Insights / Perspective / Process diagnostics and business process evaluation
PerspectiveDocumented is not actual
Written procedures describe how work should happen. Observation shows how it does. Why the gap exists, why it matters, and what to do once you have seen it.
Every organisation has procedures. They sit in quality manuals, shared drives and intranet pages, describing step by step how orders are processed, complaints handled, invoices approved and equipment maintained. Auditors check them. New starters are trained on them. Improvement projects begin by reading them.
Written procedures describe how work should happen. Observation shows how it does. The two are rarely the same, and the difference is often where the most useful insight lies.
Why the gap exists
Procedures are written at a point in time, usually by someone who understood the process well and wanted to describe it clearly. Then the world moves on. A system is upgraded. A new product introduces a variation. A team is reorganised. A customer demands a different format. Each change is absorbed by the people doing the work, who adapt quickly and sensibly. The document stays the same.
Procedures also tend to describe the standard case. Real work is full of exceptions: the order with a missing address, the invoice that does not match the purchase order, the customer who calls instead of emailing. Experienced staff know how to handle these. The document rarely mentions them.
Over time, the gap widens. The documented process becomes a description of how things worked several years ago, under ideal conditions. Anyone who relies on it to understand the process, whether an auditor, a consultant or a new manager, is working from a picture that no longer matches reality.
The gap matters because decisions are built on the document. Automation projects configure systems to match the written process, then discover that staff rely on steps the document never mentioned. Controls are certified as working when nobody performs them. Training teaches new starters a process that their colleagues abandoned years ago, leaving them confused in their first weeks.
Observe, do not assume
Sit with the people doing the work and watch a few real cases.
There is no substitute for direct observation. Interviews help, but people describe what they think they do, or what they believe they should do, which is not always what they actually do. Watching real cases, from start to finish, shows the steps, the tools, the waits and the improvisations as they happen.
- Spend a few hours alongside each role in the process, not just the team leader.
- Watch several real cases, including at least one that goes wrong.
- Note every tool used, including personal spreadsheets, notebooks and messaging apps.
- Ask questions afterwards rather than interrupting the work, so the observation stays natural.
- Record what surprised you, since surprises mark the gap between document and reality.
Consider a typical warehouse returns process. The procedure might describe a clean sequence: receive the item, inspect it, record its condition in the system, and route it to restock, repair or disposal. Observation might show that inspection happens only when a supervisor is free, that condition codes are chosen from habit rather than the official list, and that items awaiting a decision accumulate in an unmarked corner for days. None of this is visible from the document.
Ask what they do when it goes wrong
Exceptions reveal the real rules.
The standard case usually follows something close to the document. The exceptions are where the real process lives. Ask staff what they do when information is missing, when the system is down, when a customer is urgent, when an approver is absent. Their answers describe the unwritten rules that keep the organisation running.
Some of these rules are sensible adaptations that should be written down and shared. Others are risky shortcuts that bypass controls. Many are a mix: a practical solution to a real problem, but one that depends on a particular person’s judgement and would fail without them. Understanding which is which requires listening without judging.
Make it safe to be honest
People will only describe what they really do if they are confident they will not be blamed for departing from the procedure. Make clear at the start that the aim is to understand the process, not to audit individuals. The gap between document and practice is information, not a disciplinary matter.
Update the documents, or the practice
Once you know reality, fix either the document or the practice, and be honest about which.
Sometimes the people doing the work have found a better way, and the document should be updated to reflect it. Sometimes the practice has drifted into something risky or inefficient, and the practice should change. Often both need adjusting. The mistake is to rewrite the document to describe the current practice without asking whether that practice is right, or to reissue the old document and expect behaviour to follow.
Whichever you change, keep the new document short and practical. Describe the standard case clearly, then add the most common exceptions and how to handle them. A procedure that covers the five situations staff meet every week is far more useful than one that covers every theoretical possibility and is never read.
We had audited the procedure for years and it always passed. The first time we sat with the team for a day, we found three controls that existed only on paper.
Head of internal audit, manufacturing client
Keeping the two aligned
The gap reopens over time unless something keeps it closed. Assign each key procedure an owner who works in or close to the process. Review procedures whenever systems, products or teams change, not only on a fixed calendar. And repeat a short observation every year or two for the processes that matter most.
To begin, choose one process that is important and frequently criticised. Read the procedure, then spend half a day watching it in action. List every difference you see. For each one, decide whether the document or the practice should change, and agree who will make the change. A single round of this exercise usually reveals more than months of reviewing documents at a desk.
Source: Intelliversal analysis.
