Insights / Procurement Transformation
PROCUREMENT & S2P · PEOPLE AND CHANGE
Resistance to Process Change: 5 Common Objections
Five things you hear when changing a process — and how to turn each concern into a practical next step.
By Denova · 5 practical responses · 6 minute read
AT A GLANCE
Listen for the cause
Habit. Compliance. Local variation. Capacity. Previous experience.
The words may sound familiar. The response should reflect the evidence behind them.
IN THIS ARTICLE
01 · Habit / 02 · Compliance / 03 · Local variation / 04 · Capacity / 05 · Previous experience
Resistance to process change often tells you something important about the work itself. A familiar objection can point to a control people rely on, a local requirement the design has missed or a team that has no time left to give.
That does not mean every existing step should stay. It means understanding the concern before deciding what needs to change. Ask for a real example, involve the people doing the work and make the next decision clear.
Here are five common objections in procurement, finance and wider business transformation, with a practical response to each.
OBJECTION 01 / HABIT
1. “This is the way we have always done it.”
A process can outlive the problem it was created to solve. An extra approval, spreadsheet or hand-off may have made sense when volumes were lower or the system worked differently.
Start by asking what the step protects or enables today. Walk through a recent transaction with the people who use it. Look for duplicate effort, waiting time and workarounds, while identifying controls that still matter.
Agree what a better process needs to achieve, then test a small change with the accountable owner. Familiarity is useful context; evidence should guide the decision.
Ask: “What problem does this step solve today, and how would we know if another approach worked better?”
Put it into practice: map one real transaction. Record each step’s purpose, owner and control, then agree a bounded test and a measure such as rework or elapsed time.
OBJECTION 02 / COMPLIANCE
2. “That step is a legal requirement.”
Take the concern seriously. Some requirements are mandatory, and a process redesign must preserve the controls and evidence needed to meet them.
Ask the relevant legal or compliance owner to identify the applicable obligation, jurisdiction and required outcome. Distinguish that obligation from internal policy and from the way the organisation has historically implemented it. An approval may be a chosen control; that does not make it unnecessary.
There may be an approved way to meet the same requirement with less effort. Validate any proposed alternative with legal or compliance and the accountable policy owner before changing the process. Record the decision and update the guidance.
Ask: “Which requirement does this step satisfy, and who can confirm whether an alternative would meet it?”
Put it into practice: keep a requirement-and-control log showing the source, scope, control, evidence and approving owner. Leave unresolved requirements in place until the appropriate review is complete.
OBJECTION 03 / LOCAL VARIATION
3. “Our region is unique, so a global process will not work here.”
Some regional differences are real. Local regulation, language, supplier practices, tax treatment or system access can affect how work needs to happen. Others reflect habits that have never been compared.
Ask regional colleagues to demonstrate the difference using real scenarios. Agree the common outcomes and controls, then identify where a local variation is justified. A shared core can support consistent data, ownership and reporting while allowing approved exceptions.
Test the proposed process in the affected locations. Keep each variation visible, with a reason, owner and review date, so it does not become a permanent workaround that nobody understands.
Ask: “Which part needs to differ locally, and what evidence explains why?”
Put it into practice: build an exception register that separates mandatory requirements from operational needs and preferences. Agree who can approve each variation.
OBJECTION 04 / CAPACITY
4. “We do not have time for this alongside the day job.”
This can be an accurate assessment of the workload. The same people expected to map processes, clean data, test systems and train colleagues may also be keeping purchasing, reporting and payment running.
Treat capacity as a delivery decision. Estimate the work, agree protected time with line managers and decide what will be paused, covered or rescheduled. Put named people and realistic availability into the plan.
Additional support can take on defined analysis, data, testing or coordination work. Internal owners still need time to make decisions and validate the result. Adding meetings without freeing capacity simply moves the pressure elsewhere.
Our article on why procurement transformation stalls explores how delivery constraints can hold up progress.
Ask: “What must stop, move or be covered so this team can do the change work properly?”
Put it into practice: agree a capacity plan with tasks, estimated effort, named owners, operational cover and escalation points. Review it when priorities or demand change.
OBJECTION 05 / PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE
5. “We tried this before and it did not work.”
A previous failure gives people a reason to be cautious. Ask what happened: was the process difficult to use, the data unreliable, the ownership unclear or the support withdrawn too soon?
Separate the intended outcome from the approach that failed. Show what will be different this time in concrete terms, such as a resolved dependency, a named process owner, protected capacity or an agreed support plan.
Use a small pilot with representative users and clear success criteria. Share what worked, what did not and what will change before expanding. Confidence grows when people see their concerns addressed in the work.
Ask: “What would need to be different for you to trust this approach?”
Put it into practice: turn lessons from the previous attempt into testable conditions for the next one. Assign an owner to each condition and review the evidence before scaling up.
Respond to resistance to process change with evidence and capacity
The most useful response starts with listening to the people doing the work. Understand what sits behind the objection, agree the decision or action needed, and check whether it resolves the problem.
Give people the authority, support and capacity to make change happen. A workshop can identify a better process; somebody still needs time to build, test and sustain it.
BEFORE THE NEXT WORKSHOP
Turn one concern into a clear action
- Capture a recent example of the problem.
- Confirm the requirement, control or operational constraint.
- Name the person who can decide and the people who will do the work.
- Agree capacity, a next step and a review date.
- Check the outcome with the people affected.
CONTINUE READING
Build adoption beyond the workshop
For the wider approach to stakeholder involvement, training, launch support and sustained adoption, read our procurement change management guide.
HOW DENOVA CAN HELP
Give change the capacity to move forward
Denova supports procurement transformation with practical delivery capability across process analysis, data, testing and adoption. We work with your team to turn agreed improvements into day-to-day ways of working.