_Variety creates hidden time costs that erode capacity._ --- ## The third variable When teams are stretched, the conversation defaults to two variables: output or resources. Work faster. Add headcount. But capacity has a third variable: time consumed by variety. And it's often invisible. Processing ten different formats for the same request type takes longer than processing ten identical ones. Not because the work is harder, but because variety itself has costs. Context switching. Different validation rules. Different monitoring points. Setup overhead for each type. In manufacturing, this is obvious. Handling three different raw materials makes the time cost visible — different tooling, different quality checks, different handling procedures. In knowledge work, it hides. We see "fifty tasks" not "fifty tasks across fifteen different processing patterns." Before reaching for more capacity, it's worth asking: what variety is the team handling, and what time is it consuming? --- ## Where variety hides A finance team receives expense reports in ten different formats. PDFs, spreadsheets, emails, photos of receipts. Each format demands different processing — different extraction methods, different validation rules, different error handling, different approval paths. Processing slows not because the team lacks skill, but because the system is absorbing more variety than it can handle efficiently. The time costs aren't obvious until you trace them. Different inputs mean different monitoring points — where do I check for new requests? Different information digestion — how do I extract what I need? Different aggregation logic — how do I combine these into a coherent picture? In what looks like "just doing the work," a significant portion of time goes to handling variety rather than executing the core task. This compounds when handoffs are involved. Variety degrades information quality. Requests arrive incomplete because there's no standard format. Handoffs lose context because everyone structures things differently. Priorities stay ambiguous because there's no consistent way to signal urgency. --- ## The discipline The most effective lever is cutting variety at the entry point. Most variety isn't valuable — it's just different ways of asking for the same thing. Give people one way to submit a request type, not ten. Don't start work until you have everything you need upfront. Handle genuine edge cases separately rather than forcing your main process to flex for everything. Some variation you can't eliminate. But you can process it more efficiently. Use the same process structure even when the content changes — same steps, different inputs. Automate the repetitive validation steps. Write down what decisions people can make themselves without escalating. The goal isn't rigid standardisation for its own sake. It's recognising that variety has a cost, and that cost often exceeds the value of the flexibility. --- ## The test Look at where work enters your team. Count how many different formats or paths exist for the same type of request. If it's more than three, variety might be consuming more time than you realise. Pick one request type. Define what must be present before work starts. Standardise the entry format. Track how long processing takes before and after. Most teams find they have more capacity than they thought. Not because people work harder, but because the system stops fighting them. Variety isn't always the answer. But it's worth checking before you add headcount. --- **Related:** [[Notes/Expensive Yes|Expensive Yes]] · [[Notes/Stop Starting Start Finishing|Stop Starting, Start Finishing]] **See also:** [[Ideas/Theory of Constraints|Theory of Constraints]]