Before you can improve, digitize or document a process, it is worth taking a close look at how your people carry it out every day. That includes the Excel sheet that has proven itself in the team and the quick word across the hallway that keeps many orders moving.
This article compares the common process discovery methods: what they deliver, how much effort they take and where their limits lie. It shows how the as-is map feeds process improvement, and it introduces a newer approach that brings the strengths of the interview to many conversations at once.
What Is an As-Is Process?
An as-is process is a workflow as it actually runs today, including the exceptions, workarounds and informal agreements. The to-be process is the target state after an improvement. As-is process mapping records the current state first, so that every change builds on facts.
Many digitization and improvement projects start with the to-be. A target process gets drawn, a tool gets selected, a workflow gets configured. The as-is often gets little time, because everyone feels they already know the workflow well.
In fact, each level knows its own part:
- Management knows the process as it was introduced three years ago.
- The team lead knows the official version.
- The clerk knows the version that works in daily practice, with all the exceptions, edge cases and workarounds that have accumulated over the years.
A new system works best when it builds on this lived workflow. If it only models the process as management described it, the team soon runs into real cases that have no place in it. People then return to the proven spreadsheets on the department share.
As-is capture is therefore the foundation every sound decision rests on. What is worth automating? Where does duplicate work happen? Which knowledge depends on a single person, in other words, how high is the bus factor?
The classic process discovery methods compared
There are four established ways to capture as-is processes. Each has its strengths and its limits, and knowing both lets you choose the right method for each situation.
The one-on-one interview: thorough and time-intensive
The structured one-on-one interview is the gold standard of process discovery. An interviewer sits down with an employee and works through their daily routine. What comes in, what goes out, which systems, which exceptions, who is involved?
The strengths: In a private conversation, people speak openly about how they work. That includes things that rarely come up in a large group, for instance that they regularly shorten the official approval process because it would otherwise take two days. The interviewer can ask follow-ups, surface contradictions and go deep.
The limits: The one-on-one interview takes time. Preparation, one to two hours of conversation, write-up, minutes and sign-off quickly add up to half a person-day per interviewee for the interviewer. With 40 employees, that is several weeks. In practice, this often means that mainly managers get interviewed, and their view sits closer to the to-be than to the lived as-is.
The quality also depends heavily on the interviewer. The minutes then need to be consolidated into consistent documentation, and it helps to plan time for that step from the start.
The workshop: fast and shared
The process workshop brings everyone involved to one table. Brown paper rolls hang on the wall, or there is a digital whiteboard, and the process gets modelled together with sticky notes.
The strengths: In half a day, a shared picture emerges. Interfaces between departments become visible because both sides are in the room. The workshop also creates buy-in, since people have drawn "their" process themselves.
The limits: Hierarchy plays a part in a group. When the CEO or the department head is in the room, the group tends to describe the process as it was intended. There is a term for this, the HiPPO problem (Highest Paid Person's Opinion). The view of the highest-ranking person shapes the result, even if the clerk in the third row knows daily practice more precisely.
A workshop also looks for one shared version. If sales region North lives the process differently than sales region South, often only one of the two variants ends up on the poster. And finding a slot where eight people are available at the same time takes some lead time in a mid-sized company.
Observation: close to the action
In so-called shadowing, an observer accompanies employees through their workday and logs what actually happens.
The strengths: Observation captures things that rarely come up in conversation because they have long become second nature. Examples are the three system switches for a single transaction, the lookup in a personal notebook or the call to the colleague "who always knows".
The limits: The effort is even higher than for interviews, with whole days per person. There is also the observer effect. People who are being watched often work a little more tidily and closer to the rules, so some everyday shortcuts do not show up. Observation also only sees what happens during the observation window. Month-end closing, vacation coverage or a complaint case take place at other times.
Self-documentation: straight from the source
The idea is an obvious one: employees document their processes themselves, using a template and with a deadline.
The strengths: No interviewer is needed, many people can write in parallel, and the expertise comes straight from the source.
The limits: Self-documentation competes with day-to-day business, and the customer on the phone understandably comes first. The results often vary widely, from two pages of prose to five bullet points, and are hard to compare. People who have been running a process for years also consider much of it self-evident and do not write it down at all. The implicit steps in particular rarely make it onto paper.
Comparison table: process discovery methods
| Method | Effort | Depth | Captures the real as-is? | Typical limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| One-on-one interview | High (rough guide: ~½ person-day per employee for the interviewer) | Very high | Yes, with a good interviewer | Time-intensive, so often limited to managers |
| Workshop | Medium (½-1 day, everyone at once) | Medium | Limited | HiPPO problem, variants get merged into one version |
| Observation | Very high (days per person) | High | Partially | Observer effect, rare edge cases fall outside the window |
| Self-documentation | Low (on paper) | Low | Rarely | Competes with day-to-day business, implicit knowledge missing |
The table shows a trade-off. The methods that capture the real as-is most precisely take a lot of time per person, and the low-effort methods capture it less precisely. That is why as-is capture often gets too little time in practice.
The new approach: AI-led interviews
Recently, a fifth option has emerged that eases this trade-off considerably. In AI process documentation, an AI conducts the one-on-one interviews in a chat, around 15 to 20 minutes per conversation, whenever it fits into the workday.
This shifts the math. In classic interviewing, the interviewer's time was the scarce factor, with scheduling, availability and write-up. Twenty minutes, on the other hand, are easy to find for the people being interviewed. When the AI conducts the conversations, you can interview everyone involved, and the documentation shows the workflow as the people involved experience it in daily practice.
wissa.ai implements this for mid-sized companies and builds on the strengths of the classic methods:
- Following the snowball principle, colleagues someone names in an interview ("Max and Hanne handle invoice approval") are suggested for the next conversation. The discovery works its way from knowledge holder to knowledge holder, and the interview list grows with the conversations.
- Contradictions stay visible. Management says "it runs through SAP", the team says "it runs through a spreadsheet on the group share". Both statements stand side by side with their source, and a human decides with one click which one holds.
- The documentation is living. It updates itself after every conversation with a traceable diff against the previous version, and every statement can be traced back to its interview.
- Every conversation is a one-on-one, so everyone can calmly describe how they actually do their work.
The page on process documentation software shows the features in detail. For German mid-sized companies, this also means involving the works council and data protection early, since introducing such software usually requires works council codetermination under section 87(1) no. 6 BetrVG. With every vendor, check that the software does not rate people, meaning no scores and no ranking, that it is hosted in the EU and that a data processing agreement under Art. 28 GDPR is in place. Participation is best kept voluntary, because the workforce's trust is what allows people to talk openly about their work.
From As-Is to To-Be: Using the Map for Process Improvement
The as-is map becomes useful for process improvement once you read it for weak spots and turn them into a to-be process. Four steps have proven themselves:
- Mark the weak spots. Go through the map and mark duplicate work, media breaks, waiting times, handovers by word of mouth and steps only one person knows. A process analysis offers methods for this, such as weak-point analysis or value stream analysis.
- Prioritize. Not every weak spot is worth the same. Rate each one by frequency, impact and effort, and start with the two or three that occur often and cost little to fix.
- Design the to-be process. Change only what the weak spot requires, and keep what works. Describe the to-be in the same format as the as-is, so that everyone can see the difference.
- Try it and measure. Run the new workflow with a small group for a few weeks, and compare lead time or error rate with the as-is. Then update the documentation, so that the new state becomes the next as-is.
The guide on process optimization describes methods such as Lean and Kaizen for this step. Many improvements need no new software. A clear handover rule, one list instead of two or a backup for a critical step often bring more than a new tool. Where software or AI can help, the guide on AI process optimization shows where it pays off and why the documented as-is comes first.
Which method for which situation?
A closing assessment:
- A single, critical process with few people involved: Classic one-on-one interviews by an experienced person remain a good choice.
- Interface conflicts between two departments: A moderated workshop, ideally among peers without hierarchy in the room and with prior one-on-ones as the foundation.
- Suspected hidden effort at one workstation: Targeted observation as a supplement to conversations.
- The process landscape of the whole company, 10 to 500 employees: Here the effort of the classic methods quickly becomes very large. AI-led interviews bring interview depth to this breadth.
Conclusion
You capture the real as-is most precisely in one-on-one conversations with the people doing the work. Classically that takes a lot of interviewer time. For individual processes, interviews, workshops and observation remain good tools, each with the limits described above. If you want to map the process landscape of an entire company, AI-led one-on-one interviews give you interview depth without weeks of interviewer time.
The result feeds two documents: the process map as an overview of all processes, and a process description per process with steps, roles and edge cases. From there, the path to the to-be process and to continuous improvement is short.
If you would like to map your company's process landscape together with your team, wissa.ai conducts the conversations for you in a chat, around 15 to 20 minutes per conversation, with living documentation as the result. A free trial package to start with (10 credits, once per company, terms) usually covers a first interview. Try one interview for free
FAQ
What is an as-is process?
An as-is process is a workflow as it actually runs today, with its exceptions, workarounds and informal agreements. It often differs from the version in the manual. As-is process mapping records this current state, usually through interviews, workshops or observation, so that improvements build on how the work really happens.
What is the difference between as-is and to-be process mapping?
As-is process mapping records how a workflow runs today. To-be process mapping describes how it should run after an improvement. The as-is comes first, because the to-be can only fix weak spots you have seen. Both are best written in the same format, so that the changes between them are easy to see.
How long does as-is process capture take at a mid-sized company?
It depends on the method. As a rough guide, classic one-on-one interviews cost the interviewer about half a person-day per interviewee, so with 40 employees several weeks. Workshops deliver a shared overview in one to two days, with the limits described above. AI-led interviews run in parallel, around 15 to 20 minutes per conversation and whenever it suits the interviewees, and the documentation is generated along the way.
Why isn't the existing QM manual enough as as-is documentation?
A QM manual usually describes the to-be at the time it was written. Processes keep evolving, with new tools, new colleagues and new workarounds, and without regular updates the manual stays at its original state. Comparing the manual against reality is itself a good first step of as-is capture: where does daily practice deviate, and why?
What is the HiPPO problem in process workshops?
HiPPO stands for "Highest Paid Person's Opinion". In group settings, the view of the highest-ranking person shapes the result, because in a large group people rarely contradict it openly. In process discovery, the official process then easily ends up in the documentation. One-on-ones without hierarchy in the room give the lived workflow more space.
Will employees even participate in process discovery interviews?
Yes, when the setting is right, meaning participation is voluntary, the conversations describe workflows, roles and systems, and the effort stays small. Many people find talking about their own work for a quarter of an hour a sign of appreciation, because someone takes a genuine interest in their daily work. Involve the works council early, if one exists.
What do I do with the results of the as-is capture?
The as-is documentation is the foundation for everything that follows. Use it to spot weak spots such as duplicate work, media breaks and knowledge tied to individuals, to decide on solid ground what gets digitized or improved, and to derive onboarding materials for new employees. Plan the upkeep right away, so the documentation still shows the lived workflow two years from now.
Sources
- Polanyi, M.: The Tacit Dimension. Garden City (NY): Doubleday, 1966 (on the tacit knowledge that self-documentation misses)
- Kaushik, A.: Web Analytics: An Hour a Day. Sybex, 2007 (the term "HiPPO")