Unclear refund procedures
Inadequate compensation policy automation
FA-04
Process Standardization Rigidity
Systemic Anatomy
Systemic Description
Standard operating procedures are optimized for the 'happy path' scenario and fail to accommodate the inherent variability of real-world service delivery, particularly during non-standard events.
Root Cause Type
Process Engineering Philosophy
Why It Recurs
Process owners prioritize consistency and scale efficiency over flexibility, treating operational variance as a defect to eliminate rather than a reality to accommodate.
Governance Failure
Process design occurs in isolation from operations; lack of feedback mechanisms to update SOPs based on actual execution challenges.
Scope Boundary
Does not explain external regulatory compliance (government-mandated processes) or technical system limitations. Only explains friction from internally-designed process inflexibility.
Structural Risk Profile
Decision Frequency
high
How often decisions of this type are made in the affected context.
Blast Radius
cross-domain
The scope and scale of impact when this friction manifests.
Reversibility
costly
The ease with which decisions affected by this friction can be undone.
Time to Impact
delayed
The delay between decision and observable consequence.
Decision Fallout
Typical Decisions
- Designing workflows based on average handling times rather than edge case accommodation
- Penalizing staff for SOP deviations even when solving customer problems
Delayed Effects
- Operational gridlock when minor non-standard events occur
- Customer perception of the organization as bureaucratic and rule-bound
Early Warning Signals
- High volume of manual 'exception' or 'waiver' requests processed
- Staff creating informal 'shadow processes' to work around official procedures
Manifestations
Inconsistent policy application
Inadequate self-service technology
Limited online self-service for changes
Limited flexibility in business rules
Inconsistent procedures across airports
Poor signage and communication strategy
Poor family processing accommodations
Limited passenger education initiatives
Difficulty getting itemized bills
Limited payment processing options
Resolution Boundary
Decision Level
cross-functional
This friction requires cross-functional resolution because process design authority typically resides in specialized units separate from operational execution. Neither process owners nor operations can resolve the disconnect unilaterally; the change requires joint governance that integrates design and execution perspectives.
This friction cannot be resolved locally.
Type of Change Required
Exception Governance Redesign
- High exception volume signals that standardized processes do not match operational reality. The change required involves treating exceptions as design inputs rather than compliance failures, systematically incorporating edge cases into process architecture.
Operational Feedback Loop Integration
- Process rigidity is sustained when design occurs in isolation from execution reality. The friction continues until feedback mechanisms are structurally embedded that allow frontline experience to update standard operating procedures continuously rather than episodically.
Process Design Philosophy Reorientation
- This friction persists because processes are engineered for consistency and scale rather than flexibility and resilience. The required change involves adopting a design philosophy that treats variance as a design parameter rather than a defect to eliminate.
What Does Not Work
- Training staff more thoroughly on inflexible procedures fails when the procedures themselves are mismatched to operational reality. This approach assumes the problem is staff understanding rather than process design.
- Building formal mechanisms to handle exceptions fails because it treats symptoms rather than causes. This approach preserves rigid primary processes while creating parallel bureaucracies, compounding rather than resolving complexity.
- Increasing oversight and penalties for deviations fails structurally because it attempts to suppress the operational need for flexibility. Stricter enforcement creates shadow processes and workarounds rather than compliance.
AERIM
AERIM is the operating system designed to resolve the structural conditions described above. It addresses the governance, coordination, and decision architecture failures that the Friction Atlas documents. AERIM operates at the resolution boundary where local fixes fail and systemic change is required.