To standardize, or not to standardize – that is the question!

I recently came across a post that passionately defended processes and routines, calling out what the author described as “process phobia”¹ – a coping mechanism for incompetence that allows people to stay in their comfort zone. The author’s position on the topic of processes made me wonder – are processes really under attack? Or have we simply rediscovered their limits and realized that, nowadays, delivery systems behave less like machines and more like lava lamps?

Let’s check: in today’s brittle world, is the process still king? Or has it become a well-meaning bureaucrat, wearing yesterday’s crown in tomorrow’s storm?

---

BANI² world – where certainty dies

Most of you probably heard about VUCA – volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity. Navigating in such an environment isn’t easy, but we had our frameworks, processes and experts. Now, we talk about BANI: brittle, anxious, nonlinear, and incomprehensible. It’s not just harder – it’s stranger, less intuitive and… scarier. 

In the BANI world, plans break before lunch. Stakeholders pivot mid-sentence.
That beautifully crafted process you spent six months working on? Not valid anymore.
Too late to help. Too rigid to bend. The world is brittle, and you already know it – a single virus outbreak made significant changes to the economy, the way we work, and the values we hold.

The illusion that humankind can control the world brings a lot of anxiety. One may want to control their life, and yet, even on that scale the system is too complex and nonlinear. Yes, nonlinear – because if we want to have a Y response in our system, a simple signal of x on the input side is not enough anymore. Complexity gets bigger, entropy grows. It gets harder and harder to understand it all, or is it even possible? The world is incomprehensible, so a single human brain will not be able to process all the information it gets. 

You now know how the world looks like, and can you still imagine bringing a full-blown procurement process to a startup-style prototype sprint. It’s like showing up to a Nerf battle in a Kevlar vest. Overkill… and possibly a bit sad. 

Not all contexts want a process.

How complex is your habitat? Dave Snowden offers you a few options. In his Cynefin framework he reminds us not every problem wants a solution and not every situation needs a process.

If you want to work in clear and complicated domains the process work seems reasonable. Outputs are predictable, teachable, repeatable. You can create prescriptions based on best or good practices. 

In complex and chaotic domains processes become speed bumps. Here, we need probes, safe-to-fail experiments, and prompt feedback loops. As Richard Branson said: „Hire the right people for the job, then get out of their way & let them do it”.

Most projects worth doing – research, transformation, new market entries – don’t live in the land of clarity. They live in the fog, and in the fog the flashlight beats the map.

One size fits… Nothing

Let’s zoom out. Structure matters – but so does the scale. At different levels we need different types of control. In projects we need agility (not to be confused with agile) – let teams experiment, adjust the course and capture lessons learned. Programs need coordination. Think cadence, alignment, checkpoints, interfaces. Portfolios need decision – making clarity. What to fund, what to stop? Just remember, that data without context provides erroneous analysis. 

Trying to apply the same process template across all three is like using a wrench as a spoon: technically usable, functionally terrible. 

What to do – how to live? Well, instead of obsessing over process, more value comes from clarity of goal – the final result we want to achieve. Clarity of roles – who decides what? And clarity of boundaries – who has what competencies. 

A good project management plan gives this clarity, creates alignment and allows people to improvise responsibly. It respects complexity without surrendering to complete chaos. Instead of heavy processes, think where you want to measure the health of the system you manage. Allow people to responsibly improvise on how to get there. You already know the world is BANI, so there’s no way you will have full control anyway.

If you still struggle to decide if you need a process – enter cynefin (habitat) – Snowden’s sense-making framework that reminds us not every problem wants a solution, and not every situation needs a process. It divides the world into five domains:

• Clear (Obvious): Cause and effect are visible. Best practices work. Here, processes shine.
• Complicated: Cause and effect exist but require analysis. Expert judgment matters. Processes can help, but they need to be combined with knowledge. Processes for this habitat need less precision, and need to allow elasticity within limits. .
• Complex: Cause and effect can only be understood in retrospect. Emergent patterns matter. Here, safe-to-fail experiments, iterative learning, and agile methods thrive. You need frameworks that define only the general way of working – touchpoints to yours management system.
• Chaotic: No perceivable cause and effect. Immediate action is needed to stabilize. Leadership and decisive moves matter more than process. I dare you – try to draft the process for the chaos! 
• Aporetic/Confused: We don’t yet know where we are. The challenge is to sense and categorize before acting.

In clear and complicated domains, processes are the heroes. In complex and chaotic domains, they can become villains. The art is knowing when to shift gears, as the borders between habitats don’t have the wall, they are fuzzy! 

The deeper insight from Cynefin is this: you don’t scale a hammer, you diversify the toolbox. Relying only on process is like bringing only a map to a jungle. Sometimes you need a machete. Sometimes a compass. Sometimes just courage.

So, what else should you consider before you create cement shoes for your teams by overprocessing everything?

Systems Thinking & Causal Loop Diagrams: Helpful in complicated and complex contexts to map interdependencies and identify leverage points.

TRIZ tools like 9 windows, SU-Field Modeling will allow you to assess processing of a work area.

Crisis Management Playbooks: Useful in chaos, where speed and clarity beat elegance. Think fire drills, not SOPs.

OODA Loop (Observe–Orient–Decide–Act): A military concept that works across domains but especially in fast-moving environments. Short cycles of action instead of heavy plans.

Management by objectives

Management by Objectives (MBO): Most effective in complicated and complex contexts where clarity of goals drives alignment and accountability. It brings structure without dictating the “how,” creating space for teams to adapt methods to reach agreed outcomes. In complex habitats the goal may change too often – consider this if your complex is close to chaos.

Creating a well scaled process for the need, one that will be there for people, and not people for the process (like I read this somewhere before) is a very difficult thing to do. Plus, if environment changes, or you misjudge it… the cliff is waiting for you!

Cynefin hides a nasty trap: the drop straight from Obvious to Chaotic. When we over-trust best practices and routines, we risk believing the world is forever predictable. Then reality shifts and suddenly the tidy checklist becomes useless, the process collapses, and we’re in free fall.

Think supply chains in a pandemic, or projects that assume “this always works” until it doesn’t. The moral? Don’t worship the process. Add feedback loops, stress tests, and humility. Because the only thing worse than chaos is thinking it could never happen.

The king is dead, long live the king!

This is not an anti-process rant. But it’s a pro-context manifesto (nowadays everyone has to have their own manifesto – right?). If you work in a stable environment – process away. If your habitat is more turbulent – loosen the grip. The mature PMO is not the one with the best playbook. It’s the one that knows when not to open it. 
Processes still have a place – but only when it respects the territory. In BANI, we don’t need rulers. We need guides, flexibility of frameworks, easily granted exceptions, close feedback loops and competencies needed for achieving the goals. We need leaders that listen more than they speak.

So yes, keep your processes, but put them on the leash. In this weird world adaptability isn’t a luxury – it’s a survival trait. And if all else fails, at least leave the Kevlar at home.

---

¹Procedurofobia is a convenient excuse for incompetence, but no one will say it outright. – Mariusz Kapusta https://www.linkedin.com/posts/mariuszkapusta_procedurofobia-to-wygodna-wym%C3%B3wka-dla-activity-7340332949965344768-mDu3/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_android&rcm=ACoAAAdqxIgBp7HReOP6uwhlZIgvIvGRH6gZP-I

²What BANI Really Means (And How It Corrects Your World View) By Jeroen Kraaijenbrink, Former Contributor. Jeroen Kraaijenbrink is a strategy expert who shares strategy insights Jun 22, 2022, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeroenkraaijenbrink/2022/06/22/what-bani-really-means-and-how-it-corrects-your-world-view/