Once they have been established, standardisations have a very fundamental function. For the organisation, they represent ‘necessities’, which create freedom from decision-making constraints. This is a rather paradoxical formulation, necessity as the basis of freedom? Actually, though, it is quite simple, because one does not have to make decisions about that which has been determined. If you are not allowed to sell the product without observing an ISO standard or another licencing standard, then the organisation is relieved of having to consider the pros and cons of such a regulation. In the guiding distinction, handling the present, as well as in quality focus, the die has been cast. If a new standard is introduced, there is no decision to be made about handling the past but rather, an adaption to the necessity (i.e. learning), is required. The organisation can give itself such standards but they can also be established by other functional systems such as law or politics. Standardisations, in the guiding process quality focus, often create an asymmetry in favour of the thoroughness pole, because, as a rule, not time but the perfection of the result is standardised. Thus, for organisations, or project managers, the problem arises about how one can still decide in favour of time. This then is achieved either through the build-up of further resources (if the process is still able to be parallelised) or through ‘cheating’, whereby the deviations from standards are made invisible. The latter, in many cases. must, therefore, not be defamed as the expression of criminal energy, but should be taken as an impetus to find out who has demanded the impossible and where.