Intrenion

Pattern: Institutional amnesia

Past decisions and lessons are forgotten once personnel or priorities change.

In this condition, past decisions and documented lessons are not actively referenced when new initiatives or priorities are introduced.
In this condition, personnel changes are followed by shifts in the interpretation of prior commitments and constraints.
In this condition, similar analyses, projects, or debates recur over time with limited acknowledgment of earlier iterations.
In this condition, strategic documents and metrics change frequently across leadership cycles.
In this condition, knowledge about historical trade-offs is concentrated in a small number of long-tenured individuals.
In this condition, confusion or delay increases temporarily after key individuals leave their roles.
In this condition, stakeholders express frustration about the repeated rediscovery of information that was previously available.

This occurs because knowledge about decisions is embedded in individuals and informal networks rather than in binding institutional processes.
This occurs because incentives reward visible forward movement within a tenure window rather than preservation of historical continuity.
This occurs because documentation systems store artifacts without integrating them into mandatory decision checkpoints.
This occurs because authority to redefine priorities is not structurally constrained by explicit reconciliation with past commitments.
This occurs because turnover disrupts interpretive continuity while formal archives lack mechanisms that enforce consistent interpretation.
This occurs because political and reputational incentives favor reframing past outcomes to legitimize new agendas.
This occurs because no single actor holds both long-term accountability for outcomes and stable tenure sufficient to enforce cumulative learning.

Without a structural change that links new decisions to documented past rationales, repeated rediscovery of prior analyses becomes unavoidable.
Without enforceable continuity mechanisms across leadership cycles, strategic priorities become unstable and oscillate over time.
Without integrating historical trade-offs into current governance checkpoints, accountability for long-term commitments is constrained.
Without durable ownership of institutional memory, dependence on a small number of informal knowledge holders becomes unstable.
Without cumulative learning embedded in decision processes, resource allocation remains constrained by recurring exploratory work.

We decide to maintain a personal decision log that records the rationale and trade-offs of every major decision we participate in because this gives us a retrievable continuity layer across personnel and priority shifts instead of relying on organizational archives and meeting memory to preserve context, and accept that maintaining this log consumes time that could be spent on immediate delivery tasks.
We decide to refuse to reopen previously resolved issues unless new evidence is documented in writing because this gives us a boundary against cyclical rediscovery instead of engaging in repeated exploratory discussions without historical context, and accept that this stance may be perceived as rigid or uncooperative in some meetings.
We decide to attach a concise historical summary of prior related decisions to every new proposal we submit because this gives us an explicit link between past commitments and current actions instead of presenting proposals as isolated initiatives, and accept that proposals may face additional scrutiny or delay due to the trade-offs that surface.

I will document the rationale and trade-offs of every major decision I participate in in my own log and treat it as the primary reference point when questions about past choices arise.
I will not reopen previously resolved issues unless new evidence is provided in writing that justifies revisiting the prior decision.
I will include a concise summary of relevant past decisions and their trade-offs in every new proposal I submit, even if it slows approval or invites additional scrutiny.