In response to Observer, I’d add that standardization should be done on important tasks, not just high volume tasks. Imagine trying to close the quarterly books without some form of standard process, or winging it for a new product rollout. Both are repetitive, low volume tasks, but are also very important.

I agree, though–standardization too rigidly applied does stifle creativity. That doesn’t mean that it is wrong to use it–it just means that the standard process has to have common sense built into it. The point is to generate predictable results. If the 5 Whys is the wrong tool for the job, then build a decision point into the standard process to consider what the right tool is.

One example where a standard process didn’t work well doesn’t mean that standardization is bad–it means the process has room for improvement.

I once faced a situation where, a obvious problem that I solved because I was the subject matter expert was rejected because it did not go through the standardized routine of the company. I did not do 5 whys etc on paper with a team, and gave a decision. The project where I gave the solution, was not implemented immediately and there was a extra supervision to ensure all other possibilities were exhausted.

I find such dogamtism in the name of standardization stiffling.