Work Understanding: Friction and leakage
Objective. Read the friction-and-leakage view as a list of hypotheses with evidence, so a reader presents a friction finding and its evidence without summing overlapping findings into a single savings claim.
Friction answers 'where is time leaking out of this process and how much?' This is the primary Sales demo screen and the one where the overlap trap does the most damage if unguarded.
See it in the demo
What this screen answers
The customer question is: where is this process losing time, and what is the evidence? A Sales person uses it to show a concrete friction finding with its backing - step time, where it sits, how often. A CSM uses it to pick the highest-value friction to validate and convert into a tracked improvement.
The task
Scope to the process and period, then surface a friction or leakage finding and show the evidence behind it. The move is to present one finding clearly with its evidence, then add the integrity line that it is an observed contribution to delay with a confidence - a candidate to validate, not proven waste. Resist the customer's pull to total the list.
How to read it
Detected friction is a hypothesis to validate, not proven waste, and the headline is opportunity, not realised saving. The classic misread - and the app's core interpretation check - is adding up several findings into one savings number: overlapping findings may touch the same time, and fixing one can absorb another. Read each finding as a de-duplicated candidate, and let savings come only from measured before/after.
Honest limits
The view does not prove the friction is waste or that removing it releases the stated time, and coverage bounds what it detects. It does not license summing findings. Confirm confidence and coverage with product, de-duplicate overlapping findings, and validate with a before/after before any number leaves the room.
Interpretation check
Overlapping friction findings cannot simply be summed into a savings claim - each is an observed contribution with a confidence, and savings come only from measured before/after on validated, de-duplicated findings.
In the field
KnackGlobal RCM: a friction finding on information-gathering is shown with its evidence, then framed as a candidate to validate - not added to other findings - so the eventual claim rests on a measured reduction, not a stacked opportunity total.
Practical task
On the friction view for one process, present one finding with its evidence, state it as a candidate with confidence, and write how you would avoid double-counting if a second finding overlaps the same time.
Self-check
The demo shows three friction findings of roughly 2 hours each. A prospect asks if that is 6 hours saved. What do you say?
No. The findings may overlap on the same time and each is an observed contribution with a confidence, not proven waste. Savings must come from measured before/after on validated, de-duplicated findings - not from adding opportunities.
What turns a friction finding into a credible saving?
A validation experiment with a baseline, a single change, an owner and a re-measure. The screen shows opportunity; only the before/after shows released time.
What is the integrity line to pair with a friction finding in a demo?
That it is an observed contribution to delay with a confidence - a strong candidate to validate, not proven waste - followed by the experiment you would run.
Verified vs demo. Screen is live in the demo at /#/friction; exact controls, finding counts and figures are SME-validation-pending.