Amanda HarrisLeonardo DRSSpace Coast, FL, United States
I’ve heard it more times than I can count:
“Too much process kills creativity.”
But I’ve seen the opposite in action.
When I led PMO transformation at Venus Fashion, we standardized everything—RAID logs, project plans, communication templates.
And guess what happened?
💡 Teams moved faster
🎯 Decisions were clearer
📈 Innovation increased—because the busy work was streamlined
Structure didn’t stifle creativity—it gave it space to thrive.
👉 Where do you stand on process vs. innovation?
What’s worked (or backfired) when standardizing in your organization?
Saving Changes...
Sort By:
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Amanda Harris Great post — and an important reminder that standardization, when done with purpose, can be a catalyst rather than a constraint.
I’ve seen both sides of the coin.
Standardization empowers innovation when it removes ambiguity and waste — freeing teams to focus on what truly matters.
But when processes are too rigid, too slow, or detached from the team’s reality, they can smother initiative and experimentation.
The distinction lies in how we standardize:
- Are we co-creating standards with those who will use them?
- Are we enabling faster decisions, or adding approval layers that delay them?
- Are our processes adaptive, or just administratively convenient?
In environments of volatility and complexity, clarity and simplicity win over bureaucracy.
We must design systems that guide, not govern.
Thanks for sparking this reflection — curious how you handled resistance during the rollout at Venus.
Was it mainly cultural or structural?
...
1 reply by Amanda Harris
May 21, 2025 8:12 AM
Amanda Harris
...
Luis Branco I completely agree. As change leaders, HOW we implement change is critical to its success. You bring up three key factors in this: involving the folks who must live the change early, focusing on delivering valuable information that enables accurate decision making more quickly, and implementing flexible yet scalable and sustainable processes.
Of the three, I believe that co-creation is the most important part. As change leaders, we must remember to put people first and at the center of changes. Their adoption of changes determines whether the change is successful or not.
During the rollout at Venus, there were elements of both cultural and structural resistance. The Transformation Management team's approach was very hands-on, communicative, and inclusive. We communicated plans throughout the organization and set up various channels of communication to gather and respond to questions and feedback. We surveyed various groups to understand their specific needs, and involved the groups in process mapping sessions to uncover hidden work, bottlenecks, and gaps.
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Amanda, enough process is ideal. In my experience, under-processing leads to confusion, delays, and constant rework, while over-processing can slow things down and frustrate teams. The sweet spot is just enough structure to create clarity and momentum, without getting in the way of progress or innovation.
PMO Leader | Speaker & Mentor | Content Leader – PMOGA Latin America
Hub| Catholic University of UruguayMontevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay
Totally agree with you!
I've also witnessed how a well-designed structure can free up time, energy and focus for what really matters: creating, innovating and making decisions with confidence. The key, in my experience, is not to confuse standardization with rigidity. A good process is not a straitjacket, but a support network. When teams don't have to reinvent the wheel, they can devote more energy to delivering value. What has worked: co-create processes with teams. When they feel that the processes serve them (and not the other way around), everything flows better.
What hasn't worked: imposing templates without context or clear purpose. That does kill engagement. Thanks for sharing this inspiring example - PMO can be a springboard for innovation, not a brake!
...
1 reply by Amanda Harris
May 21, 2025 8:15 AM
Amanda Harris
...
Fabian Crosa co-creation is crucial for developing solutions that benefit all parties involved and driving adoption. Thank you for sharing!
Consultant| Canarys Automation LtdBangalore, Karnataka, India
Great topic—and I couldn’t agree more with your perspective. In my journey from Developer to Consultant, I’ve found that well-designed standardization actually accelerates innovation, rather than hindering it.
When processes are clearly defined—whether it’s through reusable templates, communication formats, or consistent planning frameworks—it reduces ambiguity and saves time on the “how,” allowing teams to focus on the “what” and “why.” In one of my previous roles, we implemented a standardized delivery model using collaborative tools like Confluence to capture recurring patterns, risks, and solutions. The result? Faster onboarding, smoother cross-team collaboration, and more room for creative thinking.
That said, I’ve learned that the key is balance—standardization should support, not suffocate. We give teams a solid foundation while allowing flexibility where innovation is needed most. Saving Changes...
Amanda HarrisLeonardo DRSSpace Coast, FL, United States
May 20, 2025 11:49 AM
Replying to Luis Branco
...
Amanda Harris Great post — and an important reminder that standardization, when done with purpose, can be a catalyst rather than a constraint.
I’ve seen both sides of the coin.
Standardization empowers innovation when it removes ambiguity and waste — freeing teams to focus on what truly matters.
But when processes are too rigid, too slow, or detached from the team’s reality, they can smother initiative and experimentation.
The distinction lies in how we standardize:
- Are we co-creating standards with those who will use them?
- Are we enabling faster decisions, or adding approval layers that delay them?
- Are our processes adaptive, or just administratively convenient?
In environments of volatility and complexity, clarity and simplicity win over bureaucracy.
We must design systems that guide, not govern.
Thanks for sparking this reflection — curious how you handled resistance during the rollout at Venus.
Was it mainly cultural or structural?
Luis Branco I completely agree. As change leaders, HOW we implement change is critical to its success. You bring up three key factors in this: involving the folks who must live the change early, focusing on delivering valuable information that enables accurate decision making more quickly, and implementing flexible yet scalable and sustainable processes.
Of the three, I believe that co-creation is the most important part. As change leaders, we must remember to put people first and at the center of changes. Their adoption of changes determines whether the change is successful or not.
During the rollout at Venus, there were elements of both cultural and structural resistance. The Transformation Management team's approach was very hands-on, communicative, and inclusive. We communicated plans throughout the organization and set up various channels of communication to gather and respond to questions and feedback. We surveyed various groups to understand their specific needs, and involved the groups in process mapping sessions to uncover hidden work, bottlenecks, and gaps.
Thanks for sharing your insights! Saving Changes...
Amanda HarrisLeonardo DRSSpace Coast, FL, United States
May 20, 2025 2:37 PM
Replying to Rami Kaibni
...
Amanda, enough process is ideal. In my experience, under-processing leads to confusion, delays, and constant rework, while over-processing can slow things down and frustrate teams. The sweet spot is just enough structure to create clarity and momentum, without getting in the way of progress or innovation.
Rami Kaibni I agree 100%. Clarity is key! Saving Changes...
Amanda HarrisLeonardo DRSSpace Coast, FL, United States
May 20, 2025 10:06 PM
Replying to Fabian Crosa
...
Totally agree with you!
I've also witnessed how a well-designed structure can free up time, energy and focus for what really matters: creating, innovating and making decisions with confidence. The key, in my experience, is not to confuse standardization with rigidity. A good process is not a straitjacket, but a support network. When teams don't have to reinvent the wheel, they can devote more energy to delivering value. What has worked: co-create processes with teams. When they feel that the processes serve them (and not the other way around), everything flows better.
What hasn't worked: imposing templates without context or clear purpose. That does kill engagement. Thanks for sharing this inspiring example - PMO can be a springboard for innovation, not a brake!
Fabian Crosa co-creation is crucial for developing solutions that benefit all parties involved and driving adoption. Thank you for sharing! Saving Changes...
Well said, Amanda. Standardization isn’t the enemy—it’s the foundation. When teams aren’t reinventing the wheel, they have more headspace to innovate. Structure clears the noise so creativity can speak louder. The right balance drives both speed and breakthroughs.
Community Champion
