Why Isn’t My SOP Working?
For many SME owners, systemisation is not a new concept. When the topic comes up, a common response is: “We already have SOPs”. And often, they do. There are process manuals, templates, checklists and documented workflows. Yet the owner is still called when something goes wrong. Senior staff still answer the same questions. Different people deliver the same service differently. When deadlines get tight, the documented process is sometimes bypassed altogether.
So, the problem is rarely the SOP itself. More often, the SOP is sound, but the way the team actually works around it, and the discipline to follow it consistently, have not caught up. The more important question is: can the business move forward without constantly depending on the owner or a few experienced people?
First, what is an SOP?
A Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is the agreed, documented way a recurring task should be done: the steps to follow, the standard expected and who is responsible for what. A good SOP protects quality, shortens training time, reduces errors and gives the business a baseline to improve on. For an SME that wants to grow beyond its founder, it is one of the most important foundations to have.
But an SOP describes how work should happen. Whether it actually happens that way depends on two things the document cannot provide on its own: a shared way of working across the team and the day-to-day discipline to follow it, especially when things get busy. This is where many SOPs quietly break down and it is the focus of this article.
What does systemisation actually mean?
For us, systemisation means building a clear and repeatable way of working so that people know what to do, who is responsible, what they can decide and when they need help. The goal is simple: work should be able to move forward consistently without depending too heavily on the owner or a few experienced people. SOPs sit at the heart of this, but for them to work, the business also needs clear responsibilities, accessible knowledge, the right behaviours and tools that support the way people work.
The hidden dependency behind many SME workflows
A service delivery process can look straightforward when it is mapped out, but once the work starts, the reality is often far less linear, with repeated questions, checks and handoffs along the way
The workflow may be documented, but day-to-day execution still depends heavily on experienced people to interpret situations, answer questions, coordinate work and catch issues. That is the real gap systemisation needs to address. The SOP defines the process while the rest of the system makes sure the team can execute it consistently with less reliance on key individuals.
When the SOP is not enough on its own
An SOP sets the standard for how repeatable work should be done. When problems persist, however, the cause is often not a missing or poorly written SOP, but something around it. A handover problem may need clearer ownership. Repeated questions may point to poor access to knowledge. Frequent escalation may mean people do not know what they are allowed to decide. Missed follow-ups may require a simple tracker. Inconsistent judgement may need decision criteria rather than another step-by-step procedure. Sometimes the answer is refining the SOP itself. Sometimes it is supporting it with a checklist, template, workflow, decision guide, knowledge base or simple digital tool. And often, nothing new needs to be created at all. The existing SOP simply needs to be followed consistently.
A useful question for owners: Where does work keep coming back?
One of the clearest signs of dependency is when work repeatedly flows back to the same person. It may be the founder, a senior engineer, sales manager, operations head or long-serving employee. Ask:
Who does everyone go to when they are unsure?
Who becomes the final checker?
Who has to chase progress?
Who knows all the exceptions?
Who needs to step in whenever something unusual happens?
If the answer keeps pointing to the same few people, the business may have processes, but it has not yet reduced its dependency on individuals.
Accountability has to be built into the workflow
It is easy to tell employees to “take ownership”, but ownership is difficult when the workflow itself is unclear. At each stage of delivery, people should know:
Who owns the next action?
What does a completed task look like?
What can I decide independently?
When should I escalate?
Without that clarity, work naturally flows back to the most experienced person. Over time, the senior person becomes an unofficial control point in almost every workflow.
Discipline starts with management
Employees quickly learn which rules actually matter. If management introduces a workflow but regularly bypasses it, the team learns that the workflow is optional. If employees are encouraged to make decisions but the owner continues to approve every small matter, they learn to wait. If every exception is immediately taken back by a senior person, the team has little opportunity to build the judgement and confidence needed to handle similar situations independently.
Adoption is therefore not simply about whether employees follow instructions. Management also has to reinforce the agreed way of working, make responsibilities and decision boundaries clear and give the system space to work as intended.
The 10/20/70 framework brings together three areas: digital enablement, process and knowledge and people and adoption. The split reflects where the effort typically lies: roughly 10% in digital enablement, 20% in process and knowledge, and 70% in people and adoption. Tools and SOPs provide structure but that structure only becomes part of day-to-day operations when people understand it, use it consistently and take responsibility for their part, with management reinforcing the same way of working.
A transformation case study: When dependency was suddenly exposed
An engineering firm experienced a mass resignation that left the business with one senior engineer and a largely junior team. The immediate challenge was keeping projects moving. The deeper problem was that too much technical knowledge and decision making depended on a small number of experienced people.
The company began capturing recurring technical knowledge through practical work instructions, reference materials and clearer workflows. Review points were defined more clearly, giving junior engineers better guidance on what they could handle independently and when senior input was needed. Documentation was an essential starting point, but a significant effort also went into developing junior engineers, reinforcing the new way of working, and building stronger habits around learning, ownership and accountability.
Over the following years, revenue increased from RM5.3 million to RM7.5 million, while headcount reduced from approximately 40 to 20. Profitability moved from negative 28% to positive 19%, and fresh graduates were able to work independently within three months. The SOPs provided the foundation; the results came from the way of working and discipline built around them.
The bigger shift was reducing how much the business depended on a small number of people to keep work moving.
A useful test for business owners
Instead of stopping at “Do we have SOPs?”, take one recently completed client project and trace what actually happened.
1. Where did someone have to chase progress?
2. Where did work stop while waiting for senior guidance?
3. Where was work redone?
4. Where was the agreed process bypassed?
5. Where did the owner personally have to step in?
If the same points appear repeatedly, they are useful signals of where the delivery model still depends on individuals. Having the process is the first step. The more telling question is:
If you were away from the business for two weeks, where would work stop?
That is usually where systemisation still has work to do. Your SOPs create the structure. A shared way of working and the discipline to follow it are what turn that structure into the way the business actually operates.
