PG022
Set review frequency proportionate to each process's volatility, reducing oversight burden on stable, low-risk processes.
CyberTRIZ analysis · Process contradiction PG022 · one of 8,235 worked contradictions published by CyberTRIZ.AI
Regulations
Higher Management Review Frequency vs. Lower Meeting Overhead
Business Context. Frequent management reviews of process performance keep leadership engaged and issues visible, but excessive meeting frequency consumes management time that could otherwise be spent on execution.
Process TRIZ Resolution. Rather than scheduling reviews at a fixed frequency regardless of process stability, organizations should adjust review frequency based on the measured volatility of each process, reviewing stable processes less often and volatile ones more closely.
Applicable TRIZ Principles
Principle 35 (Parameter Changes) adjusts review frequency based on the measured volatility of each process.
Principle 3 (Local Quality) applies different review cadences to different processes based on stability.
Principle 19 (Periodic Action) concentrates review effort on periods and processes where it adds the most value.
Expected Outcome
Sufficient oversight of volatile processes
Reduced meeting overhead
Better use of management time
Risk-proportionate review cadence
Decision Indicators
Every process receives the same review frequency regardless of stability.
Management calendars are dominated by reviews of stable, low-risk processes.
Volatile processes do not receive proportionally more attention.
Review frequency has never been adjusted based on actual process behavior.
Managers describe reviews as a scheduling burden rather than a useful checkpoint.
If several of these indicators are present, the contradiction is likely active and the Process TRIZ resolution above should be evaluated.