Somewhere between “this approval process is frustrating” and “we need to transform the business,” there should probably be a conversation.
Preferably before anyone names the initiative.
When work is slow, confusing, or unnecessarily difficult, the frustration is real. But frustration tells you that something needs attention. It doesn’t tell you what kind of change will help.
That distinction matters. You can invest in a new platform transformation and still have the same bottleneck. You can train people on a process that shouldn’t exist. You can automate a task and discover you’ve made an unnecessary step much more efficient.
Transformation changes how a business operates at a fundamental level. Many problems need a more focused response.
Meaningful improvement starts with a better diagnosis. The scale of the response should follow from there.
The same complaint can mean different things
“People aren’t using the system.”
It sounds like an adoption problem. Schedule training, explain the benefits, and remind everyone that using the system is expected.
That might work if employees don’t know how to use it.
But what if they do know, and entering information means duplicating work they’ve already done elsewhere? What if the system doesn’t support a task they’re responsible for? What if leaders ask for updates by email anyway, making the system feel like extra administration?
Those possibilities require different responses. Training can build skills. It won’t remove duplicate entry or change a manager’s expectations.
Before deciding employees need to change their behavior, find out what happens when they try to do the work.
The same applies to a slow approval process. Requests may stall because they arrive incomplete, because nobody knows who can approve them, or because every decision waits on one overextended leader.
A clearer form could address the first problem. Defined decision authority could address the second. The third may require delegating certain decisions or reconsidering which requests need approval at all.
A new workflow tool could help route requests and show their status. But it cannot decide how much authority the organization is willing to delegate.
The complaint describes what people experience. The diagnosis explains what needs to change.
Skipping that distinction makes it easy to choose a solution that addresses the most visible symptom while leaving its cause intact.
Try this before discussing solutions
Think of one recurring problem your team has already given a label: poor adoption, slow approvals, unreliable reporting, too much manual work.
Then complete these three sentences:
- We keep saying the problem is: ______.
- What we can actually observe is: ______.
- Before choosing a solution, we need to find out: ______.
For example:
“We keep saying the problem is unreliable reporting.”
“What we can actually observe is that two departments report different totals for the same projects.”
“Before choosing a solution, we need to find out whether they use the same definitions, source information, and reporting dates.”
You may eventually need better reporting technology. But if departments disagree about what counts as an active project, a new dashboard will display that disagreement more attractively.
The exercise is useful because it separates an assumption from something you can investigate. You can compare the reports, trace the information, and ask the people preparing them how they arrive at their numbers.
That gives you a basis for deciding whether the answer is shared definitions, a process change, better integration, or something broader.
Match the investment to what you find
Once the cause is clearer, the response becomes easier to justify.
If a step no longer serves a purpose, simplify the process. If useful work breaks down at a handoff, clarify what needs to be passed along and who acts next. If people lack the skills to use an appropriate tool, provide training tied to their actual tasks.
Automation makes sense when necessary work follows rules you can define. Technology investment makes sense when existing tools cannot reasonably support the requirements.
Some problems involve several of these at once. Improving approvals may require clearer authority, a simpler request process, and automation.
The goal is to address the cause without adding complexity the work doesn’t need.
Agree on the result you expect, too. “Improve approvals” leaves plenty of room for activity without improvement. “Complete routine requests within two business days” gives you something to evaluate.
Then check whether the change achieved that result and whether it created problems elsewhere. Faster approvals are less useful if the team now spends twice as long preparing each request.
When transformation is the right response
A focused improvement won’t always be sufficient.
An organization may have outgrown its operating model. Its strategy may require capabilities it doesn’t have. Problems may persist across departments because priorities, responsibilities, and systems no longer support how the business needs to work.
In those situations, repeatedly fixing individual processes can leave the larger problem untouched.
Consider the reporting example. Shared definitions might resolve the discrepancy. But if leaders cannot agree on what they need to measure because they have conflicting business priorities, the work extends beyond reporting. Better data alone won’t resolve that disagreement.
Broader transformation is warranted when achieving the outcome requires coordinated changes across the organization. Understanding those dependencies helps establish the scope and sequence of the work.
The title of the initiative should come after that understanding.
Start your next plan with the problem
As you consider next year’s priorities, look closely at proposals that already name a solution: replace the platform, automate the process, retrain the team.
Ask what evidence supports that choice and what outcome it needs to deliver.
A well-defined problem may justify a major investment. It may also reveal a focused improvement you can make sooner. Either is a useful result of the conversation.
At Advisicon, we help organizations work through those decisions, connecting business needs with the right process, skills, and technology changes.
If you’re weighing an improvement or a larger transformation, let’s start with what needs to change and why.
