Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Article develops a formal framework to account for management debt and its attribution to responsible actors, highlighting implications for decision-making.
This article develops a formal framework for conceptualising and accounting for management debt as a distinct accounting object. Management debt is defined as the consequence of a management decision that has not been made, has been deferred, has been inadequately formalised, or has not been executed, where such absence increases organisational ambiguity, delays, dependence on manual intervention, redundant coordination, the probability of errors, and the probability of loss. Particular attention is given to omission debt, understood as management debt arising from the failure of an obligated party to make a required decision. The article specifies the relevant terminology, accounting metrics, recognition principles, and attribution rules for recording materialised omission debt and direct losses on the accounts of responsible actors. The proposed measurement approach deliberately excludes survey-based indicators and relies instead on observable organisational evidence, including events, decisions, unmade decisions, timelines, approval routes, digital traces, and materialised consequences. The framework contributes to the formalisation of managerial accountability by linking unmade decisions, responsible decision owners, materialised risks, and measurable economic consequences.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alexander Vityaz (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: