From Process Design to Real Clarity

For many years, when a company asked us to “improve the product development process”, I knew pretty much what would happen next.

We would start with analysis: interviews, process mapping, pain point charts.
Then we would move into design: new phases, sharper milestones, updated gate criteria, better templates.
Finally, implementation: rollout, training, maybe a big poster on the wall.

On paper, these projects looked good. The slides were clean, the checklists well thought through. But there was a pattern that started to bother me: a year later, the real behaviour in projects had often changed much less than we had all hoped.

• People still escalated decisions upwards.

• Gate meetings still felt formal rather than substantive.

• Interdisciplinary collaboration still broke down under pressure.

The process had improved – but the performance had not improved to the same degree.

At some point, we had to admit to ourselves: the logic analyse – design – implement was not wrong, but it was also not enough.

Where we looked for clarity – and didn’t find it

When a process doesn’t perform, the usual reflex is very human and very understandable:

“We need more clarity – let’s add checklists, task descriptions, templates.”

I can’t count how many process handbooks I’ve seen that were full of wellmeant details: dozens of activities per phase, RACI charts, risk templates, customer interview guides, and so on.

But in many of these organisations, the experience on the project side was still:

• “I am not sure what I’m really responsible for.”

• “I don’t know what I’m allowed to decide.”

• “I’m not sure what our gatekeepers actually expect.”

There was a lot of described clarity – but not a lot of lived clarity.

Over time, one realisation became hard to ignore:

In almost every company we work with, a process with phases, milestones and gates already exists.
The performance gap is rarely in the structure – it’s in how people understand and live their roles along a few simple principles.

That insight changed how we work.

A different starting point: “We want, we can, we do”

We stopped beginning our projects with big design phases and thick slide decks. Instead, we made a very deliberate, very pragmatic shift in focus:

We want – We can – We do.

• We want
  We start by clarifying targets and principles:

  • What do we actually want this process to achieve – for speed, quality, risk, learning?

  • Which 3–4 principles guide us – for example focus, customer integration, real interdisciplinary collaboration?

• We can
  Then we look at roles and responsibilities:

  • Who is responsible for what in this process?

  • What are project leaders, core team members and gatekeepers allowed and expected to decide?

  • Where do we still have hidden “shadow decisions” or control reflexes?

• We do
  And then we move quickly into learning on the job:

  • We run several pilot projects in the new way.

  • We coach project teams and gatekeepers directly in their real decisions.

  • We adjust details of the process based on what actually happens, not just on what we imagined in a workshop.

This sounds almost too simple – but in practice, it changed the energy of our projects completely. We spent less time debating diagrams and more time watching real teams work together differently.

A board that chose a different kind of “reboot”

Not long ago, we were invited to help reboot a product development process in a technology company. The expectation, at least initially, was familiar:

“We will analyse the current Stage-Gate, then design an improved version, then roll it out.”

Instead of saying “yes” and starting to redraw phases, I asked the board for something else:

“Give us a clear set of targets and principles.
Give us access to a few real projects and the people who lead them.
And give us the freedom to work with We want – We can – We do instead of a big design phase.”

To their credit, they agreed. That decision took courage, because it deviated from what everyone was used to.

What happened next was not a miracle, but it felt very different from many classic process projects:

• In the first weeks, we worked with project teams and gatekeepers to make responsibilities explicit:
  Who owns the business case? Who can say “we stop here”? Who is accountable for customer contact?

• We used the existing process structure as a light frame, not as a sacred object.
  Phases and gates were there – but the real work was in how people behaved inside that frame.

• We deliberately created situations in pilot projects where teams had to act with more autonomy – and helped gatekeepers tolerate, and then appreciate, that.

The feedback after a surprisingly short time was remarkably consistent:

• “We have a different kind of clarity about who does what.”

• “Communication between functions is easier.”

• “Decisions feel faster and less political.”

• “Something in our mindset has shifted – we actually believe we can work differently now.”

Yes, we also adjusted some process elements, criteria and templates along the way. But if you asked people what really changed, almost nobody mentioned the diagrams. They talked about roles, trust and collaboration.

From process designer to change enabler

For us at five is, this journey also changed how we see our own role.

In earlier years, we were often the process designers: we drew, structured, optimised. Today, in these reboot projects, we are much more:

• Change enablers – holding the space for teams and leaders to try a different way of working.

• Coaches for roles and decisions – helping project leaders take ownership and gatekeepers act as investors, not administrators.

• Translators of principles into practice – constantly asking, “What does focus or customer integration mean in this concrete decision?”

We still care about good process architecture. But we no longer believe that the real clarity lives in the handbook. It lives in the daily decisions of people who know what they stand for, what they’re responsible for, and what they’re allowed to do.

If you’re in a similar place

If you recognise some of this in your own organisation – a process that exists on paper, a desire for real performance, a sense that more templates won’t solve it – then you’re not alone.

That is exactly the space where our Reboot Stage-Gate and product development work sits today: less “designing a new process”, more creating real clarity and lived responsibility in the existing one.

If you’d like to explore how We want – We can – We do could look in your context: