Better Processes, Better Experiences
A process can be improved on paper while becoming harder for the people who use it. Process improvement is often considered a sign of organisational maturity. We analyse workflows, identify inefficiencies, eliminate unnecessary steps and introduce new ways of working. We measure performance, define standards and look for opportunities to reduce costs, improve quality and increase productivity. On paper, the result may look impressive. The process is faster, the responsibilities are clearer and the numbers suggest that the organisation is moving in the right direction. Yet there is an important question that is sometimes overlooked: has the process actually become better for the people who have to work with it every day?
Susaan Demers-Ghajar
10/14/20266 min read
A redesigned process can achieve its intended performance targets while creating new frustrations for employees, customers and other stakeholders. Administrative work may be reduced in one department only to reappear in another. A new digital system may accelerate reporting but make it more difficult to find the information people need. A standardised procedure may simplify management oversight while leaving employees with less flexibility to respond to individual customer needs. These changes may appear efficient when viewed from a distance, but their practical consequences become visible only when we look at the people who use the process.
This is one of the most important challenges in Lean improvement and change management. The objective should not simply be to create a process that looks better in a diagram. It should be to create a process that delivers value, works effectively in practice and makes sense to the people involved.
The Difference Between Efficiency and Improvement
Efficiency is an important objective, but it is not the same as improvement. A process can become faster without becoming more effective. It can become more standardised without becoming easier to use. It can require fewer resources in one part of the organisation while increasing the workload elsewhere. When improvement initiatives focus too narrowly on individual performance indicators, they risk optimising one part of a system at the expense of the whole.
Imagine an organisation that wants to reduce the time required to handle customer requests. An analysis reveals that employees spend too much time gathering information, checking details and obtaining approvals. The improvement team redesigns the workflow, introduces a standard form and reduces the number of approval steps. The average processing time falls, and management is satisfied with the result.
However, employees discover that the new form does not accommodate unusual requests. They spend additional time finding workarounds, explaining exceptions and correcting incomplete information. Customers with straightforward requests receive a faster service, but customers with more complex needs experience delays. The original performance indicator has improved, yet the overall experience has become less consistent.
Was this a successful improvement? The answer depends on what the organisation intended to improve and whose experience it considered. If the analysis focused exclusively on processing time, the initiative may appear successful. If it also considered the quality of the outcome, employee workload, customer experience and the amount of rework created elsewhere, the conclusion might be very different.
True improvement requires us to look beyond the visible numbers and understand how a process functions as a connected whole.
Start With the People Who Do the Work
One of the most valuable sources of information in any improvement initiative is the people who perform the work every day. They understand where delays occur, which steps create confusion, what information is frequently missing and which procedures are difficult to follow in practice. Their experience can reveal problems that are invisible in management reports and process diagrams.
Yet employees are not always involved early enough. Sometimes a solution is designed by a project team, approved by management and presented to the people expected to use it. Their role becomes one of implementation rather than contribution. When difficulties emerge, they may be told to follow the new process more carefully or to adapt to the change.
This approach overlooks a fundamental principle: the people closest to a process often have knowledge that is essential to improving it.
Involving employees does not mean that every suggestion must be adopted or that improvement decisions should be made by consensus. It means creating opportunities to understand their experience, investigate their concerns and test assumptions before committing to a solution. It means treating their knowledge as a valuable input rather than an obstacle to progress.
This is where active listening becomes an important skill for process managers, project managers and change professionals. Asking someone what makes a procedure difficult to follow may reveal a completely different problem from the one originally identified. Listening carefully to their answer can prevent an organisation from investing time and resources in a solution that addresses the symptom rather than the cause.
Look at the Process as It Really Happens
A process map is useful because it makes activities, responsibilities and relationships visible. It provides a shared picture of how work is expected to flow. However, the documented process and the actual process are not always the same.
Employees may maintain unofficial spreadsheets because the official system does not provide the information they need. They may contact colleagues directly because the formal approval route takes too long. They may repeat checks because they do not trust the information received from another department. These activities can appear to be unnecessary deviations from the standard process, but they may also reveal weaknesses in its design.
Simply removing these workarounds without understanding why they exist can make the situation worse. The workaround may be inefficient, but it may also be compensating for a problem that the official process has failed to address.
Lean thinking encourages us to examine how value is created, identify waste and understand the flow of work. This requires more than analysing a diagram from a meeting room. It requires curiosity about what actually happens where the work is performed. Observing activities, asking questions and discussing difficulties with the people involved can reveal opportunities for improvement that are difficult to discover through documentation alone.
The goal is not to preserve every existing practice. Some workarounds are unnecessary, and some established habits genuinely need to change. The goal is to understand the reasons behind them before deciding what should happen next.
Improvement Is Also a Change Experience
Even a well designed process can fail if the people affected by it do not understand its purpose or cannot see how it will help them. Process improvement therefore involves more than technical analysis. It also involves change management.
People may be concerned about additional responsibilities, unfamiliar systems, reduced autonomy or the possibility that their experience will no longer be valued. They may have witnessed previous improvement initiatives that promised better ways of working but resulted in extra administration. Their hesitation may be based on practical experience rather than unwillingness to improve.
When these concerns are dismissed as resistance, an opportunity to learn is lost. A more constructive approach is to explore what people are experiencing and determine whether their concerns reveal genuine risks, misunderstandings or areas where the proposed solution needs to be adjusted.
This perspective is central to the Human Centered Change Method, which places people at the centre rather than treating them simply as the recipients of a change initiative. Human centred improvement does not mean abandoning efficiency, standards or measurable objectives. It means recognising that sustainable results depend on the relationship between the process, the people who use it and the value it is intended to deliver.
Communication also becomes more meaningful when it is a conversation rather than a one way announcement. Explaining why a process is changing is important, but so is understanding how the change affects different groups. When people can contribute to the improvement, they have a greater opportunity to understand the reasoning behind decisions and take ownership of the outcome.
Measure What Really Matters
If an organisation wants to know whether a process has genuinely improved, it needs to examine more than one indicator. Processing time and cost may be important, but they should be considered alongside quality, customer experience, employee workload, error rates and the amount of rework created.
The most appropriate measures depend on the purpose of the process. A process designed to protect safety, for example, should not be evaluated on speed alone. A customer service process should not be considered successful simply because employees handle more requests if the quality of the answers deteriorates. An administrative process should not be celebrated for reducing the workload of one team if it transfers that workload to another.
It is equally important to evaluate improvements after implementation. Assumptions made during the design phase need to be tested against real experience. Are the intended benefits being achieved? Have new problems emerged? Do employees understand the revised process? Are customers receiving the expected value? Is the improvement sustainable under normal working conditions?
These questions turn improvement into an ongoing learning process rather than a one time redesign exercise. They also encourage teams to make adjustments when the evidence shows that the original solution is not working as intended.
From Better Process Maps to Better Ways of Working
The real value of process improvement lies in the difference it makes to everyday work. A successful process should support people in delivering the intended result without unnecessary complexity, confusion or effort. It should make responsibilities clear, help information flow and enable people to focus on activities that create value.
Achieving this requires a balance between analytical thinking and human understanding. Lean methods help identify waste and improve flow. Project management provides structure and direction. Change management helps people understand and adopt new ways of working. Active listening enables professionals to uncover concerns and gain insight into what happens in practice. Together, these approaches can create improvements that are not only measurable but also meaningful and sustainable.
The next time you review a process, look beyond the diagram and the performance indicators. Ask yourself whether the proposed improvement makes the work genuinely better for the people who use it. Consider whether it removes unnecessary effort or merely moves it somewhere else. Find out whether employees have had the opportunity to share their experience and whether the expected benefits can be demonstrated in practice.
Most importantly, remain willing to question a solution that looks perfect on paper but creates difficulties in reality.
If you want to explore practical approaches to improvement, change and project management, discover the eBooks Projectmanagement at the Hacienda and Lean Inside the Sandcastle at www.susaanconsulting.com. Through engaging stories and practical insights, they offer an opportunity to reflect on how project management and Lean principles can be applied in real working environments.
Because the purpose of improvement is not to create a more impressive process map. It is to create a better way of working. And that can only happen when we consider not just how a process is designed, but how it is experienced by the people who bring it to life.
