A single approval step that sits on one person's desk can slow an entire process, however efficient every other step is. Fixing that step directly is often more effective than launching a broad initiative.

This is the focused, project-based work that feeds into the wider operational excellence practice. It is also often where a specific pain point found in a finance function assessment gets resolved.

Which processes are worth targeting

A process that is slow enough to cause business friction, error-prone enough to create rework or compliance risk, or so dependent on one person that their absence creates an operational problem is worth a focused project. A process that is merely imperfect, with no clear harm, is a lower priority.

Mapping before fixing

A common mistake in process improvement is jumping to a solution before understanding why the current process works the way it does. A process that looks inefficient from the outside sometimes exists that way for a reason nobody documented, and skipping the mapping step risks removing a safeguard.

A hypothetical example

Consider an approval process designed for a small, founder-run company that still routes every decision through one person after the company has grown. Department heads could handle routine decisions themselves, but nobody revisited the process as the organization changed.

Sequencing several improvements

When several processes need attention, we prioritize by which one causes the most immediate business friction, not necessarily the one that looks most broken on paper. The process costing the most time or creating the most risk is not always the one people complain about loudest.

What the redesign produces

The output is a mapped current-state process, a redesigned target-state process with clear ownership at each step, and an implementation plan that avoids disrupting operations during the change. It is often commissioned alongside productivity improvement advisory, since a redesigned process is usually how a productivity gain is realized.