Reverse Question: Have You Run Into This?
In real-world team workflows and cross-functional collaboration, the most frustrating outcomes aren't outright failures—they're cases where the process was followed but the result was still wrong. This usually means the process design has hidden assumptions that don't always hold in production. Before changing the process to address operational decision quality and repeatable execution, write down what assumptions it relies on—that's often more effective than the change itself.

Three Phases to Avoid High-Risk Big-Bang Changes
Split into three 4-week phases. Phase 1: establish baseline data on quality, speed, and cost stability and current operational decision quality and repeatable execution coverage. Phase 2: target the biggest bottleneck with small-scale trials and weekly reviews. Phase 3: standardize what works into SOPs. Document milestones in writing so later iterations have an anchor.

Small-Team Caveats
For teams under 20 people, operational decision quality and repeatable execution has two extra considerations: (1) don't import enterprise methodologies (over-specified roles backfire); (2) key-person departure risk is high (cross-train at least one backup early). Lean on "minimal SOP + strong handoff docs" rather than rigid role matrices. Small teams' advantage is low communication overhead—preserve it.