ConceptsStructure
The Intent Loop
Definition
The Intent Loop provides a structure for maintaining intent integrity through five functions: Intent, Direction, Execution, Validation, and Evolution.
In plain terms
The Intent Loop organizes the work of maintaining intent integrity through five functions: Intent, Direction, Execution, Validation, and Evolution. Intent, Direction, and Execution correspond to the three fundamental elements. Validation uses evidence about emerging and realized outcomes to assess and reconsider the reasoning behind them. Evolution extends beyond the current change, using experience to strengthen the capability through which future change is undertaken.
How it works
Preventing the loss of potential requires more than performing each part of the change well in isolation. As change unfolds, attention shifts between questions, roles, practices, and artifacts, and the reasoning connecting these elements can recede from view even when each part of the work is performed competently. Maintaining intent integrity therefore requires that this reasoning remain sufficiently well founded, available, and connected as the change progresses.
The functions have a logical order, but they can overlap and be revisited as the change develops. Reasoning may need to move back upstream as new evidence emerges. Exploring directions may expose weaknesses in the intent; execution may reveal divergence or produce evidence that challenges assumptions behind the direction or intent; and validation may call execution, direction, or intent into question. Reconsideration can extend as far upstream as the evidence warrants. Revising earlier reasoning does not weaken intent integrity when the reasons for doing so remain explicit.
Each function addresses a primary vulnerability in maintaining intent integrity or strengthening the capability to maintain it over time, and each has a corresponding practice:
| Function | Vulnerability | Practice |
|---|---|---|
| Intent | Weak intent | Intent quality |
| Direction | Weak direction | Direction quality |
| Execution | Lost reasoning continuity | Intent tracing |
| Validation | Assumed success | Outcome validation |
| Evolution | Capability stagnation or erosion | Capability evolution |
Intent quality reduces the expected intent gap. Direction quality reduces the expected direction gap. Intent tracing reduces the expected execution gap from lost continuity. Outcome validation establishes whether outcomes align with expectations and provides evidence for reconsideration. Capability evolution strengthens change capability for future change.
The Intent Loop is not tied to a linear or project-based lifecycle. Intent, direction, execution, and validation may recur throughout iterative and adaptive change at different levels and at different times as understanding develops. Intent, Direction, Execution, and Validation operate within the organization's existing change capability, while Evolution extends the scope of the loop beyond the current change.
The Intent Loop complements established disciplines and methods, which provide the practices and techniques through which the functions are carried out.
Where it sits
| Number | Function | Vulnerability | Practice | Primary effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Intent | Weak intent | Intent quality | Reduces the expected intent gap. |
| 2 | Direction | Weak direction | Direction quality | Reduces the expected direction gap. |
| 3 | Execution | Lost reasoning continuity | Intent tracing | Reduces the expected execution gap from lost continuity. |
| 4 | Validation | Assumed success | Outcome validation | Establishes whether outcomes align with expectations and provides evidence for reconsideration. |
| 5 | Evolution | Capability stagnation or erosion | Capability evolution | Strengthens change capability for future change. |
Guiding questions
The Intent Loop applies intent integrity through a guiding question for each function. The questions can be revisited throughout the change, especially when commitments or significant decisions are being made, new evidence emerges, understanding develops, or divergence becomes apparent. How the framework is meant to be used, and its limits, are set out under scope, limits, and application.
- Intent: What outcomes should we pursue, and can we explain why they are valuable?
- Direction: What should we change and what approach should we take to pursue the established intent, and can we explain why this direction should work?
- Execution: Can we explain how the course of execution, and what we learn during it, relate to the direction and intent, and can we recognize when earlier reasoning should be reconsidered?
- Validation: What outcomes are we seeing, how do they compare with what we expected, and what does that tell us about the reasoning behind the change?
- Evolution: How should the way we undertake future change evolve based on what this change has taught us?
The Intent Loop complements the Change Gap Model: the model distinguishes where potential may be lost or left unrealized, while the loop organizes the functions and practices through which reasoning is maintained, reconsidered, and carried forward.
Related concepts
Each relationship is stated as a claim, so it can be checked against the definitions it connects.
- The Intent Loop is the structure through which intent integrity is maintained.
- Its five functions are Intent, Direction, Execution, Validation, and Evolution.
- The first three correspond to the three fundamental elements of change: intent, direction, and execution.
- Its five practices are intent quality, direction quality, intent tracing, outcome validation, and capability evolution.
- Evolution acts on change capability rather than on the current change.
- The Change Gap Model distinguishes where potential may be lost or left unrealized; the loop organizes the practices through which that reasoning is maintained and reconsidered.
Referenced by
Cite this page
Rozema, Lars. “The Intent Loop.” Intent Integrity. https://www.intent-integrity.com/intent-loop. n.d.
“n.d.” marks that this is a living page without a publication date; add an access date if your citation style requires one. To cite the framework itself, cite the concept paper.