I have met many, many people whose view of their world is defined by their perceived role and expectations placed upon them. These people understand their fields very well, but resist the suggestion to stray into someone else's field - in my case that means "quality is for QA people."
With such people the business case will be about outcomes, not about how they achieved the outcome - unless they want to focus on failure to achieve. Research on failure to achieve will tend to be based on tangibles: things that can be counted or inspected. Expanding the investigation into "how we do stuff" and why we do the things we do is a kind of voodoo medicine, subject to suspicion because it's so poorly understood.
Too often expectations don't include enough about "how we do stuff" but that the countable or inspectable outcome is produced. When this happens people aren't encouraged strongly enough to form good discipline in revision control or process tools like
FMEA/MSA. When the organization rewards people based on countables/inspectables and not "how we do stuff" we may make wonderful product but be among the worst companies to work for. Groups are not working in sync with each other; technical top performers may act like tyrants within their groups. Bad behavior is tolerated because "He/she really gets results."
All of that is often hard to detect because again, people tend to have a narrow view. They will focus on things within their specialty and less so on impacts on their internal customers in dependent or downstream processes.
Standards are supposed to provide a framework so that all of this gets addressed. However, very often the elements are viewed as a list of requirements and a good deal of effort is expended to ensure those requirements don't intrude on what it is they really think they should be doing. That effort ranges from simple willful ignorance to maintaining a dual set of processes: one is a "dog and pony show" while the other one, which actually produces the outcomes, is favored and maintained.
I have also seen lots and lots of people who are poorly assigned roles. We hire/assign people based on what we expect out of the job, not about what the person is best positioned to deliver. They may not be given resources to do the job well, or they may not feel enough concern to press for resources, or they might not have (or believe they have) enough authority to press for these resources.
Lastly, though it should be listed first, we very often have a top management team that doesn't understand these things and how they work together to form dysfunction, or believe they should understand.
