Building Repeatable Systems: What They Look Like and Why They Matter

A repeatable system is one that everyone in the operation agrees is best practice for the time being. And that also gives a similar result every single time you run the cycle, or execute the protocol. Simply put, it generates the same or better results every time it’s deployed.

In cultivation, it starts with the inputs and conditions; e.g.: fertilizer and fertigation strategy; lighting parameters; climate parameters. We agree we’re deploying these the same way at the same intervals across our entire production timeline to support a generally consistent quality outcome. Every operating procedure tied to that timeline — all the granular process steps — need to be repeatable in the sense that they support that same general production model on a daily basis, or even an hourly basis, depending on the context.

A repeatable system isn’t a document that sits in a binder. It’s the thing that produces the same quality outcome whether you’re there to watch it happen or not.

Communication is a repeatable system too. No matter how big the company gets, is communication efficient? Is it high and tight, addressing only what supports smooth daily operation of the business, aside from whatever X factor we can’t control on a given day? If it is, that’s a repeatable system doing its job.

If you’re ever waiting on key decision-making that impacts daily operations because it has to run through communication with one person, or a small handful of people, that’s generally a sign you don’t have strong enough defined processes in place. Concentrated power over things that could easily be automated by standard procedure, whether that’s procurement or daily task management, is a red flag.

If there’s ever a moment of just waiting and wondering what to do next, that’s a sure sign the business is too dependent on a person or a group of people rather than on simple process and simple planning. A weekly task calendar isn’t difficult to build, even in the context of managing a living system.

I’ve got a lot of examples of standardization improving consistency, efficiency, or quality, but one that always stands out is canopy management during flowering.

There are a lot of different ways to handle plant work touch points, such as strategic pruning and thinning. I’ve seen operations with five or six touch points across the roughly nine weeks of flowering. Usually, that doesn’t amount to greater quality or greater yield. Standardizing that segment of the production model, agreeing that we’re only going to touch the plants less than or equal to three times, on specific days (e.g., during week 1, week 3, week 6; or week 2, week 4, week 6+) – and that’s it – changes the math entirely.

We can also agree on visuals for what each touch point means: how we’re manipulating the plant, how much foliage comes off, which shoots and bud sites up to a certain position on the plant we’re addressing. That’s it.

Standardizing the minimum acceptable touch points frees up labor and frees up thinking. Otherwise, we’d deploy that labor elsewhere doing the same amount of unnecessary work everywhere else.

That frees up a whole lot of time we can deploy elsewhere, and it means less labor cost for that batch without sacrificing quality. It’s an increase in general efficiency: we’re spending less time, doing work that amounts to the same quality output, consistently, time and again. Then we can focus on how to improve it rather than getting bogged down in unnecessary touch points.

I’ve seen the same principle play out in pest management. I’m usually called in because there’s a severe pest problem nobody else wants to deal with, and we have to spend a lot of time — high frequency treatments and a lot of labor — implementing a protocol to eradicate it. Then we standardize a system of scouting, monitoring, and routine preventative pest management to keep outbreaks at bay so the team can focus on quality instead of firefighting.

The same is true in nursery and propagation. Instead of “yeah, we kind of set up a station, and it’s kind of what we do every time,” which lands you around a 75-80% success rate, standardizing the process, sterility, tight parameters for the conditions cuttings incubate in, guarantees higher success rates time and again.

Repeatable systems are the foundation. But foundations get tested the moment you try to build on top of them. In the next post, I’ll get into why cultivation businesses struggle when they try to scale, and where to start if you want to build a more efficient, scalable operation: Why Cultivation Businesses Struggle to Scale (and How to Build for It).

Led by founder Wally Daniel, Green Garden Consulting helps cannabis operators across North America and beyond improve plant vitality, streamline operations, and build stronger teams. We combine over 30 years of hands-on industry experience with plant science expertise to deliver results that last.