PROCESS

Here is How to Build

Design

Rules

The who is designed, not assigned

The spine showed that a rule has five dimensions. This discipline takes the last, the who, the one the deed falls to. It is easy to treat the who as the part that needs no designing, the deed and the manner are the craft, and someone simply does them. But who does them is a decision as real as the rest, and the same deed in different hands is a different rule. A message sent by the front line is not the same rule as the same message sent by a back team, even when the words are identical. So the who is chosen, not assigned by default, and choosing it is design.

At the level of the rule, the who names a kind of doer, the team that owns that point of the work. Not yet a named person at a named desk on a named tool, that exactness is settled lower down, in the detail, where rules meet the people and tools that carry them. At the rule's own height, the who is the team: this work falls to Support, or to the records team, or to the ward. The designer decides which team owns the deed, and leaves the finer placement to the detail. To design the who is to decide, for each rule, whose work it is.

And like every other dimension, the who has a why. You do not give a step to a team by reflex; you give it for a reason, and a designer can always say what the reason was. The reasons are more than one, and they do not all point the same way. Some are about who suits the work. Some are about what the whole structure can afford to carry. Some are about making a team whole. A good who is one chosen for a reason that holds, and the disciplines of this chapter are the reasons themselves, the grounds on which the work is given to one team and not another.

The highest possible standard is to choose the who for each rule deliberately, naming the team whose work it is for a reason the designer can state, rather than letting the deed fall to whoever is nearest by default.

Key Takeaway: The who is a decision as real as the other four, the same deed in different hands is a different rule, so it is chosen, not assigned by default. At the rule's level the who names a team, the one that owns that point of the work; the exact person and tool are settled in the detail. And like every dimension the who has a why: you give a step to a team for a reason, and the reasons are several and do not all point the same way, who suits the work, what the whole can afford, what makes a team whole.

The who is a design decision: the same deed in different hands is a different rule.

MarvinPro · PROCESS · Here is How to Build · Design · Rules · Discipline 6: Who · Section: The who is designed, not assigned

MarvinPro | June 2026

marvinpro.com

The who that fits

The first reason to give a step to a team is the plainest: they fit it. The work suits them as they stand, or can be made to suit them cheaply. Fit has several faces, and a designer weighs them together. Scope, the work falls in the area the team already owns, so it is theirs by responsibility. Skill, they can do it, and do it well. Tools, they have what the step needs to be done. Access, they are permitted to reach what it touches, the record, the place, the person. Location, they are where the work must happen, in the flow or in the building. Position, their standing in the structure makes it theirs to do. And the team must be one the step can safely sit with, trusted with what it carries, inside whatever boundary it requires.

Readiness sits inside fit too, and it is worth naming on its own, because a team need not fit perfectly today to be the right choice. One team may already be trained for the step; another may need only a small module to take it on; a third would need a long effort to be made able. The training distance is part of the fit: a team that is ready, or nearly so, fits more cheaply than one that would take months to prepare. So fit is not only who can do it now, but who can be made able to do it with the least added work. The designer chooses the team that suits the step, counting both what they already are and how short the road is to what they would need to be.

When fit is the reason, the who almost chooses itself, the work goes to whoever it already belongs to, by scope, by skill, by the tools and access and place that the step demands. Most rules are assigned this way, and rightly. But fit is the first reason, not the only one, and a designer who stops at fit will miss the rules where the right who is not the one that fits best. Those are the reasons that follow.

The highest possible standard is to give each step to the team it fits, weighing scope, skill, tools, access, location, position, and the safety of the match together, and counting readiness too, the team that suits the step or can most cheaply be made to.

Key Takeaway: The first reason to give a step to a team is fit, the work suits them as they stand. Fit has several faces weighed together: scope (theirs by responsibility), skill (they can do it), tools (they have what it needs), access (they are permitted), location (they are where it must happen), position (their standing makes it theirs), and the safety of the match. Readiness is part of fit too, a team already trained, or needing only a small module, fits more cheaply than one needing a long effort. Most rules go this way, rightly, but fit is the first reason, not the only one.

The first who is the one that fits: scope, skill, tools, access, location, position, and how short the road to readiness is.

MarvinPro · PROCESS · Here is How to Build · Design · Rules · Discipline 6: Who · Section: The who that fits

MarvinPro | June 2026

marvinpro.com

The who the whole pays for

The next reasons are not about the single team and the single step, but about the whole structure and what it can afford to carry. They cannot be seen from inside one rule; they need the view of the whole, the view the Owner of the end to end has, of every team and what each is already bearing. Two reasons live here.

The first is balance. The team that fits a step best may be the team already carrying the most, and giving them one more thing, though it fits, may be what tips them over. So the designer sometimes gives a step to a team that fits it less well, because the team that fits best cannot take more, and the work must move to where there is room. This is not a failure of fit; it is a choice to protect the whole, because a structure where one team drowns while another sits light is a structure that fails, however well each rule fits on its own. You balance the load by seeing all of it at once, and placing work where the whole can bear it.

The second is cost. Teams cost differently, and the cost of the doer should match the value of the step. A simple step does not need an expensive, highly skilled team; give it to one, and you spend a scarce and costly resource on work that a lower-cost team could do as well, and you keep the skilled team from the work only they can do. The reverse is also a fault: a step that needs the costly team should not be handed down to save money, or it will be done poorly. So cost cuts both ways, do not burn an expensive team on simple work, and do not cheap out on work that needs them. And this reason is felt, not just counted. A team given a steady diet of simple, low-cost work knows it, and may feel its worth is judged low; people notice what they are trusted with and what they are paid for. The cost of a who is never only a number, it is also how the people in the team come to see their place. A designer weighs cost with that in view, not as cold arithmetic.

The highest possible standard is to choose the who with the whole structure in view, balancing the load so no team drowns while another sits light, and matching the cost of the doer to the value of the step, while remembering that capacity and cost are felt by the people who carry them.

Key Takeaway: Some reasons need the whole view, the Owner's view of every team's load, not the single rule. Balance: the team that fits best may be the one already carrying the most, so the work sometimes goes to a lesser fit to protect the whole, because a structure where one team drowns and another sits light fails however well each rule fits alone. Cost: match the doer's cost to the step's value, do not burn an expensive team on simple work, nor cheap out on work that needs them. And cost is felt, not just counted, teams notice what they are trusted with and paid for.

Beyond fit, the whole must afford the who: balance the load so none drown, and match cost to the value of the step.

MarvinPro · PROCESS · Here is How to Build · Design · Rules · Discipline 6: Who · Section: The who the whole pays for

MarvinPro | June 2026

marvinpro.com

The who that completes a scope

There is a reason to choose a who that is not about fit, nor about the whole's load and cost, but about making a single team whole. A team owns a scope, a stretch of work that is theirs, and yet inside that scope there may be a step or two they cannot do themselves. So the work leaves them for those steps, goes to another team that holds the tool or the access or the permission, and comes back. The team owns its scope in name, but not in fact: it owns it with holes, and at each hole the work is handed out and handed back, and waits.

Each of those handouts is a seam, and a seam is where work slows and drops. A team that must pass its own work out for a step and wait for its return does not control its own scope; it depends on another team's queue for a piece of what is supposed to be its own. The rule, designed this way, builds the dependency in. And often the dependency is not necessary. The reason the step left the team was that they lacked the tool, the access, or the training for it, and any of those can be given. Give the team the access, or the tool, or the small training the step needs, and the step that used to leave can stay. The hole closes.

This is what it means to design the who for the wholeness of a scope, to empower a team. You look at a team that owns a scope in pieces, find the one or two steps that force the work out and back, and redesign so the team can do the whole scope itself. The team is made the true owner of its work, not an owner with holes patched by other teams. The scope is made to stand alone. This is a deliberate design choice, and it serves the structure: a team that owns its scope whole is faster, steadier, and answerable for its own work, with no seam where the work can fall. Where you can close a hole by giving a team what it lacks, the rule and the team are both made sounder.

The highest possible standard is to find the steps that force a team to hand its own work out and back, and where it can be done, give the team the tool, access, or training to do those steps itself, so the team owns its scope whole and the seam is removed.

Key Takeaway: A third reason is making a single team whole. A team owns a scope but may have a step or two inside it they cannot do themselves, so the work leaves them and comes back, and the team owns its scope with holes, a seam where work slows and drops. Often the dependency is not necessary: the team lacked a tool, access, or training that can be given. Give it, and the step that used to leave can stay, the hole closes. To design the who this way is to empower a team to own its whole scope, with no seam where the work can fall.

Empower a team by closing the holes in its scope: give it the tool, access, or training so the work need not leave and return.

MarvinPro · PROCESS · Here is How to Build · Design · Rules · Discipline 6: Who · Section: The who that completes a scope

MarvinPro | June 2026

marvinpro.com

The wrong who, and the reason that is not real

A rule can have a right deed, a right manner, a right moment, and a right reason, and still fail, because it fell to the wrong who. Given to a team outside the scope, the work sits unowned. Given to a team without the skill or the access, it cannot be done, or is done badly. Given to a team already drowning, it is done late or not at all. Given at the wrong cost, it wastes a scarce team or starves a step that needed one. The who is not a small dimension that can be left to chance; a wrong who breaks a rule as surely as a wrong word, and the break is often quieter, the rule looks right on paper and only fails in the doing, where the wrong team meets the work.

And as with the why, the who must rest on a reason that is real. The most common false reason is habit: it has always been theirs. That is not a reason, it is a record of the past, and the past may no longer hold. The scope may have shifted, so the work is no longer theirs by right. The load may have grown, so the team that once had room is now buried. The tools may have moved, so a team that once needed a handout could now do the step itself, or one that once could now cannot. A who chosen by habit, never re-examined, drifts out of true while no one looks, and the structure mis-loads itself silently, work piling on a team that no longer fits it, for no reason anyone could now defend.

So designing the who includes testing the reason, the same test the why demands. Can you say why this team, and not another, in fit, in the whole's balance and cost, and in the wholeness of their scope? If the answer is a real reason that still holds, the who is sound. If the answer is only that it has always been so, the who is owed a fresh look, because the grounds it once stood on may be gone. A who you can defend in every direction is a who designed; a who you can only explain by habit is a who waiting to fail.

The highest possible standard is to test every who against a reason that still holds, across fit, the whole's balance and cost, and the wholeness of scope, and to re-examine any who that rests only on habit, since the grounds it once stood on may no longer be there.

Key Takeaway: A rule with a right deed, manner, moment, and reason still fails if it fell to the wrong who, outside the scope, without skill or access, on a drowning team, or at the wrong cost, and the break is often quiet, right on paper but failing in the doing. And the who must rest on a real reason: the commonest false one is habit, it has always been theirs, which is a record of the past, not a reason, and scope, load, and tools may all have changed. Test the who as you test the why: can you say why this team, in fit, in the whole's balance and cost, and in wholeness of scope?

A wrong who fails a sound rule, and a who held only by habit drifts out of true while no one looks.

MarvinPro · PROCESS · Here is How to Build · Design · Rules · Discipline 6: Who · Section: The wrong who, and the reason that is not real

MarvinPro | June 2026

marvinpro.com

A real example

Follow the same rule into its who. The three messages fall to two teams: Support sends the first, at the first contact, and Back Office sends the other two, once the work is underway and when it is done. The plainest reason is fit. First contact is where Support already lives, it is their scope and their place, so the opening message is theirs by both. The later messages fall in the work Back Office owns, so they are theirs by scope. And readiness played its part: Support was already trained on the live tool the first message needs, while the steadier later messages suited a team that works away from the live front, so the fit and the training pointed the same way.

But fit was not the whole of it. The later messages were kept off Support partly to protect them, the front line carries the live load, the calls and the first contacts, and piling the follow-up work on them too would have tipped a team already full, so balance moved the later work to Back Office, who had the room. Cost weighed in as well: a simple logging step that closes each message did not need either skilled team, and was given to a lower-cost team that could do it as well, keeping the costlier teams for the work that needed judgement. And one step that Support used to hand out, issuing a small goodwill credit, which once had to leave them for a team with the access, was redesigned: Support was given the access themselves, so the step that used to leave and return now stays, and Support owns the whole of the first contact with no seam. The same shape appears outside a company. In a hospital, a ward owns its patients' updates, but a change to the formal record once had to go to a central team that held the permission; giving the ward that access lets it own the whole update, while a simple notice to the family, needing no clinical hand, goes to a lower-cost administrative team, freeing the clinical staff for clinical work.

What makes this a designed who and not an accident is that every assignment has a reason that still holds, and the reasons were weighed against each other. Fit pointed one way, balance and cost sometimes another, and the wholeness of a team's scope another again, and the designer chose with all of them in view. Had the who been left to habit, the credit step would still be leaving Support and coming back, the follow-up work would still be crushing the front line, and the costly teams would still be spending their hours on logging. Instead each team carries what it should, for a reason anyone could ask after and be given. That is the who designed: not whoever was nearest, but the team whose fit, or the whole's load and cost, or the wholeness of their own scope, made the work truly theirs.

The who is designed when every team carries what it should, for a reason that still holds and can be given to anyone who asks.

MarvinPro · PROCESS · Here is How to Build · Design · Rules · Discipline 6: Who · A real example

MarvinPro | June 2026

marvinpro.com

Who

The who is the last of the five dimensions, the one the deed falls to, and it is a decision as real as the others, for the same deed in different hands is a different rule. At the rule's level the who names a team, the one that owns that point of the work; the exact person and tool are settled in the detail. And like every dimension, the who has a why, the designer can always say why the work was given to this team and not another. The reasons are several, and they do not all point the same way.

The first reason is fit: the team suits the work, by scope, skill, tools, access, location, position, and the safety of the match, and readiness counts too, a team already trained, or needing only a small module, fits more cheaply than one needing a long effort. Most rules are assigned by fit, and rightly. But other reasons need the view of the whole, the Owner's view of every team's load. Balance gives a step to a lesser fit when the best fit is already drowning, because a structure where one team is buried and another sits light fails however well each rule fits alone. Cost matches the doer to the value of the step, neither burning an expensive team on simple work nor starving a step that needs them, and cost is felt, not only counted, for teams notice what they are trusted with and paid for. And a reason apart from all these is the wholeness of a scope: where a team owns its work but must hand a step or two out and back, giving them the tool, access, or training to do those steps closes the hole, and the team is empowered to own its whole scope with no seam where the work can fall.

A who must be right, and it must rest on a reason that still holds. A wrong who breaks a sound rule, given outside the scope, without the access, to a drowning team, or at the wrong cost, and the break is often quiet, right on paper and failing only in the doing. And the commonest false reason is habit: it has always been theirs, which is a record of the past, not a reason, for scope, load, and tools all change while no one looks. So the who is tested as the why is tested: can you say why this team, in fit, in the whole's balance and cost, and in the wholeness of their scope? A who you can defend is a who designed; a who held only by habit is one waiting to fail.

You now hold all five dimensions: the deed, its manner, its moment, its reason, and the one it falls to, each a decision, all designed as one rule. To design the who is to give each rule to the team that should carry it, for a reason that still holds, weighing the team's fit against the whole's load and cost and against the wholeness of their own scope, and never letting the work settle by habit on whoever held it last. With the who, the rule is complete: a deed, done in a fixed manner, at a fixed place in the structure, for a written reason, by the team whose work it truly is. The next discipline turns from the five dimensions to the rule as a whole, and asks what makes a rule sound.

The who is the team whose work it truly is, chosen for fit, for the whole's load and cost, or for the wholeness of their scope, and never settled by habit.

MarvinPro · PROCESS · Here is How to Build · Design · Rules · Discipline 6: Who · Chapter Outcome

MarvinPro | June 2026

marvinpro.com

Think Simple.