MAKE STANDARDS A STARTING POINT: HOW CONSISTENT WORK CREATES ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT

MAKE STANDARDS A STARTING POINT: HOW CONSISTENT WORK CREATES ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT

Standardisation can sound restrictive, bringing to mind rigid rules and employees following instructions without question. Innovation, by contrast, suggests creativity and freedom to find better ways of working. The two can seem to pull in opposite directions.

In practice, improvement needs both consistency and the ability to change. Without an agreed way of doing a task, it can be difficult to know whether a new approach is genuinely better. If everyone works differently, results may vary for reasons unrelated to the quality of the ideas being tested. Standardisation provides a point of reference; improvement gives people a reason to examine and refine it.

The distinction is between a standard that supports good work and a rule that prevents people from thinking. Properly used, standardisation makes current practice visible, helps identify gaps and makes successful improvements easier to repeat.

A STANDARD IS A STARTING POINT, NOT A FINAL ANSWER

A standard describes an agreed way of carrying out work under defined conditions. It can clarify the sequence of activities, expected result, important controls and responsibilities. It gives people a shared understanding of what should happen instead of leaving everyone to interpret the task independently.

That shared understanding is valuable for more than compliance. When the expected method is clear, a team can recognise departures and investigate whether they reveal a training need, unclear instructions, changed circumstances or an opportunity to improve the method.

Without a reference point, those differences can remain invisible. One person may take longer because of an unnecessary step, while another may work faster by skipping a control that protects quality. If the intended process is unclear, an organisation may confuse variation with innovation.

A standard should express the best agreed method currently known, making current practice visible enough to examine without claiming that no better method can exist.

CONSISTENCY HELPS US RECOGNISE WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE

Imagine a team that processes customer requests. Each employee has developed a personal method for recording information, checking details and handing work to the next person. Some cases move quickly, while others are delayed or returned because information is missing. The team may work hard without understanding why results are inconsistent.

A clear process would help the team identify delays, necessary checks and information the next person needs. With a reliable starting point, the team can test targeted changes rather than rely on guesswork.

This is one reason standardisation supports operational excellence. Strong performance is not simply about asking people to work faster; it also depends on designing work so that the desired result can be achieved consistently and improved over time.

Consistency does not mean every situation must be treated identically. Customer needs and operating conditions may require a different response. A good standard clarifies what should normally happen and where judgement or escalation is needed. It helps distinguish a justified exception from an avoidable departure.

INVOLVE THE PEOPLE WHO DO THE WORK

Standards become fragile when they are created far from the work and imposed without understanding what happens in practice. A procedure may look logical in a meeting room but prove awkward or incomplete where the task is performed.

The people closest to the work often know which steps create difficulty, where information is lost and which shortcuts have become common. Their knowledge should inform the development and review of standards. This does not make every preference acceptable or place safety and quality requirements up for negotiation; it means practical experience is part of deciding how work should be done.

When employees help examine a process, they are more likely to understand the reasons behind its requirements. If a step prevents a serious error, that purpose should be clear. If a step adds no value or duplicates a check, the team should be able to question it and test whether it can be improved.

In Why Organisational Excellence Begins With Empowered People, I explored why responsibility must be accompanied by the ability to influence the work. Standardisation works best when people are not merely told to comply but can help make the method effective and reliable.

IMPROVEMENT SHOULD CHANGE THE STANDARD WHEN THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS IT

A procedure can become treated as permanent simply because it has been written down. Over time, conditions change, new information becomes available and employees discover better ways to complete tasks. If standards are never reviewed, they can preserve yesterday’s assumptions rather than support today’s requirements.

The opposite problem is also possible. Employees may change the method informally in different ways until the organisation no longer has a dependable process. Some changes may help, while others introduce risk or create problems elsewhere.

A disciplined approach makes improvement visible. When someone identifies a better method, the team should understand the problem being addressed, the evidence that would indicate success and the risks that need to be considered. Where appropriate, the change can be tested on a limited scale, reviewed against agreed measures and adjusted before wider adoption.

If the change proves better, update the standard and explain what has changed and why. Training, visual guidance, checks or supporting systems may also need revision. Otherwise, the organisation may approve an improvement on paper while employees continue using the old method.

This is the connection between standardisation and continuous improvement. Improvement is not complete when someone has an idea or a trial produces a promising result. It becomes part of organisational capability when the new method is understood, applied and reviewed in practice.

DO NOT CONFUSE STANDARDISATION WITH RIGIDITY

A standard can be misused. If managers treat every departure as misconduct without understanding the circumstances, employees may hide difficulties rather than raise them. If a procedure is outdated or does not fit the conditions, insisting on blind compliance can protect the document at the expense of the work.

This is not a reason to abandon standards. Leaders should distinguish between deliberate disregard for an important control, a reasonable response to an exceptional situation and a signal that the standard needs revision. Those situations require different responses.

Standards should also be proportionate. A simple task may need a checklist or visual guide rather than a lengthy procedure. A complex or high-risk process may require formal controls, defined approvals and evidence that critical steps have been completed.

The goal is not to remove human judgement. It is to make routine work more dependable so attention can be directed to genuine exceptions, meaningful improvement and situations requiring experience or creativity.

LEADERS MUST MAKE THE SYSTEM WORK

Even a well-designed standard has little value if leaders ignore it under pressure, tolerate inconsistent practice or fail to provide the resources needed to follow it. People notice when a documented requirement matters only during an audit or after something has gone wrong.

Leaders need to explain why a standard exists, ensure people have the capability to use it and check whether it supports the intended outcome. When the method is not being followed, they should first understand why. The cause may be unclear instructions, inadequate training, impractical design or a system that rewards speed at the expense of quality.

Leaders also need to respond constructively to proposed improvements. Suggestions should not disappear without feedback, and a successful change should not depend on one enthusiastic person remembering to apply it. The organisation needs a reliable way to assess ideas, decide what to test and communicate the result.

The agreed method should support organisational priorities, while information from the work should help leaders identify where plans or processes need attention. A standard is useful only when it remains connected to the reality of the work and the purpose it is meant to serve.

MAKE THE CURRENT METHOD VISIBLE, THEN KEEP LEARNING

Organisations do not need to begin by documenting every activity in detail. Start with a process where inconsistency, rework, delays or quality concerns are affecting results. Observe how the work is actually performed, involve the people who understand it and agree what a reliable method should achieve.

Make that method accessible in a form people can use. Check whether it produces the intended result, whether people understand it and whether circumstances have changed. Invite evidence-based suggestions and review the standard when an improvement has been demonstrated.

This is not about producing more paperwork. It is about making expectations clear and the way work is done visible enough to improve. The organisation should know what the method is, why it exists and how a better approach can be adopted.

A standard that can never be questioned will eventually become a constraint. An organisation with no standards may struggle to understand whether it is improving. The productive relationship is to make the current method clear, learn from its performance and update it when evidence shows a better way.

A QUESTION FOR REFLECTION

Consider a process in your organisation where different people use different methods to achieve the same result. Is that variation helping the organisation learn, or is it creating inconsistency that makes performance harder to understand?

Would an agreed starting point help you identify problems, test improvements and sustain what works?

Standardisation and innovation need not compete. A clear standard gives people something they can examine and improve. Improvement ensures that the standard remains a useful description of good work rather than an instruction preserved beyond its value.

The purpose is not to make work unchangeable. It is to make good work repeatable — and make better work possible.

—

ABOUT KOLA OLUTIMEHIN

Kola Olutimehin (getKOLA) is a Business Excellence Consultant who helps organisations achieve operational excellence through effective leadership, employee engagement, continuous improvement and organisational transformation.

If you find these reflections useful, follow Kola Olutimehin (getKOLA) for more thoughts on leadership, business excellence, organisational transformation, achievement and purposeful growth. You may also subscribe to our newsletters here, and connect with Kola via getKOLA.

Kola Olutimehin is a Business Excellence Consultant, who assists organisations in the achievement of operational excellence. He is a Director with the International Lean Six Sigma Institute (ILSSI), the David Hutchins International Quality College (DHIQC), and the Global Excellence Team (GET).

The International Lean Six Sigma Institute (ILSSI) is one of the leading international Lean Six Sigma professional and certification organisations, recognised globally. Kola’s involvement with ILSSI, DHIQC and GET reflects his continuing work in business excellence, operational excellence, quality and continuous improvement.

—

Written by Kola Olutimehin
© 2026 Kola Olutimehin. All rights reserved.
No part of this article may be reproduced or redistributed without prior written permission from Kola Olutimehin, except where permitted by law.

_____________________________________________________________________

For enquiries: send us a message HERE or via email at training@makewayglobal.com

Follow us on – LinkedIn | Instagram | X | Facebook

At MakeWay Global, we listen to what your desires are and work towards helping you to attain this with our expertise.

📩 Email: training@makewayglobal.com 🌐 Website: www.makewayglobal.com