The Hidden Cost of Committee Administration
“Like a symphony, it takes a lot of people working together to develop a standard.” ISO
This isn’t limited to just standards, the collaborative process is key, whether in government, standards bodies, regulatory organisations, or defence associations, there is a multitude of stakeholders involved in the development process.
This is where committees are most useful. They combine specialists with years of experience and a shared commitment to shaping the future of their sector. But in many organisations, expertise is increasingly consumed by administration rather than decision-making.
What should be collaborative governance often becomes operational overhead. And managing these operations takes up a lot of time, usually falling upon the experts and volunteers that are choosing to contribute to these committees.
This challenge is becoming more visible as governance structures grow more complex. Deloitte notes that boards and committees are facing increasing pressure from expanding regulatory expectations, stakeholder demands, and information overload.
At the same time, research from Harvard Business Review highlights how excessive coordination and meetings reduce the time available for meaningful work and decision-making.
The result is slowly becoming a more significant problem: committees designed to harness expertise often end up burying it beneath process.
Why Traditional Committee Processes Break Down
The challenge with committees is rarely the people involved, who bring exception expertise to their efforts. The friction comes from the processes surrounding them.
As committees grow, so does the operational complexity around them. What begins as a straightforward governance structure can quickly evolve into scattered email threads, spreadsheet trackers, duplicated documents and overlapping feedback cycles, with scheduling coordination across multiple organisations and time zones. This gradual slowdown becomes apparent to those responsible for the committee.
A review document gets emailed instead of centrally managed, while a decision tracker lives in someone’s spreadsheet. Meeting actions are buried in inboxes and different members work from different document versions. Over time, the committee spends more energy coordinating work than progressing it.
This is increasingly recognised as a broader organisational problem. Research into “coordination tax” shows that knowledge workers now spend a significant portion of their time on administrative coordination rather than high-value contribution.
For committees, the effect is subtle but important: the processes become complicated and stagnant, especially for volunteers and subject matter experts whose time is already limited.
And as governance demands continue to increase, that operational weight grows faster than most organisations anticipate.
When experts become administrators instead of Decision-Makers
For many committee members, contributing to a committee is not their primary job. The standards engineer still has products to deliver. The regulator still has policy deadlines. The academic still has research, teaching, and publishing responsibilities. The defence specialist, clinician, or technical advisor is already operating in a role where time is limited and expertise is in constant demand.
Committee participation is often something they do because they care about the outcome.
But as committee processes become heavier, the nature of their contribution begins to change. Instead of focusing on strategic discussion, technical insight, or long-term direction, experts increasingly find themselves performing administrative maintenance around the committee itself.
Their evenings disappear into a sea of files. The work continues, quietly and continuously, until the people chosen for their judgement and experience become the ones holding the process together instead. And the committee still functions, of course, but more slowly now, with expertise thinning out beneath the weight of keeping everything moving.
What Modern Committee Management Should Actually Enable
Modern committee management should not replace governance; it should make good governance easier to sustain.
The goal is not simply efficiency, but clarity. Experts should be able to focus on decisions, discussion, and long-term direction without spending their evenings reconstructing context or chasing process. Information should be accessible, decisions traceable, and collaboration continuous across meetings rather than restarting every month from scattered notes and inboxes.
Increasingly, organisations are recognising that better governance depends on better systems. The IEC’s Online Standards Development work reflects this shift: efficient tools should help standards developers focus on content, collaboration and consensus, rather than formatting and process management.
When committee infrastructure works properly, expertise stops getting buried beneath administration and starts compounding instead.
From Administration to Institutional Intelligence
The organisations that modernise committee management are not simply making administration more efficient. They are creating systems where knowledge survives beyond individual meetings, roles, and tenures.
Decisions and contributions have more context and a historical record. New members arrive without feeling lost immediately, while old members leave without taking half the committee’s memory with them.
And gradually the committee becomes steadier, somewhat calmer. Not because there is less work, but because the work no longer depends so heavily on invisible administrative tasks.
Watch back on our webinar about aI-Ready Standards
Recently standards expert, Patrice Canonne, touched on his years of experience with ISO to explore how standards can be transformed for the AI first world.