Proximity Expertise Mapping

---
name: proximity-expertise-mapping
description: A MacKenzie Scott methodology for identifying who holds genuine expertise based on their proximity to problems, and realigning voice and power accordingly.
license: MIT
metadata:
  author: sethmblack
  version: 1.0.4759
repository: https://github.com/sethmblack/paks-skills
keywords:
- proximity-expertise-mapping
- writing
---

# Proximity-Expertise Mapping

A MacKenzie Scott methodology for identifying who holds genuine expertise based on their proximity to problems, and realigning voice and power accordingly.

---


## When to Use

- User explicitly requests this type of analysis or approach
- The situation matches the core use case for this skill
- You need to apply this specific framework or methodology
- The problem requires this particular perspective or lens
- Other approaches have failed and this offers a fresh angle




## Inputs

| Input | Required | Description |
|-------|----------|-------------|
| input_data | Yes | The primary data or content to analyze |
| context | No | Additional background or constraints (default: none) |
| output_format | No | Preferred format for results (default: structured markdown) |

## Purpose

Authority and expertise are often misaligned. People with titles make decisions, while people with proximity hold knowledge. This skill maps any problem situation to reveal who actually knows best, then recommends how to realign decision-making with true expertise.

---

## When to Invoke

**Trigger phrases:**
- "Who actually knows best here?"
- "Map the expertise"
- "Who has proximity?"
- "Are we listening to the right people?"
- "Who's closest to this problem?"

**Situations:**
- Designing strategy for problems you don't directly experience
- Structuring teams or organizations
- Deciding who should lead an initiative
- Evaluating whose input to prioritize
- Noticing that "experts" are disconnected from reality
- Any situation where decisions are made by people removed from consequences

---

## Input Requirements

Provide:
1. **The problem or challenge** - What are you trying to solve?
2. **Current decision-makers** - Who has authority on this?
3. **People involved in the work** - Who deals with this directly?
4. **Stated goals** - What outcome is desired?

---

## Workflow
### Step 1: Define the Problem Clearly

What is actually being addressed? Be specific.

**Clarifying questions:**
- Who experiences this problem directly?
- What does the problem look like from inside it?
- What do solutions need to accomplish on the ground?

**Watch for:** Abstract framings that obscure lived reality. "Improving educational outcomes" sounds different than "helping specific students in specific classrooms learn specific things."

### Step 2: Map Proximity Levels

Categorize everyone involved by their distance from the problem.

| Proximity Level | Description | Example |
|-----------------|-------------|---------|
| **Inside** | Lives the problem daily, experiences consequences directly | Students in the school, patients with the condition, workers on the line |
| **Adjacent** | Works directly with those who experience the problem | Teachers, nurses, front-line managers |
| **Operational** | Manages the systems around the problem | Principals, department heads, program directors |
| **Strategic** | Sets direction from organizational distance | Executives, board members, funders |
| **External** | Influences from outside the system | Consultants, policymakers, donors |

**Key insight:** Expertise often flows inversely to authority. Those closest often know most but decide least.

### Step 3: Assess Current Authority Distribution

Who has voice and power now?

For each proximity level, assess:
- **Decision rights** - Who can make binding choices?
- **Voice** - Who is consulted, listened to, invited to speak?
- **Veto power** - Who can block or override?
- **Resource control** - Who controls budgets and staffing?

**Common patterns:**
- External/Strategic levels hold authority
- Inside/Adjacent levels hold expertise
- Operational level is squeezed between

**Diagnostic question:** When important decisions are made, who is in the room? Who is absent?

### Step 4: Identify the Expertise Gap

Where are authority and proximity misaligned?

**Gap indicators:**
- Decisions made by people who don't experience consequences
- Solutions designed without input from those who'll implement them
- Strategies that sound logical but fail on the ground
- Repeated "surprises" about what's happening at the front line
- Frustration from those closest to the problem

**The Scott principle:** "People working closest to the problem are best positioned to design the solutions."

If this is true, but distant people are designing solutions, you have an expertise gap.

### Step 5: Map Realignment Opportunities

How could authority better align with expertise?

**Realignment options:**
- **Elevate voice** - Bring proximate people into decision-making conversations
- **Delegate authority** - Move decision rights closer to the problem
- **Consult first** - Require proximate input before strategic decisions
- **Shift resources** - Give proximate people budget authority
- **Restructure** - Change organizational design to align authority with proximity
- **Listen differently** - Value experiential knowledge, not just credentials

**For each opportunity, ask:**
- What would it take to make this change?
- Who would resist? Why?
- What would improve if proximity and authority aligned?

### Step 6: Design for Proximity-Based Authority

Create specific recommendations.

**Principles for realignment:**
- **Default to proximity** - When in doubt, trust those closest
- **Burden of proof on distance** - Distant decision-makers should justify override
- **Information flows up, authority flows down** - Strategy informed by ground truth, execution owned by front line
- **Representation isn't enough** - Having a seat at the table isn't the same as having decision rights
- **Ongoing, not one-time** - Realignment requires sustained structural change

---

## Output Format

Deliver:
1. **Problem Definition** - Clear statement of what's being addressed
2. **Proximity Map** - Visual or descriptive map of who's at each level
3. **Authority Audit** - Current distribution of decision power
4. **Expertise Gap Analysis** - Where authority and proximity diverge
5. **Realignment Recommendations** - Specific changes to align voice with expertise
6. **Implementation Priorities** - What to do first

---

## Example Application

**Input:**
"Our nonprofit is designing a new job training program for formerly incarcerated individuals. Our leadership team (all college-educated, none with personal experience of incarceration) is making all the design decisions. We have a few program alumni on our advisory board. Are we listening to the right people?"

**Analysis:**

**Problem Definition:**
Designing effective job training that helps formerly incarcerated individuals gain employment and rebuild lives. Success looks like: sustainable employment, reduced recidivism, restored dignity.

**Proximity Map:**
| Level | Who | Proximity Score |
|-------|-----|-----------------|
| Inside | Formerly incarcerated individuals seeking employment | Highest |
| Adjacent | Program alumni who've been through training; employers who hire them | High |
| Operational | Program staff, case managers, job coaches | Medium |
| Strategic | Executive leadership, board members | Low |
| External | Funders, policy consultants | Lowest |

**Authority Audit:**
- **Decision rights:** Executive leadership (low proximity)
- **Voice:** Advisory board consulted occasionally; program alumni rarely
- **Resource control:** Leadership and board
- **Design authority:** Leadership team (no lived experience)

**Expertise Gap Analysis:**
Massive gap. The people with highest proximity (those who've experienced incarceration, navigated reentry, sought employment with a record) have the least authority. The people designing the program have never experienced the problem.

Your advisory board structure gives alumni a seat but not power. "Consultation" isn't the same as authority.

**Realignment Recommendations:**
1. **Co-design authority** - Move program design decisions to a body that is majority-composed of people with lived experience. Not advisory—actual decision rights.
2. **Budget voice** - Give program alumni direct input on how training budget is allocated
3. **Hire from proximity** - Staff roles (especially program design) should prioritize lived experience as a qualification
4. **Restructure advisory** - Convert advisory board to decision-making body, or create new structure with real authority
5. **Compensation for expertise** - Pay those with lived experience for their design contributions (their knowledge is valuable; treat it as such)

**Implementation Priorities:**
1. **Immediate:** Pause major design decisions until proximate voices are structurally included
2. **Week 1-2:** Have honest conversations with current advisory members about expanding their authority
3. **Month 1:** Create compensated design roles for people with lived experience
4. **Ongoing:** Audit every major decision: "Who made this? How close are they to experiencing its consequences?"

---

## Core Principle

> "People working closest to the problem are best positioned to design the solutions." — MacKenzie Scott

Proximity is expertise. When authority and proximity align, solutions work. When they diverge, we get strategies that sound logical but fail in practice. Map the expertise. Follow the proximity.

## Outputs

**Primary Output:** A structured analysis document that identifies and articulates patterns, insights, and actionable recommendations based on the input data.

**Format:**
```markdown
## Analysis: [Topic]

### Key Findings
- [Finding 1]
- [Finding 2]
- [Finding 3]

### Recommendations
1. [Action 1]
2. [Action 2]
3. [Action 3]
```

**Example output:** See the Example section below for a complete demonstration.

## Error Handling

| Situation | Response |
|-----------|----------|
| Insufficient input data | Request specific additional information needed for analysis |
| Ambiguous requirements | Ask clarifying questions before proceeding |
| Conflicting constraints | Highlight the conflicts and ask for prioritization |
| Out of scope request | Explain the skill's boundaries and suggest alternatives |
| Incomplete analysis | Acknowledge limitations and indicate what additional inputs would help |

## Constraints

- Do not use this analysis as the sole basis for critical decisions
- Do not apply this framework to situations outside its intended scope
- Acknowledge that analysis is based on available data, which may be incomplete
- Honor the complexity of real-world situations that resist simple categorization
- Present findings with appropriate confidence levels
- Recognize the limits of the methodology

## Additional Notes

**Best practices:**
- Use this skill when the situation clearly matches its intended use cases
- Combine with related skills for comprehensive analysis
- Iterate on outputs if initial results don't fully meet requirements

**Common variations:**
- Adjust the depth of analysis based on available time and information
- Scale the approach for different levels of complexity
- Adapt the output format to audience needs

**When to skip this skill:**
- The situation doesn't match the core use cases
- Simpler approaches would be more appropriate
- Time constraints require faster methods

## Integration

This skill is part of a broader analytical framework. Use it when you need systematic analysis following this specific methodology.

**Works well with:**
- Other analytical skills for comprehensive evaluation
- Creative skills when generating solutions based on insights
- Strategic planning skills when acting on recommendations

**When to prefer this over alternatives:**
- The situation matches this skill's specific use cases
- You need the particular perspective this framework provides
- Other approaches haven't yielded satisfactory results

**Integration with expert personas:**
- This skill can be invoked as part of a larger analysis workflow
- Combine with domain-specific expertise for deeper insights
- Use iteratively for complex, multi-faceted problems