When something falls through the cracks, the instinct is to add process: a new checklist, an extra approval, a step that makes sure it never happens again. Each addition is reasonable on its own. Together they produce an organisation that is busy following procedure and still somehow surprised when work stalls.

Process is not the same as ownership

A checklist describes what should happen. It does not say who is accountable when it does not. Those are different things, and confusing them is how teams end up with thick manuals and thin accountability — everyone has followed the steps, yet no one owns the outcome. Process should be the residue of clear ownership, not a substitute for it.

One name per outcome

The most reliable fix is also the least bureaucratic: for each outcome that matters, name a single owner who is trusted to make the call and answerable for the result. Not a committee, not a stage gate — a person. Ownership that clear makes most of the surrounding process redundant, because the owner will build only the coordination they actually need.

Good operating models tend to have fewer rules and clearer owners, not the other way round. When in doubt, remove a step and name a person.