The self-determination of people with disabilities on which the Disability Studies approach is based calls us to direct responsibility for what we do to challenge and overcome the culture and practices built on the norm, from which categorization and the concealment of exclusion are generated. Coming out of inclusion means detaching ourselves from the ambiguity of definitions and its meanings in order to move toward systemic thinking, cultural, political, educational and teaching choices and practices that can affirm it (Slee; Allan, 2001).

From this perspective, the definition of procedures and the management of procedures can, on the one hand, be directed toward a regulatory system generated on the principles of normalization and predetermination in relation to the various diagnostic labels that replace the definition of the person, or be directed toward the consideration of the individual and the individual's own characteristics that distinguish him or her from others. The two visions lead us to two different models of procedure management, on the one hand, standardized procedures by type of individual, and on the other hand, procedures characterized by active listening to each individual student that can provide the guidance for identifying the most functionally appropriate accompanying pathways.

The management of procedures within the Relational Model cannot fail to take into account the importance of sharing information with services working in the field of intellectual disability in order to make actions more effective, but, at the same time, action cannot be taken without the careful assessment of each individual functioning profile in order for actions to be most effective for each student. In fact, the disabling of the individual operated by the context can only be removed through the concepts of relativism and dependent autonomy (Morin, 1990), which point out how actions conceived, designed and implemented for the functioning characteristics of some individuals, may not be appropriate for the characteristics of others. In this view, universal design can only represent the best possible point of advancement of inclusion, which, as a complex process, will never be achieved except through addressing the specificities of individuals and the often very different characteristics of functioning for each individual.

This highlights some peculiarities of procedure management that should possess certain characteristics among which two seem to be most relevant: flexibility and customization. The flexibility of systems responds to the concept of complexity without having to make exceptions to rigid procedures from which it is easy to get out of in relation to the characteristics of operation. The term personalization (Baldacci, 2005), on the other hand, is believed to overcome the separation view of individualization whereby, in the face of equal goals for all, some follow separate paths. In fact, within the approach of personalization each person will follow his or her own path, different for each person, in relation to individual characteristics of functioning.