Inadequate compensation for lost items
Inadequate delivery service partnerships
FA-06
Inter-Entity Governance Void
Systemic Anatomy
Systemic Description
Friction manifests at contractual boundaries between separate legal entities (Airline-Airport, Hotel-OTA, Airline-Ground Handler) where no single party has authority to resolve customer issues spanning the boundary.
Root Cause Type
Ecosystem Governance Structure
Why It Recurs
Commercial contracts prioritize liability transfer and cost control over shared customer experience outcomes; competitive dynamics prevent data sharing.
Governance Failure
Absence of joint Service Level Agreements or collaborative operating protocols focused on end-to-end customer journey rather than isolated entity performance.
Scope Boundary
Does not explain internal departmental silos or internal handoffs within a single organization. Only explains friction at legal/contractual entity boundaries.
Structural Risk Profile
Decision Frequency
low
How often decisions of this type are made in the affected context.
Blast Radius
systemic
The scope and scale of impact when this friction manifests.
Reversibility
locked-in
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
- Procuring vendors based solely on cost without integration or experience requirements
- Refusing to share real-time operational data with partners due to competitive concerns
Delayed Effects
- Finger-pointing during service failures leaves customers stranded between entities
- Brand damage attributed to primary brand for partner failures beyond their control
Early Warning Signals
- Communication breakdowns during multi-party disruptions with no clear owner
- Inconsistent service standards across a single customer journey leg
Manifestations
Unclear transfer procedures
Inadequate operational coordination
Unclear baggage allowance information
Poor API integration with third-party platforms
Poor rebooking alternatives offered
Poor coordination between operations and customer service
Poor corporate account management
Inadequate contract management systems
Blackout dates and limited award availability
Inadequate partner relationship management
Poor communication about special needs procedures
Poor coordination between airport and airline
Limited dining options for dietary restrictions
Poor vendor selection and curation
Slow service at peak times
Poor vendor performance management
Confusing transfer procedures
Inadequate coordination with airlines
Resolution Boundary
Decision Level
board-level
This friction requires board-level involvement because it involves altering commercial contract structures and partnership agreements that are typically approved at governance level. The change necessitates accepting shared liability and operational interdependence that management cannot commit to without board authorization, as it affects legal risk posture and competitive positioning.
This friction cannot be resolved locally.
Type of Change Required
Contractual Governance Framework Redesign
- This friction persists because commercial contracts between entities prioritize liability transfer rather than shared experience outcomes. The required change involves incorporating joint customer experience obligations into contractual structures with enforceable performance metrics spanning entity boundaries.
Ecosystem Data Sharing Architecture
- Inter-entity coordination failures persist when competitive dynamics prevent real-time operational data sharing. The friction continues until contractual and technical frameworks enable selective data transparency focused on operational coordination rather than commercial intelligence.
Multi-Party Operating Protocol Establishment
- Friction at entity boundaries continues when no collaborative governance mechanism exists to resolve cross-party issues. The change required involves creating joint operating authorities or dispute resolution mechanisms with decision-making power that supersedes individual entity interests.
What Does Not Work
- Creating communication channels between entities fails because coordination mechanisms cannot substitute for governance authority. Liaisons can escalate issues but cannot resolve them when contracts do not allocate decision rights for cross-boundary problems.
- Adding more granular SLAs fails when they measure isolated entity performance rather than end-to-end journey outcomes. This approach perpetuates the structural problem by reinforcing entity-specific rather than shared accountability.
- Improving oversight of contracted partners fails when the contract itself does not include joint performance obligations. Enforcement mechanisms cannot create accountability for outcomes that are not contractually specified.
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.