Map the Current Work
Map one real business workflow through its trigger, inputs, actions, decisions, handoffs, outcome, delays, and exceptions.
Map what happened, not what should happen
A useful current-state map records the work as people perform it today. Policy documents often show a clean path. Real cases include missing fields, side conversations, duplicate records, personal reminders, and judgment calls. Those details determine whether a future system will help.
Choose one recent example and ask the people involved to reconstruct it. Follow the record, document, request, or customer through the process. Record evidence when possible: the original email, timestamps, fields, handoff messages, and final decision.
Map the workflow in six passes
- Trigger: What event starts the process? Record the source and expected response time.
- Inputs: What information is required? Where does it live? Mark missing or unreliable fields.
- Actions: Include searching, copying, formatting, checking, notifying, waiting, and correcting.
- Decisions: Write the question being answered. Separate written rules from judgment.
- Handoffs: Name the sender, receiver, expected response, and fallback when nobody acts.
- Outcome: Define what “done” means and where that state is recorded.
Add the systems beside each step. When the same information moves through several tools, mark which system owns the authoritative record. Conflicting sources create more trouble than the transfer itself.
Mark time and friction without guessing
Separate hands-on time from waiting. A task may require eight minutes of staff effort but sit for two days between handoffs. Both matter, and they require different fixes.
| Signal | What to record | Possible cause |
|---|---|---|
| Copying | Fields, source, destination, frequency | Missing integration or unclear source of truth |
| Searching | Systems checked and average time | Scattered context or inconsistent naming |
| Waiting | Queue, owner, expected and actual delay | Unclear ownership or hidden approval |
| Rework | Correction type and frequency | Missing input, poor rule, or ambiguous decision |
Do not convert every friction mark into an AI feature. A required field, clear policy, standard template, or named owner may solve the problem more reliably.
Worked example: the enquiry that waited
An enquiry arrives through the website. The form creates a CRM contact, but company size is blank. An operations coordinator searches the company website and LinkedIn, then checks the CRM for a duplicate account. The request mentions a service that two teams handle. The coordinator sends a chat message asking which salesperson owns it. Nobody responds until the next afternoon.
The hands-on work takes 14 minutes. The elapsed time is 27 hours. The largest delay sits at the ownership decision. The map also reveals two exceptions: a possible duplicate and incomplete company information. A useful first system may prepare evidence and recommend a queue, while a person resolves conflicts. An automatic email writer would not fix the main delay.
Your turn: reconstruct one case
Use Module 2 of the workbook. Write each step on a separate row. Add the actor, system, hands-on time, waiting time, decision, and exception. Circle anything supported only by memory and verify it with another participant or artifact.
Finish with two totals: estimated hands-on minutes and elapsed time. Then name the three friction points with the strongest evidence. These observations become Section 2 of the Decision Pack.
Quick Check
1. What is the strongest starting point for a current-state map?
2. Which timing measures should remain separate?
3. What should a long handoff delay make you investigate first?
What you have produced
Your evidence-based current-state map is Section 2 of the Automation Decision Pack. Module 3 turns the map into comparable value, readiness, and risk scores.