Why shared understanding takes time

Reinstating a withdrawn standard

One of the most memorable lessons I've learned about standards development came several years ago while working to reinstate ASTM E541, Standard Specification for Agencies Engaged in System Analysis and Compliance Assurance for Manufactured Building. The standard had been withdrawn, yet it was still referenced in some state and international regulations and continued to be used by compliance assurance organizations.

A group of stakeholders involved with tiny houses wanted to see the standard reinstated. Many of them were new to ASTM, and I was invited to help navigate the standards development process. After joining the committee and activating a work item to reinstate the standard, we began what we expected would be a straightforward review.

It wasn't.

When better wording wasn't better

Like many technical committees, the group began with ideas for improvement. Some members proposed new terminology. Others suggested clarifying existing language or adding wording that reflected current practices within the tiny house industry.

As the discussions continued over the next several months, something interesting happened.

The more we discussed the standard, our proposed changes became more difficult to agree upon. At the same time, the better we understood what its original authors had intended. New wording that initially sounded like an improvement often turned out to be too specific to one organization's processes or too closely tied to the terminology of a particular segment of the industry.

At times, the meetings felt as though we were going in circles.

The standard hadn't changed—we had

Then one committee member made a simple observation.

"I went back and read the original version again, and I think it was good as-is all along."

During the following week, everyone reread the original standard.

At the next meeting, something remarkable happened.

We all agreed.

At first, that didn't make sense to me.

How could a document that had generated six months of debate suddenly seem clear to everyone?

Then it became obvious.

The standard hadn't become clearer.

We had.

Over those months, we had explored different interpretations, challenged assumptions, debated terminology, and gradually developed a shared understanding of what the standard was trying to accomplish. Once we reached that point, we could distinguish between wording that genuinely needed improvement and wording that had only seemed unclear because our own understanding was still developing.

In the end, we made only modest changes. We added a couple of terms, refined a few definitions, and made minor revisions to two paragraphs.

The standard itself changed very little.

Our understanding changed considerably.

Why shared understanding takes time

That experience has stayed with me because it highlights something that often goes unnoticed in standards development, auditing, and quality management.

When discussions seem repetitive or unproductive, they may actually be building the shared understanding that makes good decisions possible. The challenge is recognizing the difference between a conversation that merely repeats itself and one that gradually uncovers the intent behind the words. Careful listening and thoughtful questions build understanding.

Clear standards are important. Equally important is giving people the opportunity to develop a common understanding of what those standards are intended to achieve.

Shared understanding isn't built in a single meeting. It's built one conversation at a time.

Looking back, I don't remember the months we spent debating terminology.

I remember the moment we realized we weren't rewriting the standard for ourselves.

We were making it easier for the next group to understand it within days rather than months.

That experience changed the way I think about committee work.

Shared understanding is rarely built in a single meeting. It develops as people challenge assumptions, test interpretations, and gradually align on what the words are actually intended to communicate. From the outside, that process can look repetitive or unproductive. From the inside, it is often the work that makes lasting consensus possible.

In the end, we changed very little of the standard. What we really changed was the time it would take the next reader to understand it.

That's why shared understanding takes time, but it's also why investing that time is often worthwhile for lasting results.

Have you experienced something similar—a project that seemed to be making little progress until you realized the real work had been developing a shared understanding? I'd enjoy hearing your experience.

About the author

Ed Nodland is the founder of GapCross and an active participant in ASTM International standards development. He writes about quality management, auditing, and practical approaches to implementing standards.