Last year, we almost killed one of our best campaigns with a workflow improvement.

We had just implemented a new approval process: three checkpoint reviews before any concept could move to client review. On paper, it made sense. We’d had some quality issues, some scope creep, some late stage revisions that burned hours we didn’t have. The fix seemed obvious: more eyes, earlier, more often.

Within six weeks, I noticed something troubling. The work getting through those checkpoints was cleaner, yes. But it was also smaller. Safer. The bold ideas that made Gigasavvy’s reputation were dying in review meetings, replaced by work that was easier to approve but harder to remember.

That’s when I learned something I now consider essential: process doesn’t kill creativity. But bad process does, quietly, and often with the best intentions.

The Tension Is the Job

As VP of Operations at a creative agency, I live in this tension every day. On one side: scalability, efficiency, predictability, accountability. On the other: curiosity, experimentation, risk-taking, and the messy magic that produces work clients actually remember.

My job requires me to care about both, and to know when leaning too hard in either direction quietly breaks the other.

I’ve seen what happens without enough process. Teams burn out. Projects spin indefinitely. Good ideas die under unclear expectations and endless revisions. But I’ve also seen the opposite: well-intentioned process improvements that slowly drain the energy from the room. More checkpoints. More forms. More rules designed to “protect” the work, until the work feels smaller, safer, and less inspired.

The question isn’t whether creative teams need process. They absolutely do. The question is how to design systems that support creativity without suffocating it.

What We Got Wrong (And How We Fixed It)

That three checkpoint system? We didn’t scrap it. We redesigned it.

The problem wasn’t the checkpoints themselves. It was what we were checking. We had been reviewing concepts for “viability” and “risk” at every stage. Translation: we were asking “will this make anyone uncomfortable?” three separate times before the work could breathe.

Now, our first checkpoint is about clarity: Does the brief make sense? Do we understand what we’re solving? Our second checkpoint is about feasibility: Can we actually execute this within budget and timeline? The third, and only the third, is about refinement and risk.

Same structure. Completely different outcomes. The work got bolder because we stopped evaluating boldness until it was ready to be evaluated.

Five Principles That Actually Work

After a decade of getting this wrong and occasionally getting it right, here’s what I’ve learned about operational improvement in creative environments:

1. Reframe process as a creative enabler, not a control mechanism. When process is introduced to manage people rather than remove friction, creativity suffers. A well designed process eliminates distractions: unclear briefs, excessive revisions, missed handoffs, last minute changes. When those pain points disappear, creative teams gain what they need most: time, clarity, and focus.

2. Improve systems, not people. If new workflows exist to “tighten things up” or reduce perceived risk, creatives will instinctively retreat to safer ideas. Focus instead on how work enters the pipeline, how decisions get made, and how feedback is delivered. When the system works better, people naturally perform better, without being told how to think.

3. Standardize the before and after, not the middle. This is the principle that changed everything for us. Standardize briefs and inputs. Standardize approval stages and delivery requirements. Leave flexibility in ideation, exploration, and execution paths. Structure the runway, not the flight.

4. Pilot before you mandate. Nothing kills buy-in faster than rolling out a “better process” overnight. Our best operational improvements started with a single team, gathered real feedback, and refined before scaling. This approach signals respect for creative expertise and leads to dramatically better adoption.

5. Measure what actually matters. If success is defined solely by speed, utilization, or output volume, teams will default to safe work. We balance operational metrics with indicators of effectiveness and quality: fewer revisions, stronger initial concepts, on-time delivery alongside creative impact.

The Guardrails Metaphor

I think about process the way I think about guardrails on a mountain road. Without them, you drive slowly and timidly, terrified of the cliff edge. With them, you drive confidently, maybe even a little faster, because you know where the boundaries are.

Clear budgets and timelines encourage smarter risk-taking. Defined approval paths prevent over editing. Fewer, more meaningful check-ins protect deep work.

Guardrails enable speed. Handcuffs prevent it. Know the difference.

The Real Test

If your best ideas are struggling to survive your own internal processes, the solution probably isn’t fewer processes. It might be better ones.

Here’s the test I use: look at the last ten concepts that died before reaching the client. How many died because they were genuinely bad ideas? And how many died because they were too hard to approve?

If you don’t like the answer, your process might need rethinking.

We’ve spent years building operational systems at Gigasavvy that help creative teams do their best work. If you’re wrestling with this same tension, I’d love to hear how you’re approaching it, or share more about what’s worked for us.

Talk Shop With Us