What this service solves
When work crosses several roles, elapsed time can accumulate in queues and follow-ups that never appear in the written procedure. We trace representative items from intake to completion and distinguish time spent doing the work from time spent waiting, handing it off, or correcting it. The review gives the process owner a concrete explanation to test before changing staffing, approvals, or software.
What you get
Current-state process map
A map of the observed steps, roles, decision points, and waits. It shows where an item changes hands and where incomplete work returns to an earlier step.
Testable causes
A ranked list of likely bottlenecks, the examples supporting each one, and observations that would strengthen or weaken the diagnosis.
What’s included
Observe one process
Follow one representative process and agree on the start, finish, and roles to observe.
Record handoffs, waits, and rework
Note where work waits for information, capacity, or a decision. Mark rework loops and distinguish recorded timestamps from estimates.
Identify the most consequential bottleneck
Trace the largest recurring delay to its likely cause. Review alternative explanations with the people who handle the work.
How implementation works
Observe and measure
Use the workshop to walk through a routine transaction and a delayed one. Collect the timestamps or queue snapshots available for those examples.
Map the work
Map the steps by role, including the point at which each handoff is considered complete.
Review the leading bottlenecks
Review the map once with the owner and identify the first cause worth checking against additional transactions.
Technical considerations
- Comparable timing
- Compare transactions with a similar route and recording window. An overnight hold and an hour in a staffed queue both add elapsed time. Note operating hours and timestamp gaps so the process owner can interpret what the comparison measures.
Systems, inputs & prerequisites
A process owner, example transactions, and available timing or queue observations.
- Name the process owner and bring examples that show a normal path and a delayed path.
- Share available timestamps, queue observations, or other evidence of elapsed time. Estimates can guide questions when timing data is limited.
Starting scope & pricing
Base scope
One process, up to four roles, one workshop and one map review.
Illustrative workflow
Trace intake
Follow an invoice from arrival to assignment.
Mark the wait
Compare the time in review with the time waiting for a project code.
Test the cause
Check whether incomplete invoices wait longer across the sampled items.
Validation & handover
- Walk the process owner through a routine item and a delayed item on the map. Check that each material handoff and return loop has a recognizable owner.
- Mark which waits are supported by timestamps, which rely on staff estimates, and which still lack a useful observation.
- Give the process owner a leading hypothesis, the observations behind it, and a practical way to check it against more transactions.
Limitations & possible extras
Limitations
The strength of the findings depends on how representative the examples are. Additional variants, independent timing studies, and on-site observation can be scoped separately.
Conclusions depend on representative examples and the quality of timing data.
Possible extras
More process variants, independent measurement, or on-site observation.
Questions about this service
Can we start if our systems record only arrival and completion?
Yes. Use the available timestamps and staff accounts to build a first map, with estimates labeled. The map shows which intermediate observation would make the suspected delay easier to verify.
What samples help distinguish a busy queue from a scheduled batch?
Bring items that arrived at different points in the batch cycle, along with any available queue observations. If wait time follows the schedule more closely than workload, the team has a specific hypothesis to test.
How do you handle an urgent route that skips a normal approval?
Mark where the route diverges and note who authorizes it. An occasional urgent path can explain an unusual result. A separate route with its own roles and evidence may need a wider mapping scope.
Can the map support a decision about where to automate first?
It can identify where better inputs, a different handoff, or a change to review timing may matter most. Use the findings to decide what to test or scope next.