Identifying workarounds that hide a broken process

Find workarounds by asking people to show how they complete a real case when the documented route gets in the way. Compare the case with the process map, then ask what obstacle the extra action solves. A workaround may be a sensible local response; check whether the underlying route still produces a reliable business result.

Look for work outside the map

Speak with the people who perform and receive the work. Ask what they do when an input is incomplete, a system is unavailable, a decision owner cannot be reached or the next team rejects an item. What did you have to do before this case could move? can elicit more detail than asking whether staff follow the procedure.

Look for private spreadsheets, copied information, repeated messages, informal approvals and a second record kept ‘just in case’. These are prompts for investigation, not proof of a broken process. Observe the action where appropriate and inspect a recent case record. Note who relies on the workaround and whether another team has built a workaround around it.

Workaround vs. Official Process: Key Differences

Trace the obstacle and the benefit

For each workaround, record the step where the ordinary route stopped being useful, the alternative action, who authorised or accepted it, and what happened afterwards. Ask what would occur if the extra action stopped tomorrow. This helps establish whether it preserves a needed check, compensates for missing information or duplicates work.

Consider a team that copies request details into a spreadsheet because the shared queue does not show who owns a case. The spreadsheet may prevent requests being lost. The underlying question is how ownership is assigned and visible in the official route. Removing the spreadsheet before fixing that gap could make the result worse.

Compare several cases before naming a cause. A repeated manual correction might arise from an unclear form, an inconsistent rule or a system that does not pass data. The visible workaround alone cannot tell you which explanation is right.

Decide what belongs in the process

Discuss each observed action with the people responsible for the work:

These categories are discussion aids, not verdicts on staff behaviour. People may have created an extra step because the formal route did not let them deliver the intended result.

Check a proposed fix across teams

Draw the current workaround on the map and show its input and output. Then sketch a proposed route that addresses the obstacle. Ask the next team whether the proposed output will still meet its needs. Keep any necessary control or decision visible.

Use representative cases to challenge the proposed route before changing it: an ordinary case, one that currently needs the workaround and one with a different legitimate outcome. Check who owns each handoff and what confirms completion.

An explainable gap between the official route and the route people take to finish work is a reason to investigate the process. Document that gap and its consequence before deciding whether to amend the procedure, clarify ownership, change an input or redesign a step.