Agree a simple process for naming new services

What this means for your practice

Document a lightweight decision process for adding or changing names. Give teams examples and clear ownership so the architecture remains usable as the organisation grows.

A practical example

For example, a team proposing a new review service can show the suggested name beside the current appointment list and explain the difference. Ask the brand owner to check clarity and consistency, then arrange any appropriate further checks. Record exceptions with their reasons so future teams understand them. A good process reduces avoidable renaming and makes additions feel like part of the same practice, while allowing a genuinely different offer to be described properly.

Give new teams a small set of approved naming examples and a named contact for exceptions. This makes the process easier to follow than an abstract brand diagram. Record why an exception was accepted, so later additions are judged consistently rather than by who asks first.

Make the design useful in everyday work

Create a short decision route for a proposed service name or identity change. Ask the requester to explain the audience, actual relationship to the organisation and reason an existing naming pattern does not fit. Give the decision to an accountable owner and keep examples of accepted approaches available. The process should be proportionate enough that teams use it before commissioning assets independently. Test a fictional new service and note unanswered questions. Record the reason for the final decision so later additions can follow a consistent principle, while still allowing the organisation to adapt when a genuine new need appears.

How to check the result

Measure avoidable renaming and inconsistent additions.