In the quest for process optimization, process mapping has become a must.
Management committees validate theoretically perfect schemes, information systems are enriched with new technological building blocks, and substantial resources are allocated to the deployment of a variety of tools.
Yet the reality on the ground is often disappointing: processing times stagnate, non-quality persists and resistance sets in.
In the face of these observations, diagnosis too often focuses on the symptoms: a lack of change management or a lack of training.
This observation overlooks a systemic reality:
The failure of operational processes is rarely the result of ill-will on the part of teams, or of a major technical failure. It’s the result of invisible frictions, of blind spots natively integrated into the design of workflows.
For general management (CEO, COO), financial management (DAF), IT management (DSI) and quality or purchasing managers, identifying these flaws is a strategic challenge.
1. SHADOW PROCESSES: process drift and the emergence of parallel flows
When a process is designed in atop-down way, it integrates the control, compliance and reporting requirements necessary for governance as a matter of priority. This accumulation of constraints creates excessive rigidity in the face of day-to-day hazards. To maintain business continuity and respond to emergencies, employees develop workaround mechanisms.
This phenomenon gives rise toShadow Processes. To compensate for the cumbersome nature of official procedures, teams create a parallel management infrastructure: local Excel files, hijacked instant messaging systems or informal databases.
Example: In a critical supply flow, if the official circuit for creating a supplier or validating a purchase order suffers from latency, the buyer will negotiate by e-mail or telephone directly with the supplier. He will track deliveries on a personal spreadsheet, and only regularize the situation in the ERP system on receipt of the invoice.
As far as management is concerned, the process seems to be respected, since the data is eventually integrated. In reality, the official system only serves to archive a situation a posteriori.
This drift escapes audits because it is driven by the commitment of employees who want to “do their job well”. This is an illustration of Goodhart’s law As soon as an indicator becomes a quantitative objective (e.g. ERP input rate), teams adapt their behavior to meet the metric, even if this means draining the process of its substance.
Risks and hidden costs :
- Skills breakdown: Real know-how is based on individual tools (the “magic Excel file”). If the employee leaves the organization, the process collapses.
- Loss of datagovernance: The multiplication of informal silos destroys data traceability(Data Lineage), increasing the risk of errors and regulatory non-compliance (financial audits, RGPD).
- Invisible work overload: teams exhaust themselves in double entry tasks to maintain the administrative fiction of the official system.
The lever: Align design with use. If a parallel flow emerges, it’s a sign that the official process is inadequate. Native flexibility mechanisms must be built in, enabling operators to handle exceptions without leaving the controlled framework.
2. ALT+TAB: fragmentation of the application ecosystem and the cost of context breaks
To meet the specific needs of each department, companies have sedimented expert software solutions: CRM for sales, ERP for finance, EDM for quality, ticketing tools for support.
The conceptual error is to think that piling up high-performance tools guarantees overall performance. For CIOs and COOs, the second invisible cause of failure lies in the fragmentation of the user experience and the attentional cost associated with context breaks (the Alt-Tab fracture).
From an IT point of view, technical integration is often validated (APIs work and databases synchronize). But this technical continuity masks a major cognitive discontinuity. Neuroscience research shows that switching continuously from one visual and logical environment to another saturates working memory. It takes several minutes to regain an optimal level of concentration after a change of application.
[Ticketing tool] ➔ [Customer CRM] ➔ [Quality EDM] ➔ [ERP Finance].
└─────────────── Micro-breaks of attention ──────────────┘
An employee dealing with a dispute often has to open the ticket, check the customer’s weight in the CRM, consult the specification in the EDM, then check the purchase history in the ERP. Inefficiency doesn’t come from software failure, but from the fact that the human being spends a significant part of his day doing “data handling” (copy-pasting, searching for scattered information) and mentally reconstructing the context of the file.
Operational impacts :
- Longer cycle times (Lead Time): Latency depends on human dead time between two application actions, not on server speed.
- Increase in residual error rate: Manual transfer of information between non-unified tools generates input errors and the need forrework.
The lever: Move towards unified orchestration. IT and business departments must work together to superimpose a global orchestration layer on existing tools. The aim is to converge useful information to the operator within a single action interface, masking the complexity of the underlying IT piping.
3. Redundancy: multiple approval circuits and the illusion of risk control
When faced with an operational incident or budgetary drift, the classic managerial reflex is to add a control point. A new validation visa is inserted, or the hierarchical level required to approve an action is raised.
This multiplication of administrative hurdles has the exact opposite effect to that intended, by triggering a well-known sociological mechanism: the dilution of collective accountability. dilution of collective accountability(Accountability).
When a validation circuit comprises too many steps, the requirement for substantive verification is replaced by a formal signature routine:
- The first level of management validates quickly, assuming that controlling will analyze the figures downstream.
- The management controller signs off, noting that the operational manager has signed, postulating that field compliance has been achieved.
- Senior management automatically validates the application, believing that if the file has reached them, all the previous filters have worked.
The process becomes a passive certification machine. Everyone signs, but no one controls. The organization suffers from the cumbersome circuit, without benefiting from its security.
Consequences:
- Commercial and operational inertia: essential files remain stuck in virtual queues, making the company less responsive to the market.
- Disempowering teams: By confiscating decision-making power from field experts, autonomy is destroyed. Employees take the blame: “The file was validated by the chain, I’m not responsible for the failure.”
The lever: Introduce management by exception. Functional departments (Finance, Purchasing, Quality) must abandon systematic validation. If a management action falls within the defined budgetary limits and respects the standard criteria, the system must approve it autonomously. Human intervention should be reserved exclusively for cases of derogation or major risks, thus restoring the value and responsibility of the human visa.
Action Plan: 3-step audit methodology
To assess the maturity of your processes with regard to these blind spots, apply this pragmatic approach:
- UserShadowing: spend half a day immersed alongside operational teams. Note the use of third-party tools (personal spreadsheets, paper notes) and identify the steps where the operator bypasses the official rule to achieve his objectives.
- Application Fragmentation Index: Quantify the number of separate software programs that need to be opened, and the number of manual data transfers required to process a single key process. An index greater than 4 indicates critical fragmentation, generating cognitive fatigue.
- The validation deletion test: Review your delegation matrices. For each approval level, ask yourself the question: “If we removed this validation, what would be the real financial or quality risk on 100 files?” If the cost of waiting is higher than the residual risk, remove the step and raise the autonomy thresholds for field managers.
Conclusion
An organization’s performance is not measured by the complexity of its structures or the number of controls it deploys. Excessive formalism breeds rigidity, encourages the emergence of parallel flows and saturates teams’ capacity for action.
For CEOs, COOs, CFOs and CIOs, the challenge lies in optimizing processes through a culture oforchestration. It is through this rigorous simplification that organizations unleash their ability to execute, and secure their growth trajectory in the long term.
FAQ – 6 questions / answers
Because a process can be coherent on paper, yet ill-suited to operational realities. The article shows that failures often stem from invisible frictions built in at the design stage: excessive rigidity, overly fragmented tools or too many validations.
A ghost process is a parallel mode of operation created by teams to bypass an official process that is too cumbersome or too slow. This can take the form of a personal Excel file, messaging exchanges or manual follow-up outside the system. These practices often make it possible to maintain activity, but they weaken governance and traceability.
Even when applications are technically connected, users often have to navigate between several interfaces to process a file. This succession of contextual changes tires the user’s attention, lengthens processing times and increases the risk of errors linked to cut-and-paste or dispersed searches.
Because too many controls can lead to a dilution of responsibilities. When too many people sign off on a file, everyone assumes that the actual control has already been carried out by someone else. The result is paradoxical: more slowness, less responsiveness and sometimes less vigilance in terms of content.
A good indicator is to observe how teams actually work. If they use additional files, personal notes or unplanned communication channels to move a file forward, this is often a sign that the official process is not adapted. The article also recommends measuring the number of tools required, and questioning the real usefulness of each validation.
The best approach is to simplify without losing control. This involves design aligned with actual usage, more fluid orchestration between tools, and management by exception, where human intervention is concentrated on high-risk or non-standard cases. The aim is to give teams back speed, responsibility and clarity.
