How to understand that business processes are working incorrectly

Business processes rarely break down in a single day. Usually, it all starts with little things: a manager takes longer to reply to a client, a request gets lost in a chat, a manager asks about the same status several times, and preparing a report requires gathering data from several spreadsheets.

Taken individually, such situations might seem like ordinary working moments. But if they repeat daily, it is already a signal: processes are not coping with the business load.

This becomes especially noticeable during company growth. The number of clients increases, the team expands, more orders and tasks appear - while the old way of organizing work remains the same. As a result, the business works more, but not necessarily more efficiently.

What is an "incorrect" business process?

Not every process has to be complex or fully automated. A simple process can also work well if the team understands:

• what needs to be done

• who is responsible for it

• within what timeframe

• where to find the necessary information

• what should happen after the work is completed

The problem arises when these things depend on the memory of a specific employee, verbal agreements, or constant clarifications.

For example, a client left a request. The manager wrote it down in a spreadsheet, then discussed the details in a messenger, passed part of the information to a colleague over the phone, and simply memorized the next piece of information.

Formally, the process takes place. But it is not systemic. If the manager falls ill, goes on vacation, or simply does not have time to pass on the information, the process stops. It is precisely these dependencies that most often show that business processes need changes.

First signal - the team is constantly clarifying things

What stage is this order at?

Who is handling the client now?

Have you already sent the document?

When does the task need to be completed?

And where is the latest version of the file?

If such questions regularly appear in work chats, the problem might not be with the team's communication. Perhaps the information simply does not have a clear place. When every employee knows where to look for the current status, the person responsible, the deadline, or the history of the work, the need for constant clarifications decreases. If the team spends a significant part of the day figuring out what is happening, rather than on the work itself, the process is already creating an unnecessary load.

Second signal - tasks get lost

A task could have been set in a chat, mentioned in a meeting, or passed over the phone. At the moment of agreement, everyone understood everything. Two days later, it turns out that nobody completed it. Usually, after this, they start looking for someone to blame: someone didn't hear, forgot, didn't understand, or didn't see the message. But the problem is often deeper.

If important tasks do not have a designated place, a responsible person, and a deadline, their execution depends on people's memory. This works as long as there are few tasks. When there are dozens or hundreds of them, a memory-based system stops working.

Third signal - the manager becomes the "center" of all processes

Another sign of trouble - employees constantly approach the manager even with questions they could resolve independently. In such cases, the manager becomes the system that connects all parts of the business. At a small stage, this might work. But with the growth of the company, this model becomes a limitation. The manager physically cannot be present in every process.

If work slows down without their constant intervention, it is a signal that the processes are not autonomous enough.

Fourth signal - the same information is stored in several places

Excel, Google Sheets, messengers, mail, CRM, drive folders - each tool individually can be convenient. The problem begins when the team uses them in parallel for the exact same information.

For example, a manager updated a client's status in the CRM but did not change it in the spreadsheet. Another employee opens the spreadsheet and sees the old data.

Which information is correct? The team spends time not on work, but on checking which data is up-to-date.

Duplication of information creates another problem - errors. The more times an employee transfers the same data manually, the higher the probability of missing something or entering it incorrectly.

Fifth signal - reports take longer to prepare than the actual work

The manager needs numbers, but the team spends hours gathering them. One employee sends a spreadsheet, the second - information from the CRM, the third - data from the bank. Then everything needs to be consolidated, verified, and brought into a single format. As a result, the report shows the situation not in real-time, but a few days or weeks after it occurred. 

This is especially dangerous for finances. If a manager does not see actual revenues, expenses, payments, or project results, they make decisions based on an incomplete picture.

A good reporting process should not start with the words: "Let's ask everyone to send the numbers". Data should accumulate during the work process.

Sixth signal - the company grows, and chaos increases

This is one of the most obvious signals. When there are more clients, the business result should increase. But if the amount of manual work, errors, clarifications, and internal messages grows proportionally with the number of orders, the company runs into its own processes.

For example, the team processes 10 orders per month without problems, 50 - already harder, 100 - delays appear, 200 - the manager begins to personally verify almost every operation.

This means that the business scaled the volume of work, but did not scale the way it is organized.

How to distinguish a process problem from an employee problem?

When something goes wrong, the easiest thing to do is blame a person. But if the same problem repeats with different people, it is worth checking the process itself.

Ask:

Is it clear to the employee what exactly needs to be done?

Do they see the deadline?

Is the responsible person defined?

Do they have all the necessary information?

If there are no clear answers to these questions, demanding more discipline from the team is not enough. First, you need to make the process clear.

How to check your processes?

You do not need to analyze the whole company at once. Choose one process that creates problems most often. For example, sales, working with leads, order execution, or project management.

Go through it from start to finish. See where delays occur, where information is transferred manually, where constant clarifications are needed, and at which stages errors occur.

It is useful to check five simple things:

• is there a clear start and completion of the process

• is a responsible person defined at each stage

• does the team see the current status

• is the information stored in one clear place

• can the result of the process be understood without additional explanations

If the answer to several questions is "no", this is already a reason for change.

What to do if processes really don't work?

There is no need to rebuild the entire company at once. The best approach is to start with the most problematic area.

For example, if tasks get lost, first organize the work with tasks. If there are problems with payments - streamline financial operations. If managers do not see the history of work with a client - combine information about sales and communication.

The next step is to determine what can be automated.

But automation should be the final stage, not a way to hide chaos. First, you need to understand how the process should work, and only then transfer it to a system.

How Keruj helps make processes transparent

Keruj combines key elements of a company's work in one environment: clients, sales, tasks, projects, documents, communication, warehouse, and finance. This allows seeing not individual actions, but the connection between them.

For example, working with a client can start with a lead in opportunities and then move into a project with specific tasks, documents, and financial operations. At the same time, the team sees who is responsible for the work, what stage it is at, and what needs to be done next. The manager does not need to gather this information manually from different sources. They get the picture directly from the workflows.

Systemization is not about more rules. Sometimes a systemic approach is associated with a large number of regulations, tables, and complex instructions. In fact, it is quite the opposite. A good process makes work simpler.

An employee does not have to remember dozens of details - they see the necessary information. A manager does not need to ask for status every hour - they see it in the system. The team does not need to search for the latest agreement in hundreds of messages - it is linked to the corresponding process. That is why systemization does not limit business. It removes unnecessary actions that appear due to the lack of clear organization of work.