Public digital services rarely fail overnight. They gradually become harder to use, harder to change, and harder to explain. A new step is added for a policy edge case, a label changes without the rest of the journey catching up, and a workaround becomes the default. Before long, users are guessing, teams are firefighting, and every release feels riskier than it should.
What interaction debt is
Interaction debt is the build-up of short-term interaction decisions that remain in place as the service evolves. It might not break the platform technically, but it compounds user confusion, avoidable support demand, manual handling, and delivery risk.
The goal is not perfection. The goal is controlled interaction quality that holds up under pressure.
- User confusion and errors
- Avoidable support demand and manual handling
- Delivery risk from fragile, unpredictable change
What interaction debt looks like in public services
Left alone, this becomes operational harm: more incomplete submissions, avoidable contacts, rework, and slower releases.
- Inconsistent patterns across similar tasks so users repeatedly relearn the service
- Extra steps and repeated questions that feel unnecessary or mistrustful
- Unclear decision points where users do not know what happens next or why
- Weak error handling and recovery where users cannot fix mistakes confidently
- Accessibility and assisted-digital gaps deferred until later
- Bolt-on journeys patched onto old flows without reworking underlying logic
Why interaction debt becomes delivery risk
Interaction debt accrues interest in three predictable ways.
- User cost: confusion drives errors, drop-off, repeat attempts, and mistrust
- Operational cost: support teams absorb complexity through calls, emails, and manual fixes
- Change cost: releases introduce more edge cases, regressions, and coordination overhead
A practical FLOCK-based approach to paying it down
FLOCK helps teams reduce interaction debt through a lightweight, repeatable cycle: make promises and trade-offs explicit, reference evidence without documentation bloat, turn debt into governed decisions, and maintain a sustainable paydown rhythm.
Step 1: Reframe interaction debt as promise risk
Translate interaction problems into risks against clear service promises. Ask: what are we promising users, and where does the journey break that promise?
Run a short 30 to 45 minute session to capture top user promises, break points, and the trade-offs that created debt.
- Top 3 to 5 user promises, for example: I can complete this without calling
- Where the journey breaks those promises
- Which trade-off created the debt: time pressure, dependencies, policy uncertainty, or platform constraints
Step 2: Create a lightweight Interaction Debt Index
You do not need a large spreadsheet. You need a practical index that stops debt becoming invisible.
- Where it occurs: journey and step
- User harm: confusion, errors, exclusion, support burden
- Evidence pointers: research, analytics, support themes, accessibility findings
- Decision context: what trade-off accepted it
- Fix intent: remove step, clarify decision point, standardise pattern, or improve recovery
Step 3: Put debt into routines that stop it coming back
Most teams fail here. They spot debt, fix some of it, then reintroduce it because decision routines did not change.
- Decision notes: record what was decided, why, trade-offs, supporting evidence, and review date
- Inclusion checks: confirm users can understand, recover from mistakes, use assistive tech, and complete non-happy paths
- Measures snapshot: track 2 to 4 indicators such as completion, errors, support contacts, task time, and accessibility defects
Step 4: Protect capacity or paydown will not happen
Debt paydown fails when delivery runs in permanent emergency mode. Ringfence 10 to 20% of capacity for paydown and prioritise items that create measurable harm.
- Protect 10 to 20% of team capacity
- Prioritise harm: confusion, errors, support burden, exclusion
- Ship small improvements regularly rather than waiting for a full redesign
Step 5: Add lightweight peer challenge
Interaction debt is easy to normalise. A short peer review each quarter or phase helps surface blind spots and keep the service coherent.
- Focus on highest-risk debt items
- Test whether evidence supports the claims
- Check whether the fix plan is realistic
- Surface unresolved trade-offs and hidden constraints
Need support applying this in your service context?
Start a conversation and we will help you turn this into practical delivery actions.