Journey 2 · Looking back to 2014

Knowing how is different from being authorised

Knowing how to do a task and having permission to decide are different requirements. Start an evaluation by asking who is qualified, who is authorised and what each person may do.

Retrospective · Written 8 October 2026

Two questions behind every assignment

In July 2014, our staffing article explored a simple distinction. One person may know how to requisition a purchase but lack permission to do so. Another may have the authority but lack the knowledge needed to carry out the task. Assigning the work by job title alone does not resolve that difference.

Capability and authority both matter

The question is not just who is available. It is whether the person can perform the work and whether the organisation permits them to perform it in this context. A qualification, an approval limit and responsibility for a particular service are different things. Treating them as a single generic access role hides distinctions that matter in everyday operations.

Make the task specific

Consider an equipment request. The employee may describe the need, a technical specialist may check suitability, and an authorised manager may approve the expenditure. Those are separate contributions to one outcome. The process should make the responsibility for each contribution clear, including the circumstances in which someone else may act.

An idea that continues to guide us

The 2014 article is evidence that authority and competency were already part of our public thinking. It is not evidence that every current mechanism existed then. The enduring principle is that work should be assigned with its requirements in view. In today’s discussions, we still start with the task, the relevant capability, the scope of authority and the rule that connects them.

Historical reference: Earlier StarGarden article (historical source). The date identifies the earlier writing, not the publication date of this retrospective.