Processes are as difficult to develop as products, and when considering cultural issues, can be even more difficult.  Unfortunately, developing or improving a process often isn't taken as seriously as a product development effort is... and as a result, the quality of the outputs from such process improvements can have very detrimental impacts on users, who have to try to muddle on, and may find themselves having to build products and fix proceses at the same time.

As an example, I've seen cases in which many different released processes prescribe what is supposed to happen for some activity at a macro level, without breaking down or allocating the steps into meaningful roles that individuals can actually perform. Expectations are set when a process is released that it will produce what it promises; when it doesn't, people are faced with two untennable options - fixing the process, or ignoring it, and they often choose the latter.

When processes are ambiguous or poorly written, it's not unusual for everyone to be waiting on someone else to do something, without anyone actually doing anything useful. The first step in any such situation is to admit where you are, and what has to be done, and requires both leadership and people who are willing (and have the time) to dive in and do the hard work of fixing the problems. It often seems at times like this that there are plenty of people who recognize that something is wrong, but few who can translate that into something concrete to be done. This is why leadership is important, but must be more than just evangelising action; it has to be translated into action by those who will actually address the gaps which exist between the vision and reality.

This reminds me a bit of pickup football games in college, when all people wanted to either be the quarterback, receiver, or running back. Those teams might do well when they were lucky enough to have a few very talented individuals, or did not have much competition, but their performance was not very consistent, since pickup games were adhoc. You can still have fun playing in those games, but you better hold your bets on any particular team until you see who get's the first pick of the best players. Work should not be a pick-up game, but an organized effort to win.

I've also seen processes that explicitly involve workgroups by name (rather than roles that workgroup allocates to their teams), as if that implies some reasonable alignment with other responsibilities that those groups have. Such writings are usually written from a perspective that puts these groups in the middle of everything, deciding things, organizing things, and generally delivering the value they perceive as important, within their sphere of influence. However, in my experience, when processes are written in this way, they usually don't provide checks and balances on those groups, or hold them accountable for performance with actual customers - all things that are important to enhancing throughput.  Such processes are thus just a way of justifying action, and staking out territory, but don't assure quality results, or provide any basis for meaningful improvements.

I always come away from reviewing such processes thinking that this is bureacracy at it worst - people creating documentation without consideration of requirements for efficiency and effectiveness, or the discipline to ensure such process documentation is validated before deployment to large groups; I sometimes refer to these as 'write-only' processes. I've found that a good rule of thumb to use about processes is to ask how frequently the written material has had to change over the last two years, and understand the nature of those changes. If they are just tweaking the way things are described, chances are that the process is written at too high a level to really effect much change. If the answer is that they never have needed to change at all, you have an indication of what you have. You have a rulebook, not a playbook. What this means is that no one may be able to join the team to actually play the game, without a lot of coaching and assistance from other team members. This might be ok when you're just having fun, but probably won't be if something important is supposed to be produced in a fixed timeframe. Such processes never need to change since they really only describe a philosophy, rather than an explicit set of artifacts, decisions, and interactions that actors and stakeholders need to work together on (which I like to call protocols).

I've also found that it's been helpful for me to mentally categorize the approaches that I observe others taking in leading improvement activities into one of several 'mental models' that I have synthesized, based upon how I observe others promoting or implementing change. Here are the various patterns that I've observed people following:

1. First, there are the thought leaders. They like to bring tablets down from the mountain dictating the rules, and expect others to convert the sinners among them. They focus on developing a coherent worldview, then attempt to argue how it applies to many different situations. They particularly like being asked to perform assessments, because it helps them demonstrate their power to judge both the good and the bad. They control the dogma and it's interpretation. I'm usually able to visualize the people that play this role in flowing robes, looking like Charlton Heston. They plan an important role in pointing the way, but people can lose confidence in such if they lose faith in such leaders, or if they have questions about the wisdom or enlightenment of their direction. Thus, a role for communities of practice in reinforcement and translation is critical!
2. Then, there are the politicians. They like making new rules, and bragging about the important changes they've made, within the context of such worldviews, even though the common people are often ignorant of their laws, and largely can live their lives independently of them. The politicians spend little time worrying about whether their rules are actually followed, because they believe that rules themselves are good, and the more rules you have, the better you'll be. Politicians are largely ignored unless there is a credible and effective governance system in place.
3. Then, there are the evangelists. They are aligned with a particular belief system (potentially designed by others), but can be quite effective in defending that world view and why it should be adopted. They often travel across many groups, and speak on the consequences of not following this world view. They may be involved in reinforcing some of the rules which are a part of that culture. They likely will appeal to others by promising a better life which will result from following their rules, and may also play a role in interpretting high-level guidance of their belief system to practical situations. They hope some of what they share rubs off on others, but usually can't spend much time in any one area. Often, passion plays a key role in their work, but their overall quest towards 'truth' can be derailed, if these leaders don’t want to be examples themselves, or are unable to constructively deal with the challenges of temptations to not follow te rules that so often prevails in the realities of life. They may have resources they can draw on from the community to support their teachings, and may be able to leverage those resources  to address immediate needs, but are most interested in long-term growth. They are most effective when they have had practical experience with real-world pressures and have personally risen above that, and can relate that in meaingful terms to others.
4. The accountants are usually also around; they count, track, and sometimes even analyze things, but do not create value themselves. They are useful in collecting data and summarizing it, but can get in trouble if they try to read intent or strategy into numbers or trends; it generally takes practical experience in order to make such judgements.
5. Sometimes, you may get a chance to actually see coaches in action. Their focus, like the religious leaders above, is on aligning and improving behaviors, not making new rules, or interpretting them for others. They have a more 'hands-on' approach, and must live within the rules. Their emphasis tends to be more on the short term and medium term - this game, season, and perhaps the next. They respect the role of others (officials) to enforce rules, but they see their own role as making sure rules are understandable, interpreted fairly, and that their teams have the greatest possible opportunity to be succesful while operating within them. Coaches will work with you as long as you follow their direction, and are committed to self-improvement. They may have only limited time to spend with any one individual (since they want their whole team to do better, not just that individual. Coaches tend to have playbooks (scripts) so everyone understands what to do when different plays are called, according to the conditions of the game.
6. Finally, there are missionaries. They come into a culture and shoulder the burdens of being in that reality, along with the others who are there. Their focus is on the long term - sometimes even decades, not years; as a result, they demonstrate that they care about the people (individually and collectively) as much as obtaining a particular result in a particular timeframe. They teach people how to fish for tomorrow, instead of handing out fish for today's dinner, and they're willing to hold a pole themselves. They believe people learn best by example, not words, and are willing to share responsibility to make things better, and survive until they are better, in difficult situations. They discover or develop the courage to lead even when there is risk. And they hope their service and the fruits of their labors will attract others to want to learn how to live as they do.

Of course, one person can wear each of these different 'hats' at different times... but getting stuck with the wrong hat at the wrong time, or one that doesn't fit a person well, will often cause problems.

If you are a change agent in a given situation, how do you see yourself among these mental models? If you needed help, or needed to effect real change, which of these roles would you most welcome to come and help you?