What's Wrong With This Process? — A Closer Look at Assessing Business Processes

Summary

Sharp embeds assessment in a three-phase methodology — (1) establish scope/issues/objectives · (2) understand as-is · (3) design to-be — with two structured assessments: an Initial Assessment by stakeholder (in phase 1, after scope is set but before detailed mapping) and a Final Assessment by enabler (bridging phase 2 into phase 3).

The Column is essentially a concrete interview-guide reference — the single most directly-usable question-pack resource we have.

Initial Assessment — Three Questions

Simplified from Hammer & Champy's five-point "Case for Action":

What problems in the process are felt by each stakeholder group? — makes it real.
What changes in the environment caused these problems to surface? — makes it blame-free.
What are the consequences of inaction? — makes it compelling.

Sequence matters: Q2 only works after Q1 establishes real problems; Q3 only works after Q2 removes blame. Q3 without Q1–Q2 triggers defensive "it's not my fault" reactions.

Stakeholder categories

Customer — receives the primary result (output).
Performers — do the work.
Owner/manager — the enterprise "operator" of the process.
Optional: regulator, industry/trade associations, community, suppliers.

Sharp emphasises Performers specifically: the owner/manager view is self-reported; customer views get priority; performers are usually ignored but are most impacted by change. "If they don't see 'what's in it for me' there is a real chance that change efforts will be undercut."

Concrete question packs (directly reusable)

Customer questions

Does the process actually deliver what you want?
Are there too many interactions?
Are rules and requirements reasonable?
Can your work be located within the process?
Are you the "human glue" that holds the process together?

Performer questions

What are your major sources of frustration?
Do you have the necessary tools and support?
Are there steps that serve no purpose?
Are problems caused upstream? Are you constantly correcting or redoing earlier work?
Does the workload vary wildly?
What would you change if you could?
Is there a documented process?

Owner/manager questions

Does the process use resources that would be better allocated elsewhere?
Is it a net contributor or a source of problems?
Does the process constrain innovation, growth, or market opportunities?
Does the process provide information for managing it?
Did the process earn your organization an unflattering segment on a consumer affairs TV show? (reputational anchor — real-world client example)

The positives

"I've learned to also look for the positives, and discover what it is (if anything) about the current process that each stakeholder group appreciates and would like to see preserved." Missing this step risks throwing out valued elements during redesign.

Environmental change (Q2 prompt list)

Sharp's "Top Ten" (actually 11):

Changing customer expectations
Regulatory change
Competition, especially new or emerging
Workforce changes (supply, retirement)
Economic conditions
Socio-political change
Change in business model (customised vs standardised offerings)
Change in business ownership (public, private)
Emergent or disruptive technology
Changes in business volume (up or down)
Changes in business operating locations

(Extend via PESTLE: Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal, Environmental.)

Goals: TTT > SMART

SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-bounded) is aspirational but doesn't force specifics.
TTT (Topic-Target-Timeframe) forces specifics. Example: "The lead time from initial sales contact to ad publication will be reduced from the current ten days to five days within three months of process implementation."

Final Assessment — Six Enablers

After the as-is map is produced, walk stakeholders through it one enabler at a time (see concepts/six-enablers-framework for the full framework). Sharp's key insight: blanket "what's wrong?" yields uncritical defence ("it's worked for 30 years"); enabler-by-enabler yields rapid diagnosis.

Worked example: a 19-actor sequential approval process, mapped in a 90-minute facilitated session. Blanket "what do you think?" → "it's fine." Enabler-by-enabler walk → dysfunction surfaced in every dimension (workflow sequential and yo-yoing; IT = "colour-coded Rubbermaid bins"; HR = senior people doing trivial approvals; policies = "anecdotal policies that don't really exist"; facilities = "can't hire tall people because of the bins hanging from the ceiling").

Why process mapping really matters (Sharp's framing)

"The reason we develop a process workflow model or swimlane diagram is to develop a fact-based view of the process we can use to organise an enabler-based assessment." Not to document excruciating detail. Rules and logic belong in procedures, use cases, service specifications — not on the flow diagram. Multiple diagrams per case/scenario beat one master diagram.

Connections

entities/alec-sharp — author.
concepts/six-enablers-framework — the final-assessment framework.
sources/2014-sharp-using-scope-models — the scoping prerequisite; same three-approach methodology.
syntheses/interview-structuring-for-process-models — Sharp's stakeholder-specific question packs are a direct complement to Dumas's exception-taxonomy rainy-day questions.
syntheses/qualitative-discovery-method-selection-matrix
methods/process-discovery-methods
Hammer & Champy, Reengineering the Corporation — origin of "Case for Action" (referenced-not-ingested).
Kotter, J. (1995) Leading Change — 8-step change model referenced as parallel to Case for Action (referenced-not-ingested).