Process transformation that the evidence can defend.
Process, system and incentive redesigned in the same quarter – and measured on the event data that found the problem.
Close the route without closing the reason, and the work reappears in a mailbox.
Four exception types carried three quarters of the variant count. We ruled those four and left the tail alone.
Movement on the process in scope
-58%
Variants, after four exception types were given a sanctioned rule.
-4.1
Days of cycle time, measured on the same event data that found it.
81%
Of orders now complete without a human touch.
Transformation fails politically, not technically.
Every workaround exists because somebody was protecting a margin, a relationship or a promised date. Redesign the path and leave the incentive in place, and the process owner rebuilds the workaround within a quarter – somewhere no dashboard is looking.
So we change the rule, the role and the system together, then keep the process instrumented long enough to prove the change held.
This is not incremental improvement. This is transformation.
What would have to be true to justify the programme?
Tell us the constraint. We will tell you what the process evidence would need to show.