How to capture what your best people do

In almost every team, one or two people get the same work done faster, with fewer errors and less stress. They have found shortcuts, sequences and small checks that nobody wrote down. When they are on holiday, output dips. When they leave, some of that know-how leaves with them.

Capturing what these people do is one of the cheapest ways to raise performance. It does not need new systems or new headcount. It needs a disciplined way to observe, ask questions, agree a standard and spread it. This guide sets out that method and the mistakes to avoid.

Choose the right task to start with

Not every task is worth the effort. Start where variation between people is visible and costly. Good candidates share a few traits.

• The task is done often, by several people, so improvements multiply.
• Results vary noticeably between individuals in speed, quality or rework.
• Errors have a real cost: customer complaints, scrap, write-offs or safety risk.
• The steps are reasonably repeatable, even if judgement is involved at points.

A quick way to find candidates is to ask supervisors which tasks they would least like to cover themselves, and which ones they always give to the same person. Those answers usually point straight at the tasks where hidden expertise matters.

Step one: observe several people, not one

It is tempting to watch the star performer and write down what they do. Resist that. You learn far more by watching three to five people do the same task and noting the differences. The contrast is what reveals the technique.

How to observe well

1. Explain the purpose clearly: you are studying the task, not assessing the person.
2. Watch the work in its normal setting, at normal pace, with normal interruptions.
3. Record each step in sequence, including small actions such as checking a screen before keying or setting tools out in a particular order.
4. Time the main steps roughly, and note where people wait, search or repeat work.
5. Capture photos or short videos where the physical method matters, with consent.

Observe more than one case per person if you can. People often handle the routine case the same way and diverge on the awkward ones. The awkward cases are where expertise shows.

Step two: ask why behind every difference

Once you have notes from several people, line up their methods side by side and mark every point where they differ. Then go back and ask each person why they do it their way. Understand the reason behind each step before standardising anything.

The answers sort into a few types. Some differences are genuine know-how: a check that catches a common error early, a sequence that avoids rework, a way of reading a document that saves time. Some are habit with no particular benefit. A few are workarounds for a problem elsewhere, such as a system screen that hides a field or a supplier label that is easy to misread.

Ask open questions. What are you looking for here? What would go wrong if you skipped this? How did you learn to do it this way? Experts often perform their best steps without thinking, so it may take a few questions to bring the reasoning to the surface.

Step three: agree the standard together

With the reasons understood, choose the best way. This is rarely one person’s method in full. More often it combines the strongest elements from several people: one person’s preparation, another’s check, a third’s way of handling exceptions.

Involve the people you observed in this decision. Present the options with the reasoning and let them challenge it. A standard that the experienced team agrees with will be adopted; one imposed from outside will be quietly ignored.

Write it down in a usable form

• One action per line, in the order it happens, using the team’s own words.
• A short note on why for any step that people might be tempted to skip.
• Photos or annotated screenshots for steps where the method is physical or visual.
• Clear signs of a good result at the critical points, so people can check their own work.

Step four: test with people who did not write it

Before you train everyone, test the new standard with two or three people who were not part of the design, ideally including someone fairly new. Ask them to follow it on real work for a few days, and measure the same things you observed at the start: time, errors, rework.

If results improve and the testers find the method workable, you have a standard worth spreading. If not, find out where it breaks. Sometimes a step that works for an expert depends on experience a newcomer does not yet have, and the standard needs an extra check or a clearer explanation.

What to measure during the test

Keep measurement simple and comparable with what you saw during observation. You are looking for evidence that the standard helps ordinary performers, not that it matches the expert.

• Time per case or per unit, measured over enough cases to smooth out the odd outlier.
• First-time-right rate: how often the work passes the next step without correction.
• Questions asked: if testers keep stopping to ask, the standard is not yet clear.
• Tester confidence: a short conversation at the end of each day tells you a lot.

Expect the first day or two to be slower as people adjust. Judge the result on the later days, once the new method has become familiar, and compare against the same people’s previous performance rather than against the expert who inspired it.

Step five: train, then keep improving

Train the team in small groups, at the workplace, with the standard in front of them. The most effective trainers are often the people whose methods shaped it, provided they are given time and some support in how to coach. Follow up after a week or two to see whether the method has stuck and to catch questions.

Treat the standard as the current best way, not the final word. Encourage people to suggest improvements, test them against the standard and update it when a better method is proven. This keeps the process alive and means the next shortcut someone discovers is shared rather than hidden.

Mistakes to avoid

• Studying only the top performer, which hides the reasons behind their method.
• Standardising habits that have no benefit simply because a senior person does them.
• Writing the standard in office language the team does not use.
• Failing to credit the people whose methods became the standard, which discourages sharing next time.
• Treating the exercise as an evaluation, which makes people perform for the observer rather than work normally.

Pick one task this month where results vary between people. Observe three of them, ask why at every difference and agree a standard with the team. A few weeks of focused work can turn private know-how into a shared asset.

Source: Intelliversal analysis.

Frequently asked questions

What if experienced staff are reluctant to share their methods?

Be clear that the aim is to make everyone's work easier, not to replace anyone. Credit contributors by name, involve them in training and make sure good ideas are visibly adopted. Reluctance usually fades when people see their expertise recognised.

How long does this take for a single task?

For a routine task, observation and interviews take a few days, agreeing and writing the standard a few more, and testing one to two weeks. Most teams can complete a cycle within a month.

Should we record videos of the work?

Short videos are very useful for physical tasks and system walkthroughs, provided people consent and know how the footage will be used. Keep them brief and focused on the method, not the person.

Explore SOP optimisation and continuous improvement