Kurtis Patel | Why Manufacturing Consistency Depends on Process Ownership

Kurtis Patel

Consistency in manufacturing is rarely accidental. It is the result of clear responsibility for how processes are defined, maintained, and improved. Kurtis Patel observes that when process ownership is unclear, variability increases and accountability weakens.

Process ownership means assigning responsibility for a process to a specific individual or team. This responsibility includes monitoring performance, updating documentation, and responding to deviations. Without clear ownership, processes tend to evolve informally as teams make adjustments to address short-term challenges.

Over time, this informal evolution creates inconsistency. Different shifts may execute the same process differently, and undocumented changes make it difficult to trace outcomes. When issues arise, teams often struggle to determine what changed and why.

Kurtis Patel notes that clear ownership stabilizes systems. Changes are evaluated deliberately, communicated consistently, and documented properly. This structure supports alignment across teams and reduces variability.

Ownership also enables continuous improvement. When responsibility is clearly defined, feedback can be directed effectively and improvements can be implemented intentionally rather than reactively.

From Patel’s perspective, consistency depends on accountability. Clear process ownership transforms procedures into living systems that support reliable manufacturing outcomes over time.