In a small community one person knows which tradesperson is responsible, how documents are filed and which matter is still outstanding. As long as they are reachable, the process appears straightforward. In the event of an absence, however, the building should not be reliant on private memory.
Recognising dependency for concrete tasks
Do not ask for a copy of the entire private archive. Which ongoing household tasks could no one else currently continue? Start with a few really relevant cases and their next steps.
Authorisation, deputisation and mandate must be clarified within the concrete community framework. Distributing knowledge does not create new decision-making powers.
Separate communal knowledge from personal access
Community-related documents are made findable via an appropriate authorised route. Private passwords, third-party individual information and personal communication are not copied into a general folder without control.
For each ongoing matter a confirmed status, the responsible contact role and the next open question suffice. A list of telephone numbers alone does not explain the previous course of events.
Fictional case: the known contact is unavailable
A tradesperson is expecting feedback. The previously central person is temporarily unreachable. A suitably authorised deputy can recognise from the household records which matter is meant and which decision is still missing.
They must not guess whether an earlier phone call already contained an instruction. Unknown arrangements remain visible as a point to be clarified and are not invented.
Practically testing distributed knowledge
Have another actually responsible person follow a selected matter using the intended documents. Where they cannot proceed, that exact gap is improved. A signed receipt sheet alone does not prove operational capability.
This way the small community becomes less dependent on a single person. Responsibility at the same time remains so clear that sharing knowledge does not result in unresolved multiple responsibility.