| name | process-design |
| description | Apply process-design whenever the user needs to create, improve, or streamline a workflow or operational process. Triggers on phrases like "design a workflow", "improve this process", "streamline this", "too many handoffs", "the process is too slow", "automate or not?", "how should we structure this pipeline?". Use proactively when a user describes repeated operational friction, bottlenecks, or unclear ownership in how work moves through a system. |
Process Design
Core principle: A good process makes the right thing easy and the wrong thing visible. Map reality before designing the future — most process problems come from optimizing a process nobody actually follows.
When to Use This Skill
- A workflow exists but is slow, error-prone, or frustrating
- A new capability needs an operational process built from scratch
- Handoffs between teams or systems are causing delays or errors
- Someone asks whether to automate a step or keep it manual
- Work moves through multiple stages and nobody owns end-to-end flow
Core Methodology
Step 1: Map the Current State
Document the process as it actually works, not as it's documented. For each step, capture:
- What happens (the action)
- Who does it (role, not person)
- What triggers it (input or event)
- What it produces (output)
- How long it takes (cycle time) and how long work waits before it starts (wait time)
Talk to the people who do the work, not those who designed it. If this is a new process with no current state, skip to Step 3 and use the waste categories as design constraints.
Step 2: Identify Waste
Examine each step through Lean's eight waste categories:
- Waiting — work sitting idle between steps (most common process waste)
- Handoffs — each transfer risks information loss and adds delay
- Overprocessing — steps that add effort but not value (excessive approvals, redundant reviews)
- Defects — errors that cause rework downstream
- Overproduction — producing more than the next step can consume
- Motion — unnecessary context-switching or tool-switching
- Transport — moving information between systems unnecessarily
- Unused talent — skilled people doing work that doesn't require their expertise
Classify each step: value-creating (customer would pay for it), necessary non-value (required but not value-adding, like compliance), or pure waste (eliminable).
Step 3: Design the Future State
Apply these principles in order:
- Eliminate — remove pure waste steps entirely
- Combine — merge steps sharing owner or context to reduce handoffs
- Parallelize — identify independent steps and run them simultaneously
- Simplify — reduce variability with checklists, templates, defaults
- Add feedback loops — quality checks close to where errors originate, not at the end
For each remaining step, choose automation level:
- Fully automate — low variability, clear rules, high volume, low error cost
- Augment with tools — moderate variability, benefits from human judgment, tool-assisted
- Keep manual — high variability, requires expertise/judgment, low volume
Step 4: Define Ownership and SLAs
- Step owner — accountable for that step's throughput and quality
- Process owner — accountable for end-to-end cycle time and outcome
- SLAs — target cycle time per step and max wait time between steps
For remaining handoffs, define the contract: output format, what "done" means, how downstream signals problems back upstream.
Step 5: Plan the Transition
Moving from current to future state is itself a process:
- Sequencing — make changes that reduce most waste with least disruption first
- Parallel run period — run old and new simultaneously until new proves reliable
- Metrics to track — end-to-end cycle time, defect rate, throughput, wait time at each handoff
- Review cadence — process review after 2-4 weeks to catch design flaws early
Output Format
🎯 Process Objective
- Process name: [name]
- Goal: [what this produces and for whom]
- Current end-to-end cycle time: [if redesign — measured, not estimated]
- Target end-to-end cycle time: [goal]
📋 Current State Map
| Step | Action | Owner | Trigger | Output | Cycle Time | Wait Time | Value Class |
|---|
| 1 | [action] | [role] | [input/event] | [output] | [time] | [time] | Value / Necessary / Waste |
🔍 Waste Analysis
| Waste Type | Where Found | Impact | Recommendation |
|---|
| [e.g., Waiting] | [step or handoff] | [delay/cost/error rate] | [eliminate/reduce/accept] |
📊 Future State Map
| Step | Action | Owner | Automation Level | Cycle Time | SLA |
|---|
| 1 | [action] | [role] | Full / Augmented / Manual | [time] | [max wait] |
✅ Transition Plan
- Phase 1: [first changes — highest waste reduction, lowest disruption]
- Phase 2: [next changes]
- Parallel run: [duration and success criteria]
- Review date: [when to assess and iterate]
⚠️ Risks and Metrics
- Key risk: [what could go wrong in transition]
- Metrics to track: [cycle time, defect rate, throughput, wait time]
- Process owner: [who owns end-to-end performance]
Thinking Triggers
- "Am I designing from how the process actually works, or how it's documented?"
- "Which steps are waiting vs. working — and can I eliminate the waiting?"
- "If I automate this step, am I automating value or automating waste?"
- "Who owns the end-to-end outcome, not just their individual step?"
- "What happens when this runs on a bad day — with interruptions, absences, ambiguity?"
Common Traps
Designing from documentation: The documented process is always wrong. Map what people actually do, then improve that.
Automating waste: Automating a bad process makes it fail faster. Eliminate waste first, then automate what remains.
Ignoring the humans: A process optimal on paper but requiring heroic effort, perfect handoffs, and zero context-switching will fail. Design for real humans with interruptions and bad days.
No feedback loops: A process without feedback degrades silently. Build signals that surface problems close to where they originate.
Big-bang transitions: Switching everything at once maximizes risk. Sequence changes, run in parallel, iterate.
