Operational Fragmentation: One Problem, Many Names

Hello there!

English is a living language. One word has many meanings. And new words keep evolving. The same happens in the world of operations.

You must have noticed that we discuss a lot about one of the most important industry challenges in operations and that is: operational fragmentation.

We talk about it often because solving it in the space of physical operations is precisely what VersionX does.

By now, perhaps you already know what the phrase means. If you aren’t sure about it yet, this is a good time to learn.

Industry experts refer to “operational fragmentation” in multiple ways depending on their lens, whether they’re from IT, operations, security, or leadership.

A fragmented way to understand fragmentation, eh? Pun intended.

Here is a list of the most commonly used phrases, and how they’re typically understood:

1) Fragmented systems: This is the most direct and intuitive usage, which we also use frequently. It simply means broken into parts, lacking cohesion, and no unified view.

It is mostly used by product and consulting leadership in a problem-focused way. Example: Operations are running on fragmented systems.

2) Siloed systems: Perhaps the most widely used and understood term. It means systems or teams operating independently with little or no data sharing. The business cost of it is called silo tax - we have discussed it here.

When used by CXOs, consultants, and operations leaders, the tone is mostly strategic / organizational. Example: Our security and facilities systems are siloed.

3) Disconnected systems: This is a clear, jargon-light phrase. It means the system lacks real-time integration, and data doesn’t flow end-to-end.

The phrase is used by a broad audience in a practical, matter-of-fact way. Example: Our systems are disconnected. Nothing talks to each other.

4) Disparate systems: This is a more formal, slightly technical phrase. It means different systems that don’t integrate well. Often referred to systems from different vendors.

It is mostly used by IT and enterprise teams in a neutral, descriptive tone. Example: We have disparate systems across access control and visitor management.

5) Manual workarounds: This one is less about technology and more about human behavior. When systems don't work together, people compensate using calls, WhatsApp groups, spreadsheets, and memory.

Don’t we love this phrase? I've watched entire operations run on phone calls, spreadsheets, and heroic acts of memory. It directly points to the ground-level realities of modern operations. Example: The team relies on manual workarounds to keep things running.

6) Lack of integration / poor integration: This is a common phrasing meaning systems exist but don’t work together properly. Example: Our issue is not systems; it’s lack of integration.

7) Multiple systems / too many systems: A simple, leadership-friendly framing that implies complexity and inefficiency. Example: We’re managing operations across too many systems.

8) No single source of truth: This is a very powerful phrase, and we have discussed it at length earlier. It means data exists in multiple places with duplicate records and conflicting information.

The phrase is mostly used by CXOs and data teams. Example: We don’t have a single source of truth for who is on-site.

9) Operational blind spots: We have discussed it previously, and it is used to refer to the outcome of fragmentation such as the risk and gaps created because systems don’t connect. Example: Fragmentation is creating blind spots in our operations.

10) Patchwork systems / patchwork architecture: This is slightly informal but vivid. It means systems stitched together over time. They got stitched because there never was any intentional design. Example: It’s a patchwork of tools rather than a unified system.

For institutions and enterprise leadership, the most effective phrases are: siloed systems no single source of truth, disconnected systems, operational blind spots. These are easy to understand, not buzzword-heavy, and directly point to risk and inefficiency.

To make it simpler:

a) These describe the operational problems: “siloed,” “disconnected,” and “no single source of truth.”

b) This describes their impact: “blind spots.”

Phew! So many ways to say the same thing. Humans really do love complexity.

Perhaps if there were fewer words for it, there'd be more urgency to fix it.