07/02/2026
Asset or information visibility does not automatically equate to necessary comprehension, or transparency in an enterprise or particular initiative. When we discuss enterprise transparency dilemmas with clients and partners and are given permission to audit assets and interview stakeholders and participants, we validate whether or not crucial members understand their role in the grand scheme of operations. It is not typical to meet someone who is utterly dedicated to the operations of an organization and most individuals primary ambition is to get work done to support their lives outside of the workplace. With this in mind, we recognize the gravity of an opportunity to just click so many buttons at a particular cadence of a workday and leave without asking any questions as to the value of those clicks or what it contributes to.
Of course, there are meetings conducted to mitigate the negative consequences of this mindset; however, there are well-intentioned practices that contribute to this dilemma. But this is to emphasize how tools can be unintentionally utilized to obscure rather than clarify activity. This is not to discourage the implementation of tools, but to highlight an issue with how they are utilized. Let us clarify that any external asset leveraged to perform work is considered a tool in this context. This includes virtual trackers and lists, electronic schedules, reporting documents, various software and applications, etc.
When utilizing tools frequently enough, there is the temptation to correlate the length of their usage (or number of clicks) with the quality of meaningful work. If my job is to put together reports but not to present them, then I am tempted to just copy/paste content without consideration as to what it says or means. This pattern is repeatable whether it is pulling metrics from a dashboard, updating a quad chart, filling in dates on a schedule, etc. This work pattern is highly susceptible to organizational bureaucracy and the task volume assigned to an individual. You can positively leverage this type of behavior by setting a time and space apart to "go on autopilot", but problems arise when you just dive into it and never leave this mode of operation.
We recognize it's an easy tendency to just clock-in, go through a familiar flow and cadence, and then clock-out. True progress is uncomfortable because it includes interruption and change, and it is the most human tendency to avoid such an exhaustive phenomenon.
While this may seem ridiculous, a re-orientation toward the goal line can create debilitating struggle in workplaces. We have met people in various positions who are comfortable operating in a circular fashion because work is familiar and "minimizes personal risk". But organizations cannot survive on a work habit that equates a successful workday with achieving so many numbers of clicks in a day (old-timers call this pushing paper).
Consider the frustration of the following illustration. Imagine a technical lead for an IT program initiative that is so emphatic in measuring performance through a Kanban-style software, like Asana, that they hesitate to be mindful of the master schedule. They are diligent in updating and reporting on tasks managed by the software but won't slow down to ensure the technical team maintains alignment with overarching program. They are not responsible for presenting so that just copy/paste content from their software and email it the reporting party. While there is always content to report on and numbers to demonstrate activity, milestones are not being met.
Because leadership doesn't fully understand the technical labor, they are dependent on understanding through the abbreviated communications that come through status reports. Because the technical lead is not mindful of the schedule; and consequently, the program objective, they are not operating in alignment with the initiative. At some point, because all this labor does have a temporal cost that was expected to have a financial recompense, the program initiative may end up being cut.
While this example scenario could have more in-depth justifications, motivations, or explanations, we want to highlight a means in which a tools ability to create strong visibility impeded on necessary comprehension. In this case, the immediate content provided through the software gave strong visibility, but it was also leveraged to impede comprehension, which was ensuring that all the reported tasks were in alignment with the program initiative.
When Vikint works with our clients and partners to develop, or modify, tools, templates, processes, and other means of engagement, we emphasize striving to achieve, sustain, and continuously promote comprehension through them. Visibility is a necessary door in order to walk into the realm of comprehension.
Tools are truly wonderful, and meetings can truly be viewed as negatively disruptive (and sometimes are), but always need to ensure that we are leveraging them to get across the finish line instead of getting caught up in a never-ending whirlpool of stasis.