The Cost of Consistency: Rethinking the Value of Process Harmonization

In global organizations, harmonization is often treated as an unquestioned good. Standardizing processes, creating global templates, and aligning tools across regions and functions are expected to reduce complexity, enable synergies, and unlock scale. "One way of working" becomes the mantra.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: harmonization is not free. And its benefits are not always guaranteed. In fact, in many of the large programs I’ve worked on, the effort invested in aligning people, processes, and systems across countries, business units, and functions has been so high that it seriously undermined the value we were hoping to gain.

Harmonization can become a goal in itself rather than a means to deliver value.

---

The Myth: Harmonization = Efficiency

The assumption is simple: if everyone follows the same process, you save money. You reduce duplication. You simplify operations. You avoid reinvention.

But that logic only holds if:

• The harmonized process is actually better than the local ones

• The cost of alignment is lower than the value of the outcome

• The standardized process still works in each local context

In practice, we spend months in workshops aligning edge cases that appear similar but behave differently. What looked like a quick win at the high level turns into a complex negotiation in the details.

I've seen programs where aligning a single template consumed more energy than building two slightly different ones would have.

---

A More Honest Equation

To make smarter decisions, we need to think of harmonization in terms of value and cost.

Net Harmonization Value (NHV) = Value of Alignment – Cost of Alignment

Where:

Value of Alignment includes:

• Easier rollout of global systems

• Unified data and KPIs

• Shared training and support models

• Consistent compliance and audit trails

Cost of Alignment includes:

• Time and effort spent in global discussions

• Local process disruption or inefficiencies

• Delays in go-live timelines

• Loss of local ownership and engagement

  
  

The goal isn’t to eliminate harmonization, it’s to do it deliberately, where the net value is positive.

---

When Harmonization Makes Sense

There are absolutely strong use cases:

• Regulatory processes that demand strict controls

• Shared services (e.g., finance or procurement) where efficiency is volume-driven

• Areas where differentiation adds no value (e.g., master data management)

In those cases, harmonization can drive real savings and reduce risk.

When It Doesn’t

• Sales and customer processes that reflect local market dynamics

• Fast-moving digital teams that need autonomy to experiment

• Any situation where forced standardization creates a "lowest common denominator" solution

Harmonization in these contexts slows you down, frustrates users, and creates compliance in form, not in function.

So What’s the Better Approach?

Instead of assuming global alignment as the default, organizations should:

• Start with process quality, not similarity. If one local process is clearly superior, adopt it and don’t negotiate a hybrid.

• Use a layered design: common global core, with controlled local variation.

• Focus harmonization where it really creates leverage (data, controls, interfaces).

• Treat alignment as a cost to manage, not a goal to maximize.

---

Final Thought

Consistency has its place. But when the cost of getting there outweighs the benefit, it becomes the problem, not the solution.

If you're spending more time aligning a template than delivering value with it, it's time to stop and rethink. Harmonization is a strategy, not a religion. And like any strategy, it should be guided by impact, not ideology.

The smartest organizations aren’t the most harmonized. They’re the ones who know where to align and where to let go.

All images in this post were generated with AI