change is worth examining.

• The boundary conditions define the deliberate change initiative, and each one corresponds to a part of the framework that stops working when it fails.

Intent governance is governing a change for the quality and continuity of its reasoning rather than for delivery progress alone.

Not an additional stage gate or reporting layer. It is a different question asked at gates that already exist.

• Intent governance is how the four protective practices are enforced rather than merely recommended. It applies the Intent Loop as a governance frame.
• Intent governance is how the four protective practices are enforced rather than merely recommended.