Some coordination infrastructures look extremely busy and still fail to improve coordination. Calendars fill up. Attendance stays high. Documents multiply. Yet decision latency increases and stakeholder satisfaction drops.

This episode names the pattern: when coordination becomes activity measurement, it turns into compliance theater.

You will hear the recognition signals: full calendars with no commitments, “alignment meetings” that produce no decisions, metrics that track participation instead of results, and the classic line: “We are always coordinating but nothing gets decided.”

Anthony Veltri also contrasts easy activity metrics (meetings held, attendance rates, documents produced, response time) with outcome metrics that actually matter (time from issue identification to decision, percentage of decisions executed without escalation, rework rate, and stakeholder perceived clarity).

Practical takeaway: if you are measuring activity, you will optimize for activity. If you want outcomes, you must define what “better coordination” means in observable terms and build architecture that reduces decision drag rather than creating more rituals.

Reflection: Is your coordination infrastructure producing commitments, or just producing artifacts?

https://anthonyveltri.com/guide/doctrine-15-companion-activity-vs-outcome/