The 10·10·10·10 model explained
The first day helps fund the work needed to release the second. Your strategy determines how the available capacity is used.
PERSONAL + TEAM · a first step
In our experience, the first day is often more accessible: improve how people frame questions, prepare, compare, draft and check their work.
20% of the original week. Protect some of that time for the work needed to go further.
Reinvest in redesign · the harder step
The next day usually requires changing workflows, handoffs, roles and decisions together. The first released day helps make that work possible.
Two days in total: 40% of the original week. Establish the result in your own work before committing it elsewhere.
In TIP’s experience, PERSONAL and TEAM often reveal relatively accessible changes in how people think and work. Reaching the next level usually requires more: redesigning a workflow, changing a handoff, testing a different service or combining expertise across a function.
That is why the first released day matters. If it is immediately filled with more of the same work, there may be no capacity left to make the deeper changes. Protect some of it for learning, experimentation and redesign through the relevant parts of the existing pathway.
Five to four releases one day. Four to three releases another day. Each is 20% of the original five-day week; the second is 25% of the remaining four-day effort. The two-stage approach is TIP’s practitioner model, not a sequence established by the studies below.
Our experience + the research
In our experience, around 40% is a recurring capacity opportunity worth exploring. We use five days’ work in three as a practical ambition, with the result established through your own work, quality standards and measures.
Published work shows substantial opportunities, but the figures have different scopes. A task-time reduction, a functional case and a future allocation model should not be treated as the same result.
| Evidence | What it tells us | What it covers |
|---|---|---|
| Science · writing experiment | 40% less task time; 18% higher graded quality. | 453 professionals completing specified writing tasks. |
| Organization Science · consulting experiment | About 25.1% less time on the selected tasks within the model’s capability. Performance worsened on a task outside it. | 758 consultants and defined tasks; the work and the checks matter. |
| McKinsey · reported FP&A case | More than 40% of capacity reallocated away from data gathering and manual reporting at a telecom company. | A reported functional case, separate from the article’s allocation model. |
| NBER / authors · 66-firm experiment | Less time on email, without detected broader changes to task quantity or composition from individual tool provision. | A reminder that releasing time and redesigning work are separate tasks. |
The research supports investigating the opportunity. It does not establish a consistent 40% result for every organisation, or prove that the first 20% is universally easy. Those are questions to test in the work.
The functions establish where usable capacity can be released. The leadership team then considers it against strategy, customer needs and the condition of the business. A function can create time that is most valuable when combined with time from another function.
The four buckets are prompts for that decision. They are adjustable and can receive zero allocation. The percentages describe time, not a required reduction in headcount or a promise of cash savings.
For example, a business may keep headcount flat, put no separate allocation into insourcing and commit the full 40% to risk and growth. Another may need to build internal capability first. Count each allocation once and keep the choices open to review as the evidence and priorities change.
An adjustable thinking tool
Bring the capacity your functions believe they can release to the next leadership discussion. Put it beside the business priorities and choose one shared use of time. Agree what will make the time real and what result would justify keeping the allocation.