The Conventional Wisdom of Process Standardization
Why you should be rethinking your investment in standardized processes in the age of Agentic AI.
In the world of business, operations professionals have traditionally championed the standardization of processes across departments. This approach has been driven by clear benefits: enhanced efficiency, reduced costs, and increased quality. However, as businesses increasingly demand customized processes from their vendors, partners, or suppliers, and with the emergence of Agentic AI, we find ourselves at an inflection point — one that challenges conventional wisdom about process management.
Let me explain.
I was in a brainstorming meeting recently where the conversation gradually made its way to the efforts spent over the years to try and force process adherence. My role in said discussion was to advise on the possibilities of Agentic AI and ensure expectations were managed. As I was listening to the discussion graduate (not deviate as it was a brainstorming session) into the topic of standardization, a question entered my mind. How much time, energy, and money are we spending on analyzing, discussing, implementing, and enforcing process standards?
Little did I realize at the time but that thought would become the beginning of a pursuit of answers that has, quite frankly, taken up a lot of my Netflix binge time at night. So, without further ado, I would like to present to you my thoughts on the conventional wisdom of process standardization, why we crave it, and why executives and shareholders love it.
Conventional Wisdom
Standardization gets its claim to fame from the basis that standardized processes ensure that products and services maintain the same quality every time. This should, in theory, pave a way into the promised land of operational excellence. Why wouldn’t it? The reasoning to focus on standardization is compelling. Consider the following:
When processes follow a defined pattern, they typically require less time and fewer resources. Standard processes are easier to measure, benchmark, and improve, making them ideal for organizations focused on continuous improvement. They make it easier to train new employees and transfer institutional knowledge across the organization. You can even take it a step further by labeling these newly standardized processes as standardized operations and replicate them into other departments, new divisions and even markets.
Lets explore McDonalds for a second.
The original restaurant was a barbecue stand, not a burger joint. After acquiring the company from the McDonald brothers, Ray Kroc implemented strict standards of operation to support his budding franchise model. From those standards came Hamburger University. Now, I’ve seen The Founder and have eaten my fair share of Big Macs in my lifetime to understand what Hamburger University can do for a product. But did I ever consider taking my team to a tennis court with some sidewalk chalk to design an operational system? Nope, no I did not. And yet, the methodology and McDonalds’ historical results speak for themselves. Case in point, Big Macs taste the same in Tokyo, Japan as they do here in Green Bay, WI and I can’t drive down the highway without seeing a McDonalds at every exit.
This example is one of many that has been studied, copied, iterated upon and embedded in our every day work lives by individuals and/or teams that know no other way to succeed other than through process standardization. Each of them driven by operational excellence and each demonstrating how standardization has deeply rooted itself in our fundamental understandings of operations and how process standardization has become the north star for the companies they work for, in all industries, to excel in scaling their operational footprint at lower costs.
Cravings and Obsession
“You’ll see I wear only gray or blue suits. I’m trying to pare down decisions. I don’t want to make decisions about what I’m eating or wearing. Because I have too many other decisions to make.”
Barack Obama - Vanity Fair
Our attraction to standardization runs deeper than business logic — it's wired into our psychology. As humans, we naturally gravitate toward patterns, predictability, and order. We crave standardization because it reduces the mental load of decision-making. Have you ever awakened one day from a good night's rest and thought, "I really hope someone gives me fifty more decisions to make today"? Of course not.
Decision fatigue is real. When we face too many choices — from what to wear to how to structure a complex project — our mental energy depletes, and the quality of our decisions suffers. This is why successful executives like Steve Jobs famously wore the same outfit every day and why meal planning has become such a popular way to reduce weeknight stress. We don't want more decisions; we want fewer in number and better in outcome quality. Standardization gives us exactly that: a mental shortcut that eliminates countless small decisions so we can focus our limited cognitive resources on what truly matters.
Following established processes frees up our focus for more complex tasks, allowing us to operate more efficiently in complex work environments. Standards provide a sense of security and control in an unpredictable world, giving us stability and predictability of outcomes. Clear procedures alleviate the anxiety of uncertainty — we know what to expect, what's expected of us, and how to measure success. Furthermore, shared standards create a common language and way of working that reinforces group identity and cohesion within organizations.
This psychological comfort explains why even when we complain about bureaucracy, we still rely on process frameworks to navigate organizational complexity. We may resist rigidity in theory, but in practice, we often seek the comfort that comes with clearly defined expectations and procedures.
The View from the Top
From the C-suite and boardroom, standardization holds particular appeal for compelling financial and governance reasons. Standardized processes mitigate operational risks by removing variation and unpredictability, a critical concern for those with fiduciary responsibilities.
Consider a pharmaceutical company creating life-saving medications. Now, lets paint a picture together. A picture that depicts how that pharmaceutical company would operate without standards. Manufacturing technicians might use different equipment cleaning protocols between batches. Quality testing might be performed inconsistently, with technicians applying individual judgment about what "looks right." Temperature controls might vary between facilities or shifts. Ingredient sourcing might change based on availability without proper validation.
Simply put, chaos.
Without standards, patients could receive medications that are ineffective, harmful, or even fatal. This nightmare scenario illustrates why pharmaceutical executives don't view standardization as optional — it's existential.
Executives can confidently report to shareholders that quality control measures are consistent across all manufacturing facilities, protecting patients from harm and the company from costly recalls, litigation, and reputational damage. A single deviation from standard operating procedures could result in millions in losses and potentially put lives at risk — making standardization not just an operational preference but a critical risk management tool that directly impacts the balance sheet and, in some industries, human safety.
On the other hand, investors value predictable cost structures that standardization enables, making financial planning more reliable. Standard metrics make it easier to evaluate performance across different business units, providing the visibility executives need for effective management. Standardization also simplifies strategic decision-making by providing clear operational baselines against which new initiatives can be measured.
In Conclusion
As an exercise of my curiosity, I found this exploration deeply encouraging. As discussions unfold, like the one that sparked my interest in this subject, and we begin to embrace the possibilities of Agentic AI and other transformative technologies, perhaps it's time to reconsider our relationship with standardization. Rather than continuing to invest countless hours and resources into enforcing rigid processes, we might instead focus on creating adaptive frameworks that leverage AI to accommodate the natural diversity of human thinking and working styles.
The true value may not lie in perfect adherence to established standards, but in finding the optimal balance between structure and flexibility — one that empowers teams while ensuring quality outcomes. The question is no longer simply about how much we're spending on standardization, but whether those investments are truly delivering the organizational agility and innovation we need to thrive in an increasingly complex future.