The Foundation That Makes Everything Else Credible
Why Current State Analysis Is Where Most Consultants Fail
The typical consultant approach:
Shows up Week 3 with a PowerPoint:
“We’ve identified that your customer onboarding process is inefficient. Here’s our recommendation…”
Client reaction:
- “How do you know it’s inefficient?”
- “Did you actually see how we do this?”
- “That’s not how it works here.”
- “You don’t understand our business.”
- “This is generic consultant BS.”
Trust destroyed. Credibility gone. Implementation doomed.
The rigorous consultant approach:
Shows up Week 3 with detailed process documentation:
“We shadowed 3 onboarding specialists for 12 hours each. We documented every step. We timed each activity. We interviewed customers. Here’s exactly what happens…”
Client reaction:
- “Holy shit, you actually did the work.”
- “You understand our process better than we do.”
- “I didn’t realize it was this complicated.”
- “Now I see why this takes so long.”
- “Okay, we trust you. What do we do?”
Trust established. Credibility earned. Implementation possible.
What Current State Analysis Actually Is
Current State Analysis is the rigorous, detailed documentation of how work actually gets done today—not how the org chart says it should get done, not how the process manual describes it, but how it really happens in practice.
It includes:
- Process Documentation – Every step, every handoff, every decision point
- Time Analysis – How long each step takes, where delays occur
- Data Flow Mapping – What information is needed, where it comes from, where it goes
- System & Tool Usage – What technology is used, how, and with what pain points
- Exception Handling – What happens when things go wrong (which is often)
- Workaround Documentation – The unofficial processes people actually use
- Waste Identification – Non-value-added activities, rework, waiting time
- Pain Point Inventory – What frustrates people about the current state
- Performance Metrics – Cycle time, error rates, throughput, quality measures
- Stakeholder Impact – Who’s affected, how, and how much
Current State Analysis is forensic work. You’re a detective, not a theorist.
The Current State Analysis Framework
Layer 1: Process Flow Documentation
This is the backbone of current state analysis.
What you’re documenting:
- Every step in the process from start to finish
- Who does each step (role/person)
- What inputs are required for each step
- What outputs are produced
- What decisions are made and by whom
- Where handoffs occur between people/departments
- What systems/tools are used at each step
- How long each step takes (average and range)
- Where the process breaks or loops back
Process Mapping Technique: The Detailed Walkthrough
Step 1: Identify Process Boundaries
Start point: What triggers this process to begin? End point: What indicates the process is complete?
Example: Customer Onboarding Process
- Start: Sales marks deal as “Closed Won” in CRM
- End: Customer successfully using product, onboarding tasks complete
Don’t start mapping until you have clear boundaries.
Step 2: Shadow the Process (Gemba Walk)
Gemba = “the actual place” in Japanese (Lean manufacturing concept)
You must observe the work where it actually happens.
For Customer Onboarding, this means:
- Sitting with the Customer Success rep during onboarding calls
- Watching the technical implementation specialist configure accounts
- Observing the handoff from Sales to CS
- Sitting in customer training sessions
- Reading the actual emails that get sent
- Looking at the actual spreadsheets that track progress
Do NOT just interview people about the process. Watch it happen.
How long to observe:
- Simple processes: 3-5 complete instances
- Complex processes: 8-10 complete instances
- High-variability processes: 15-20 instances
In the Customer Onboarding example:
- Shadow at least 6-8 complete onboardings from start to finish
- Mix of customer types (small, large, simple, complex)
- Mix of CSRs (experienced, new, different styles)
You’re looking for:
- The standard path (what usually happens)
- Common variations (what happens in different scenarios)
- Exception handling (what happens when things go wrong)
- Workarounds (what people do that’s not in the manual)
Step 3: Create the As-Is Process Map
Use standard process mapping notation:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ CUSTOMER ONBOARDING PROCESS - CURRENT STATE │
│ Start: Deal Closed Won → End: Customer Successfully Using │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
SALES TEAM
│
│ Deal marked "Closed Won" in Salesforce
│ [MANUAL ENTRY]
│ Time: 5 minutes
│
▼
│ Sales sends internal email to CS team: "New customer"
│ [EMAIL - No standard template, details often missing]
│ Time: 10 minutes to write email
│ WAIT: 2-24 hours for CS to see email
│
▼
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
CUSTOMER SUCCESS TEAM
│
│ CS Manager checks email, assigns to CSR
│ [MANUAL - No automated routing]
│ Time: 15 minutes
│ WAIT: 1-3 days until assigned CSR available
│
│ ❌ FAILURE POINT: 20% of new customers fall through cracks
│ (Email missed, assigned to person on vacation, etc.)
│
▼
│ Assigned CSR manually creates customer record in CS tool
│ [DUPLICATE DATA ENTRY - Not synced with CRM]
│ Time: 20 minutes
│ ERROR RATE: 15% (typos, missing info)
│
▼
│ CSR calls Sales to get details (what was promised?)
│ [PHONE/EMAIL BACK-AND-FORTH]
│ Time: 30 minutes + waiting for response
│ WAIT: 4-48 hours for Sales to respond with details
│
│ ❌ FAILURE POINT: Sales can't remember specifics,
│ customer expectations unclear
│
▼
│ CSR sends welcome email to customer (manual)
│ [EMAIL - Uses personal template, inconsistent]
│ Time: 15 minutes to customize and send
│ DELAY: Customer often receives 3-7 days after purchase
│
│ ❌ PAIN POINT: Customer frustration at delay
│ "I just paid $50K and no one contacted me for a week"
│
▼
│ CSR schedules kickoff call with customer
│ [CALENDAR BACK-AND-FORTH]
│ Time: 20 minutes + coordination time
│ WAIT: 3-10 days until mutual availability
│
▼
│ CSR conducts kickoff call (60 minutes)
│ [ZOOM CALL]
│ Time: 60 minutes + 15 min prep
│
│ WORKAROUND: CSR maintains personal notes in Google Doc
│ (not in official system)
│
▼
│ CSR creates project plan for customer (manual)
│ [SPREADSHEET - Custom per customer]
│ Time: 45 minutes
│ VARIATION: Every CSR has different template
│
▼
│ CSR requests technical setup from Implementation team
│ [EMAIL or Slack message]
│ Time: 10 minutes
│ WAIT: 2-5 days until Implementation picks it up
│
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
IMPLEMENTATION TEAM
│
│ Implementation Specialist receives request
│ [MANUAL - Checks email/Slack periodically]
│ Time: N/A
│ ❌ FAILURE POINT: Requests get lost, no tracking system
│
▼
│ Implementation Specialist schedules technical call
│ [CALENDAR COORDINATION]
│ Time: 15 minutes + coordination
│ WAIT: 3-7 days until availability
│
▼
│ Technical setup call with customer (90 minutes)
│ [ZOOM + Screen Sharing]
│ Time: 90 minutes + 30 min prep
│
▼
│ Implementation Specialist configures account
│ [PRODUCT ADMIN PANEL - Manual configuration]
│ Time: 60-120 minutes depending on complexity
│ ERROR RATE: 10% (configuration mistakes)
│
│ WORKAROUND: Implementation keeps checklist in personal Notion
│
▼
│ Implementation emails CSR: "Setup complete"
│ [EMAIL - No structured handoff]
│ Time: 5 minutes
│ DELAY: CSR doesn't always see email promptly
│
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
CUSTOMER SUCCESS TEAM (CONTINUED)
│
│ CSR schedules training session(s) with customer
│ [CALENDAR + TRAINING MATERIALS]
│ Time: 30 minutes prep per session
│ WAIT: 1-2 weeks until scheduled
│
▼
│ CSR conducts training (2-4 sessions, 60 min each)
│ [ZOOM + SLIDE DECK]
│ Time: 120-240 minutes + prep time
│
│ PAIN POINT: Training materials outdated,
│ CSR spends time fixing slides before each session
│
▼
│ CSR follows up with customer multiple times
│ [EMAIL + CALLS]
│ Time: 2-4 hours over 2-3 weeks
│
│ ❌ FAILURE POINT: No clear definition of "onboarding complete"
│ CSR judgment call when to close out
│
▼
│ CSR marks customer as "onboarded" in CS tool
│ [MANUAL STATUS CHANGE]
│ Time: 2 minutes
│
│ PROBLEM: No validation that customer actually using product
│
▼
END: Customer "onboarded"
Time from deal close to fully onboarded: 28-45 days (avg 35 days)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
TOTAL PROCESS METRICS (CURRENT STATE):
Cycle Time: 28-45 days (average 35 days)
Touch Points: 18 distinct interactions with customer
Internal Labor: 8-12 hours per onboarding (CS + Implementation)
Email/Slack Messages: 25-40 messages per onboarding
Handoffs: 6 handoffs between teams/people
Waiting Time: 15-25 days of waiting (customer or team waiting)
Active Work Time: 8-12 hours
Efficiency: 8-12 hours work / 35 days elapsed = 1.4% efficient
(98.6% of time is waiting)
Error Rate: 15% require rework or corrections
Failure Rate: 5% of onboardings result in cancellation during process
Customer Satisfaction: 6.8/10 average (onboarding survey)
Cost per Onboarding:
- CS time: 8 hours × $50/hr = $400
- Implementation time: 4 hours × $75/hr = $300
- Sales follow-up time: 2 hours × $75/hr = $150
Total: $850/customer
Opportunity Cost:
- CS team could handle 30% more customers if process streamlined
- Implementation backlog creates bottleneck (delays other work)
- Sales time spent clarifying = not selling new deals
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
This level of detail is what separates real analysis from consultant theater.
Process Map: Visual Formats
You can represent this in multiple formats depending on audience.
Format 1: Swimlane Diagram (for workshops and executive presentations)
╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║ CUSTOMER ONBOARDING ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝
SALES
│ Close deal → Email CS team ────────────────────────→ Wait
│ │
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
CUSTOMER SUCCESS
│
← CS Manager assigns CSR ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ┘
↓
Create CS record (manual)
↓
Call Sales for details
↓
Wait for response ───────────→ Wait
↓
Send welcome email
↓
Schedule kickoff call
↓
Kickoff call (60 min)
↓
Create project plan
↓
Request tech setup ────────────→
↓
Wait for Implementation ────→ Wait
↓
← ← ← Setup complete ← ← ← ← ┐
↓ │
Schedule training │
↓ │
Conduct training │
↓ │
Follow-up │
↓ │
Mark complete │
↓ │
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
IMPLEMENTATION │
│
Receive request ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ┘
↓
Schedule tech call
↓
Tech call (90 min)
↓
Configure account (60-120 min)
↓
Email CS: Complete ──────────→
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
TIME: 35 days average | LABOR: 12 hours | WAITING: 25 days
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Format 2: Value Stream Map (for Lean analysis)
CUSTOMER ONBOARDING VALUE STREAM MAP - CURRENT STATE
Customer need identified ──────────────────────→ Customer using product
↓ ↓
Purchase Value realized
Process Steps:
┌─────┐ ┌─────┐ ┌─────┐ ┌─────┐ ┌─────┐ ┌─────┐ ┌─────┐
│Email│→│Assign│→│Create│→│Kickoff│→│Setup│→│Train │→│F-up │
│ CS │ │ CSR │ │Record│ │ Call │ │Acct │ │Cust │ │Check│
└─────┘ └─────┘ └─────┘ └─────┘ └─────┘ └─────┘ └─────┘
10m 15m 20m 75m 90m 180m 120m
Wait Time:
[2-24h] [1-3d] [1-2d] [3-10d] [2-5d] [3-7d] [1-2w]
Value-Add Time: 8 hours (actual work)
Wait Time: ~25 days (customer or internal waiting)
Lead Time: 35 days total
Process Efficiency: 8 hours / (35 days × 24 hours) = 0.95%
Quality:
First Time Right: 85%
Rework Rate: 15%
Cancellation Rate: 5%
Current State Problems:
❌ Long wait times between steps
❌ Multiple manual handoffs
❌ No automation or workflow management
❌ High variation (28-45 day range)
❌ Customer dissatisfaction with delays
❌ Internal frustration with coordination
Format 3: Detailed Process Document (for implementation teams)
This is a text-based walkthrough with full context:
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
CURRENT STATE PROCESS DOCUMENTATION
Process: Customer Onboarding
Version: 1.0 | Date: [Date] | Author: [Consultant Name]
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1. PROCESS TRIGGER
The customer onboarding process begins when a Sales representative
marks a deal as "Closed Won" in Salesforce.
Current Implementation:
- Sales rep manually changes deal stage in Salesforce
- No validation that required fields are complete
- No automated notification triggered
- Sales rep then manually sends email to CS team
Observed Issues:
- 12% of deals marked "Closed Won" have incomplete information
- Sales sometimes forgets to email CS team (happened 3 times in
30 days observed)
- No SLA for how quickly CS must respond
---
2. CUSTOMER SUCCESS ASSIGNMENT
After receiving email notification (usually titled "New Customer -
[Company Name]"), the CS Manager assigns a Customer Success
Representative to the account.
Current Implementation:
- CS Manager checks email periodically (2-4 times per day)
- Manager evaluates CSR workload manually (no system visibility)
- Manager replies to Sales email with CC to assigned CSR
- CSR expected to take ownership when they see CC
Assignment Criteria (informal):
- CSR current workload (manager's judgment)
- CSR expertise match with customer vertical (sometimes)
- CSR availability (vacation, training, other priorities)
- "Who's next in rotation" (rough round-robin)
Time to Assignment:
- Minimum: 2 hours (if manager sees email immediately)
- Maximum: 3 days (if manager on vacation, email missed, etc.)
- Average: 1.2 days
Observed Issues:
- No clear assignment criteria documented
- Workload balancing is imperfect (some CSRs have 15 active
onboardings, others have 8)
- Assignments sometimes fall through cracks:
* Manager on vacation, backup not clear
* Email goes to spam folder
* CSR on vacation, no one reassigns
* Sales sends email to wrong address
- In 30-day observation: 6 out of 32 new customers (18.75%)
experienced delay >48 hours before anyone contacted them
[Process continues with similar detail for each step...]
Layer 2: Time and Motion Analysis
Time is money. Waste is everywhere. Quantify it.
What to Measure:
Cycle Time (Total Elapsed Time):
- Start to finish duration
- Example: Deal closed → Customer fully onboarded = 35 days average
Touch Time (Actual Work Time):
- Time someone is actively working on the task
- Example: CSR spends 8 hours of labor across 35-day onboarding
Wait Time (Idle Time):
- Time between steps where nothing is happening
- Example: 25 days of the 35-day cycle is waiting
Queue Time (Backlog Time):
- Time sitting in someone’s inbox/queue before they start
- Example: Implementation requests wait 2-5 days in queue
Process Efficiency:
- Touch Time / Cycle Time
- Example: 8 hours / (35 days × 24 hours) = 0.95% efficient
How to Measure: Time Study Protocol
Step 1: Define What You’re Measuring
For each process step, you want:
- Setup time: How long to prepare to do the work
- Execution time: How long the work itself takes
- Review/QA time: How long to check and finalize
- Handoff time: How long to pass to next person
- Wait time: How long until next step begins
Step 2: Collect Timing Data
Method A: Direct Observation (Most Accurate)
How it works:
- Sit with the person doing the work
- Use stopwatch/timer
- Record start and stop time for each activity
- Note any interruptions or deviations
Example: CSR conducting kickoff call
Observation Log - Customer Kickoff Call
CSR: Sarah Chen | Customer: Acme Corp | Date: [Date]
9:00 AM - Opens customer file, reviews notes (4 min)
9:04 AM - Joins Zoom, waits for customer (3 min)
9:07 AM - Customer joins, introductions (5 min)
9:12 AM - Reviews account setup checklist (8 min)
9:20 AM - Customer asks questions (12 min)
9:32 AM - Discusses implementation timeline (7 min)
9:39 AM - Schedules next steps (6 min)
9:45 AM - Wraps up, confirms action items (3 min)
9:48 AM - Call ends, CSR updates notes (7 min)
9:55 AM - CSR sends follow-up email (5 min)
Total time: 55 minutes (call) + 16 minutes (prep/follow-up) = 71 min
Notes:
- Customer was 3 minutes late (wait time)
- Customer asked more questions than typical (variability)
- CSR had to look up pricing info during call (no reference available)
- CSR used personal template for follow-up email (not standardized)
Do this for 8-10 instances to get average and range.
Method B: Time Logs (Self-Reported)
How it works:
- Ask people doing the work to track their own time
- Provide simple logging template
- Collect over 2-4 weeks
Template:
Weekly Time Log - Customer Onboarding Activities
CSR Name: _____________ | Week of: _____________
Customer: _____________
Activity: [ ] Kickoff call [ ] Training [ ] Email [ ] Setup [ ] Other:___
Start Time: _____ End Time: _____ Duration: _____
Notes: ________________________________________________
[Repeat for each activity]
Pros: Less intrusive, captures work you can’t observe directly Cons: Less accurate (people forget, round, misestimate)
Best practice: Combine both methods
Method C: System Data Analysis (When Available)
Some time data lives in systems:
- CRM timestamps: When deal closed, when assigned, when contacted
- Email timestamps: When sent, when responded
- Calendar data: When meetings scheduled, duration
- Project management tools: When tasks created, completed
- Support tickets: When opened, when resolved
Pull this data to supplement observational data.
Example analysis:
Data Pull: Salesforce → CS Tool Handoff Time
Sample: 100 customers from last 90 days
Deal marked "Closed Won" → First CS contact with customer
Minimum: 4 hours
Maximum: 12 days
Average: 2.3 days
Median: 1.8 days
90th percentile: 5 days
Insight: 10% of customers wait >5 days for first contact
This correlates with higher early churn
Step 3: Calculate Summary Statistics
For each process step and overall process:
Average (Mean): Sum of all times / number of observations Median: Middle value (better for skewed distributions) Standard Deviation: Measure of variation Range: Min to max Percentiles: 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th
Example:
Onboarding Cycle Time Analysis (n=50 customers)
Average: 35 days
Median: 32 days
Std Dev: 8.2 days
Range: 22-58 days
Percentiles:
10th: 24 days (fastest 10%)
25th: 28 days
50th: 32 days (median)
75th: 40 days
90th: 47 days (slowest 10%)
Insight: High variation (8.2 day std dev) suggests process is
unstable. 90th percentile customers take 2x as long as
10th percentile. Need to understand root causes of variation.
Waste Analysis: The Seven Types of Waste (Lean Methodology)
Look for these categories of waste in your current state:
1. Waiting (Delays)
- Process stops, nothing happening
- Example: Waiting 2-5 days for Implementation to pick up request
2. Overprocessing (Unnecessary Steps)
- Work that doesn’t add value
- Example: Creating customer record manually when it could auto-sync
3. Rework (Defects)
- Having to redo work due to errors
- Example: 15% of account configurations have errors, require fixes
4. Motion (Unnecessary Movement)
- Switching between systems, searching for information
- Example: CSR switches between CRM, CS tool, email, Google Docs to find info
5. Overproduction (Doing Too Much)
- Creating more than customer needs
- Example: CSR creates detailed project plan that customer never uses
6. Inventory (Work Piling Up)
- Backlog of work waiting to be done
- Example: Implementation has 23 setup requests in queue
7. Transportation (Handoffs)
- Moving work between people/systems
- Example: 6 handoffs in onboarding process, each with information loss
Waste Quantification Example:
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
WASTE ANALYSIS: CUSTOMER ONBOARDING PROCESS
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Type 1: WAITING
- Wait for CS assignment: 1.2 days average
- Wait for Sales clarification: 1.5 days average
- Wait for Implementation: 3.5 days average
- Wait for customer availability: 8 days average
- TOTAL WAITING: ~14 days of 35-day cycle (40%)
- COST: Customer frustration, delayed time-to-value
Type 2: OVERPROCESSING
- Manual data entry (duplicates CRM data): 20 min per onboarding
- Creating custom project plan from scratch: 45 min per onboarding
- Reformatting training materials: 30 min per onboarding
- TOTAL: 1.6 hours per onboarding × 240 onboardings/year = 384 hrs/year
- COST: $19,200/year in wasted labor (384 hrs × $50/hr)
Type 3: REWORK
- Configuration errors requiring fixes: 10% of onboardings
- Incorrect data requiring correction: 15% of onboardings
- Training sessions requiring re-scheduling: 20% of onboardings
- TOTAL: Estimated 2 hours rework per affected customer
- COST: ~$12,000/year (120 hrs × $100/hr)
Type 4: MOTION
- Switching between systems (CRM, CS tool, email, etc.): 5 min per hour
- Searching for information: 10 min per day per CSR
- TOTAL: Estimated 1 hour per week per CSR × 8 CSRs = 416 hrs/year
- COST: $20,800/year
Type 5: OVERPRODUCTION
- Creating unused documentation: 15 min per onboarding
- Preparing materials customer doesn't need: 20 min per onboarding
- TOTAL: 140 hours/year
- COST: $7,000/year
Type 6: INVENTORY (Backlog)
- Implementation backlog: Average 23 requests waiting
- Average wait time: 3.5 days
- This delays other work and frustrates teams
- COST: Difficult to quantify but creates bottleneck
Type 7: TRANSPORTATION (Handoffs)
- 6 handoffs per onboarding
- Information loss at each handoff: 10-20%
- Coordination time: 15 min per handoff = 90 min per onboarding
- TOTAL: 360 hours/year
- COST: $18,000/year + information quality degradation
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
TOTAL QUANTIFIED WASTE: $77,000/year
PLUS: Customer dissatisfaction, delayed value realization
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
This waste analysis becomes part of your business case for change.
Layer 3: Data Flow and System Analysis
Map how information moves through the process.
Data Flow Mapping
What you’re documenting:
- What data is needed at each step
- Where that data comes from (source system)
- How that data is accessed (manual, API, export)
- Where that data is recorded (destination system)
- What transformations happen to the data
- Where data quality issues occur
Example Data Flow Map:
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
DATA FLOW: CUSTOMER ONBOARDING
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
DATA ENTITY: Customer Contact Information
SOURCE: Salesforce (CRM)
- Fields: Company name, contact name, email, phone, address
- Data quality: 85% complete (15% missing phone/address)
- Owner: Sales team
FLOW 1: Sales → Customer Success
- Method: MANUAL (Sales copies from Salesforce to email)
- Time: 10 minutes
- Error rate: 5% (typos in copy-paste)
- Data loss: 20% (Sales doesn't include all fields)
DESTINATION 1: Customer Success Tool (separate system)
- Fields: Must be manually re-entered by CSR
- Time: 20 minutes per customer
- Error rate: 15% (typos, wrong customer matched)
- NO SYNC: Changes in Salesforce don't update CS tool
FLOW 2: Sales → Implementation Team
- Method: MANUAL (CSR copies from CS tool to Slack message)
- Time: 5 minutes
- Error rate: 10%
- Data loss: 30% (incomplete information)
DESTINATION 2: Implementation Specialist's Personal Notes
- Location: Notion, personal workspace
- Not visible to others
- Lost when person leaves company
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
DATA ENTITY: Product Configuration Details
SOURCE: Salesforce (deal record)
- Fields: Products purchased, quantities, custom config notes
- Data quality: 60% complete (custom config often in notes field)
- Owner: Sales team
FLOW: Sales → CS → Implementation
- Method: VERBAL/EMAIL (described in free text)
- No structured handoff
- Implementation specialist must interpret Sales notes
- 40% of time, Implementation calls Sales for clarification
PROBLEMS:
- No single source of truth
- Product config requirements not standardized
- Edge cases not documented
- Tribal knowledge required to interpret
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
DATA ENTITY: Customer Status / Progress Tracking
SOURCE: None (doesn't exist centrally)
CURRENT STATE:
- CSR tracks in personal spreadsheet or Google Doc
- Manager can't see status without asking CSR
- Customer can't see status without emailing CSR
- No historical record (deleted after onboarding complete)
WORKAROUNDS:
- Weekly standup where CSRs verbally report status
- Slack channel where people ask "what's status of [customer]?"
- Email trails that are hard to search
PROBLEMS:
- No visibility
- No metrics (can't measure onboarding time)
- Can't identify bottlenecks
- Can't optimize process without data
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
System and Tool Inventory
Document every system/tool used in the process:
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
SYSTEM INVENTORY: CUSTOMER ONBOARDING
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
SYSTEM 1: Salesforce (CRM)
Purpose: Sales pipeline, customer records
Used by: Sales team
Used for onboarding: Source of deal information
Integration: None (with CS tools)
Pain points:
- Custom fields not validated (missing data common)
- Product config in free-text notes (unstructured)
- No automated handoff to CS
Access: Sales team only (CS doesn't have login)
SYSTEM 2: Customer Success Tool ([Tool Name])
Purpose: Customer relationship management post-sale
Used by: CS team
Used for onboarding: Task tracking, customer communication log
Integration: None (standalone system)
Pain points:
- Must manually create customer record (duplicate of Salesforce)
- No workflow automation
- No customer self-service portal
- Reporting is limited
Access: CS team only
SYSTEM 3: Email (Gmail)
Purpose: Communication
Used by: Everyone
Used for onboarding: All coordination, handoffs, customer communication
Integration: N/A
Pain points:
- No structured handoff process
- Information gets lost in email threads
- Can't track "status" of onboarding via email
- Searching old emails is difficult
Access: Everyone
SYSTEM 4: Google Calendar
Purpose: Scheduling
Used by: Everyone
Used for onboarding: Schedule all customer calls and meetings
Integration: None (manual coordination)
Pain points:
- Back-and-forth to find mutual availability
- No visibility into team capacity
- Double-bookings happen
Access: Everyone
SYSTEM 5: Zoom
Purpose: Video conferencing
Used by: CS and Implementation teams
Used for onboarding: All customer calls
Integration: None (manual scheduling)
Pain points:
- Meeting links emailed manually
- Recording/notes not centralized
Access: Everyone
SYSTEM 6: Google Drive / Personal Notes
Purpose: Document storage / Personal tracking
Used by: Individual CSRs and Implementation specialists
Used for onboarding: Store templates, track personal tasks, notes
Integration: None
Pain points:
- Everyone has own structure (not standardized)
- Can't find documents across team
- Lost when person leaves
- No version control
Access: Individual only (not shared)
SYSTEM 7: Slack
Purpose: Team communication
Used by: Everyone internally
Used for onboarding: Ad-hoc requests, status updates
Integration: None
Pain points:
- Important information buried in chat history
- No formal tracking of requests
- Different channels for different things (confusing)
Access: Internal only
SYSTEM 8: Product Admin Panel
Purpose: Configure customer accounts
Used by: Implementation team
Used for onboarding: Set up customer environment
Integration: None (manual configuration)
Pain points:
- No checklist (relies on memory)
- Configuration errors happen
- No audit trail of what was configured
Access: Implementation team only (special permission)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
INTEGRATION GAP ANALYSIS:
No integrations exist between any of these systems.
Critical Gaps:
❌ Salesforce → CS Tool (manual data entry)
❌ CS Tool → Implementation Team (email/Slack, no tracking)
❌ Any system → Customer (no self-service visibility)
❌ Any system → Metrics/Reporting (no consolidated data)
RESULT: Massive manual work, information silos, no visibility
OPPORTUNITY: Integration platform could eliminate 70% of manual work
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Layer 4: Exception and Variation Analysis
The standard process is only half the story. What happens when things go wrong?
Exception Catalog
Document every exception case you observe:
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
EXCEPTION SCENARIOS: CUSTOMER ONBOARDING
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
EXCEPTION 1: Customer Data Incomplete in Salesforce
Frequency: 15% of deals
What happens:
1. CSR discovers missing information when trying to create CS record
2. CSR emails Sales rep to request missing data
3. Sales rep may or may not respond within 24 hours
4. If no response, CSR escalates to Sales manager
5. Process stalled until information received
Impact:
- 2-5 day delay in onboarding start
- Customer frustration (no one contacts them)
- CSR frustration (wasted time chasing Sales)
Root cause:
- No validation in Salesforce before marking "Closed Won"
- Sales incentivized to close deals fast, data quality secondary
EXCEPTION 2: Customer Doesn't Respond to Outreach
Frequency: 10% of deals
What happens:
1. CSR sends welcome email, no response
2. CSR waits 3 days, sends follow-up email
3. CSR waits 2 more days, calls customer
4. If still no response, CSR escalates to Sales
5. Sales contacts customer: "Hey, CS is trying to reach you"
6. Customer often says: "Oh, I didn't see the email" or "I've been busy"
Impact:
- 7-14 day delay
- Onboarding momentum lost
- Customer may not be prioritizing implementation
Root cause:
- Welcome email goes to spam (deliverability issue)
- Customer busy with other priorities post-purchase
- Customer may have bought but not ready to implement yet
- Customer may have had internal personnel changes
EXCEPTION 3: Technical Setup More Complex Than Expected
Frequency: 20% of implementations
What happens:
1. Implementation specialist starts standard setup
2. Discovers customer environment has complexity not noted by Sales
(custom integration needed, legacy system compatibility, etc.)
3. Implementation specialist must research solution
4. May need to involve engineering team
5. Setup takes 3x as long as expected (3-4 hours vs. 1 hour)
Impact:
- Delay in onboarding (extra 1-2 weeks)
- Implementation backlog grows
- Customer frustration
- Scope creep (no extra charge for complex setup)
Root cause:
- Sales doesn't do technical discovery before closing deal
- No standard technical requirements checklist
- Implementation team discovers issues post-sale
EXCEPTION 4: CSR Goes on Vacation Mid-Onboarding
Frequency: 5-8% of onboardings
What happens:
1. CSR starts onboarding
2. CSR goes on planned vacation (or sick leave)
3. No formal handoff to backup CSR
4. Customer emails, no response for days
5. Customer escalates to manager or Sales
6. Manager scrambles to find someone to cover
Impact:
- Customer perception of disorganization
- Delay of 3-7 days
- Context lost in handoff
Root cause:
- No formal backup/coverage process
- Customer ownership too individualized
EXCEPTION 5: Customer Needs Custom Training
Frequency: 30% of customers
What happens:
1. CSR delivers standard training
2. Customer says "this doesn't apply to our use case"
3. CSR must create custom training materials
4. Requires 2-4 hours of additional prep time
5. Delays training completion by 1-2 weeks
Impact:
- CSR time multiplied
- Can't scale training approach
- Variability in customer experience
Root cause:
- Training materials too generic
- No customization done upfront based on customer needs
- Sales doesn't communicate customer's specific use case well
[Continue cataloging all observed exceptions...]
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
EXCEPTION SUMMARY:
Total exceptions observed: 18 types
Frequency of at least one exception: 65% of onboardings
Onboardings with multiple exceptions: 35%
Average delay caused by exceptions: 7 days per exception
Cost of exception handling: Estimated 3 additional hours per exception
INSIGHT: "Standard process" is actually the exception. Most
onboardings encounter at least one deviation. Process
must be designed to handle variation, not assume perfect path.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Layer 5: Workaround Documentation
This is gold. Workarounds reveal what the process should be.
Workarounds are unofficial processes people create to make broken systems work.
They tell you:
- What’s missing in official tools
- What’s inefficient in official process
- What people actually need to do their jobs
- Where innovation is happening at the edges
Workaround Inventory
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
WORKAROUND CATALOG: CUSTOMER ONBOARDING
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
WORKAROUND 1: Personal Onboarding Template (CSR)
WHO: 6 of 8 CSRs maintain personal templates
WHAT: Google Doc with their own onboarding checklist/template
WHY: Official CS tool doesn't have good task template
HOW IT WORKS:
- CSR copies their personal template for each new customer
- Customizes for specific customer
- Tracks progress in personal doc
- Eventually enters summary into CS tool (or doesn't)
PROBLEMS:
- Every CSR has different template (no standardization)
- Manager can't see status
- Lost when CSR leaves
- Double work (personal doc + CS tool)
WHAT IT REVEALS:
- Need: Checklist/template functionality in CS tool
- Need: Customizable per customer type
- Need: Visible to manager
WORKAROUND 2: Weekly Standup for Status
WHO: Entire CS team + Manager
WHAT: 1-hour weekly meeting where everyone verbally reports status
WHY: No system visibility into onboarding progress
HOW IT WORKS:
- Every Monday 9am
- Each CSR reports: "Customer X is at step Y, blocked on Z"
- Manager takes notes
- Team helps problem-solve blockers
PROBLEMS:
- Inefficient (8 people × 1 hour = 8 hours/week wasted)
- Information expires immediately (out of date by Tuesday)
- No written record
- Can't track trends over time
WHAT IT REVEALS:
- Need: Real-time status visibility
- Need: Bottleneck identification
- Need: Metrics dashboard
WORKAROUND 3: Personal Relationship with Implementation Lead
WHO: 3 senior CSRs have direct Slack relationship with Implementation lead
WHAT: Skip formal request process, Slack message directly
WHY: Formal email process too slow and unreliable
HOW IT WORKS:
- CSR Slack messages Implementation lead: "Hey can you prioritize [customer]?"
- Implementation lead personally picks it up
- Gets done faster (1-2 days vs. 4-5 days)
PROBLEMS:
- Only works for senior CSRs with relationship
- Junior CSRs stuck with slow process
- Creates inequality
- Not scalable
- Implementation lead becomes bottleneck
WHAT IT REVEALS:
- Need: Formal prioritization system
- Need: Visibility into Implementation queue
- Need: SLA for Implementation requests
WORKAROUND 4: Sales Stay Involved Post-Close
WHO: Some Sales reps continue involvement in onboarding
WHAT: Sales rep attends kickoff call, stays in email loop
WHY: Handoff from Sales → CS is poor, information lost
HOW IT WORKS:
- Sales rep volunteers (or customer demands)
- Provides context CSR doesn't have
- Smooths customer relationship
PROBLEMS:
- Not scalable (Sales time valuable)
- Inconsistent (only some Sales reps do this)
- Masks underlying handoff problem
WHAT IT REVEALS:
- Need: Better Sales → CS handoff process
- Need: Structured information transfer
- Need: Sales context captured in system
WORKAROUND 5: Customer Onboarding Spreadsheet (Manager)
WHO: CS Manager
WHAT: Master spreadsheet tracking all active onboardings
WHY: CS tool doesn't provide good overview/reporting
HOW IT WORKS:
- Manager manually updates spreadsheet weekly
- Tracks: Customer name, assigned CSR, stage, start date, blockers
- Uses for capacity planning and reporting to exec team
PROBLEMS:
- Massive manual work (2-3 hours/week)
- Always slightly out of date
- Error-prone (typos, forgot to update)
- Manager should be doing higher-value work
WHAT IT REVEALS:
- Need: Reporting/dashboard in CS tool
- Need: Metrics visibility
- Need: Capacity management tools
[Continue documenting all workarounds...]
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
WORKAROUND ANALYSIS:
Total workarounds identified: 12
Time spent maintaining workarounds: ~15 hours/week across team
Annual cost of workarounds: $39,000/year (15 hrs/wk × 52 × $50/hr)
KEY INSIGHT: Workarounds collectively form a "shadow system"
that makes the broken official process barely functional.
Eliminating official process problems would eliminate
need for workarounds, freeing 15 hours/week for
productive work.
SOLUTION DESIGN IMPLICATION:
New system must replicate the valuable parts of workarounds
(templates, visibility, communication) while eliminating
the manual overhead.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Layer 6: Pain Point and Satisfaction Analysis
Capture the human experience of the broken process.
Pain Point Inventory
Collect pain points from:
- Interviews during assessment
- Direct observation
- Workshop sessions
- Casual conversations
- User feedback surveys
Organize by stakeholder:
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
PAIN POINT INVENTORY: CUSTOMER ONBOARDING
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
CUSTOMER PAIN POINTS:
"I just paid $50K and nobody contacted me for 5 days. I thought
they took my money and forgot about me."
- Frequency: 10-15% of customers express this
- Impact: Buyer's remorse, churn risk, escalations
"I have no idea what's happening or when I'll be up and running.
Every time I ask, I get a different answer."
- Frequency: 30-40% of customers express this
- Impact: Anxiety, lack of confidence, additional support burden
"The person doing my training doesn't seem to understand my
business. They're showing me features I don't need and not
covering what I do need."
- Frequency: 25% of customers express this
- Impact: Poor training effectiveness, longer time to value
"I've had three different people contact me and they each asked
me the same questions. Don't you people talk to each other?"
- Frequency: 15-20% of customers express this
- Impact: Perception of disorganization, frustration
"This is taking way longer than I expected. The salesperson said
we'd be up and running in 2 weeks. It's been 6 weeks."
- Frequency: 40% of customers express this
- Impact: Unmet expectations, dissatisfaction, churn risk
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
CS TEAM (CSR) PAIN POINTS:
"I spend half my day chasing down information that should just be
in the system. It's so frustrating."
- Source: Multiple CSRs in interviews
- Impact: Time waste, frustration, burnout
"Every onboarding is different because everyone does it their own
way. When I cover for someone on vacation, I have no idea where
they are in the process."
- Source: 5 of 8 CSRs
- Impact: Inconsistency, coverage problems, stress
"The Sales team promises things that aren't even possible and I'm
the one who has to deliver the bad news to the customer."
- Source: 4 of 8 CSRs
- Impact: Difficult customer conversations, friction with Sales
"I can't track how many onboardings I have going at once. I'm
constantly worried I'm forgetting someone."
- Source: 6 of 8 CSRs
- Impact: Anxiety, dropped balls, quality issues
"I spend more time on administrative BS than actually helping
customers. This isn't what I signed up for."
- Source: Multiple CSRs
- Impact: Job dissatisfaction, turnover risk
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
CS MANAGER PAIN POINTS:
"I have no visibility into what's happening. I find out about
problems when customers escalate or CSRs are overwhelmed."
- Impact: Reactive management, can't prevent problems
"I can't measure anything. How long does onboarding actually take?
I don't know. Where are the bottlenecks? I don't know. Which CSRs
need help? I don't know until they tell me."
- Impact: Can't optimize process, can't manage capacity
"When someone's on vacation, it's chaos. I have to manually
figure out who needs coverage and brief the backup person."
- Impact: Management overhead, customer experience suffers
"The exec team keeps asking me for metrics and I have to
spend hours manually compiling them from different sources."
- Impact: Time waste, inaccurate reporting
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
IMPLEMENTATION TEAM PAIN POINTS:
"I never know what's coming. A CSR will Slack me 'urgent setup
needed' and I have 5 other things I'm working on."
- Impact: No capacity planning, constant firefighting
"Half the time the information I get from CS is incomplete or
wrong. I have to track down Sales to figure out what was
actually sold."
- Impact: Delays, frustration, rework
"I'm doing the same configurations over and over. This should
be templated but it's all manual."
- Impact: Time waste, risk of configuration errors
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
SALES TEAM PAIN POINTS:
"I close a deal and then CS drops the ball. The customer emails
me complaining and now I have to fix it. I should be selling,
not doing CS's job."
- Impact: Sales time diverted, friction between teams
"CS always says I didn't provide enough information, but
nobody told me what information they need. There's no checklist."
- Impact: Blame-shifting, unclear handoff
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
EXECUTIVE TEAM PAIN POINTS:
"We don't have good data on onboarding performance. When board
members ask 'how long does onboarding take?' I can't give them
a confident answer."
- Impact: Can't manage what you can't measure
"I hear anecdotally that onboarding is a problem, but I don't
know how big of a problem or what specifically to fix."
- Impact: Can't prioritize investment
"Customer churn in the first 90 days is higher than industry
benchmark. I think onboarding is part of the problem, but we
don't have proof."
- Impact: Revenue leakage, can't identify root cause
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Satisfaction Metrics (If Available)
If you have survey data, analyze it:
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION: ONBOARDING
(Based on post-onboarding survey, n=120 responses, last 6 months)
Overall satisfaction with onboarding: 6.8/10 average
Distribution:
9-10 (Promoters): 22%
7-8 (Passives): 38%
0-6 (Detractors): 40%
Net Promoter Score (NPS): 22 - 40 = -18 (Poor)
Specific Question Scores:
- Clarity of process: 6.2/10
- Responsiveness of team: 7.1/10
- Time to value: 5.9/10
- Training quality: 7.3/10
- Overall experience: 6.8/10
Open-Ended Feedback Themes (qualitative coding):
- "Took too long" (mentioned by 45% of respondents)
- "Confusing / unclear expectations" (mentioned by 38%)
- "Good people but disorganized process" (mentioned by 25%)
- "Felt forgotten / no communication" (mentioned by 20%)
Positive Feedback:
- "CSR was knowledgeable and helpful" (mentioned by 60%)
- "Eventually got what I needed" (mentioned by 40%)
- "Training was thorough" (mentioned by 35%)
INSIGHT: Individual CSRs are doing heroic work, but broken
process undermines their efforts. Customers see the
effort but experience the dysfunction.
Layer 7: Performance Metrics (Current State Baseline)
Establish quantitative baseline for measuring improvement.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
CURRENT STATE PERFORMANCE METRICS: CUSTOMER ONBOARDING
Measurement Period: Last 90 days (Jan-Mar 2026)
Sample Size: 72 customers
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
CYCLE TIME METRICS:
Average Time to First Contact:
- From deal close to first CS outreach
- Average: 2.3 days
- Range: 4 hours to 12 days
- Target (Future State): <24 hours
Average Time to Kickoff Call:
- From deal close to kickoff call completion
- Average: 8.5 days
- Range: 3 days to 18 days
- Target: <7 days
Average Time to Technical Setup Complete:
- From kickoff to account configured
- Average: 14 days
- Range: 7 days to 28 days
- Target: <5 days
Average Time to Training Complete:
- From account configured to all training delivered
- Average: 18 days
- Range: 10 days to 35 days
- Target: <10 days
Average Total Onboarding Time:
- From deal close to "onboarding complete"
- Average: 35 days
- Range: 22 days to 58 days
- Target: <15 days
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
QUALITY METRICS:
First Contact Success Rate:
- % of customers contacted within 48 hours
- Current: 72%
- Target: 95%
Onboarding Completion Rate:
- % of customers who complete onboarding (don't churn)
- Current: 95%
- Target: 98%
Configuration Error Rate:
- % of technical setups requiring rework/corrections
- Current: 10%
- Target: <2%
Data Entry Accuracy:
- % of customer records created without errors
- Current: 85%
- Target: 98%
Training Effectiveness:
- % of customers who pass post-training knowledge check
- Current: Data not collected
- Target: Implement assessment, target 85%
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
VOLUME METRICS:
Onboarding Volume:
- Customers onboarded per month: 24 average
- Customers onboarded per CSR per month: 3 average
- Seasonal variation: +30% in Q1, -20% in Q4
Active Onboardings:
- Average concurrent onboardings per CSR: 8-12
- Manager view: No system data, estimated from manual tracking
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
RESOURCE UTILIZATION:
CS Team Time per Onboarding:
- Average: 8 hours per customer
- Range: 6-14 hours depending on complexity
- Breakdown:
* Coordination/admin: 3 hours (37.5%)
* Customer-facing work: 5 hours (62.5%)
Implementation Team Time per Onboarding:
- Average: 4 hours per customer
- Range: 2-8 hours
- Backlog: 23 requests waiting (average)
Manager Time on Onboarding:
- Estimated 10 hours/week on onboarding management
- Mostly: Tracking status, resolving escalations, reporting
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
COST METRICS:
Labor Cost per Onboarding:
- CS time: 8 hrs × $50/hr = $400
- Implementation: 4 hrs × $75/hr = $300
- Manager overhead: 2 hrs × $85/hr = $170
- Sales follow-up: 1 hr × $75/hr = $75
- Total: $945 per customer
Annual Onboarding Cost:
- 288 customers/year × $945 = $272,160/year
Rework Cost:
- 10% require rework × 288 customers = 29 reworks
- 2 hours per rework × $75/hr = $150 per rework
- Annual rework cost: $4,350
Churn Cost (first 90 days):
- Churn rate: 5% in first 90 days vs. 2% baseline
- Excess churn: 3% × 288 customers = 8.6 customers
- Average LTV: $25,000
- Annual churn cost: $215,000
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
CUSTOMER OUTCOME METRICS:
Time to First Value:
- Time from purchase to first successful product use
- Average: 42 days
- Target: <20 days
Time to Expansion Opportunity:
- Time until customer ready for upsell conversation
- Average: 180 days
- Target: <90 days
First 90-Day Churn Rate:
- % of new customers who churn in first 90 days
- Current: 5%
- Industry benchmark: 2%
- Target: <2%
Customer Satisfaction (CSAT):
- Post-onboarding survey score
- Current: 6.8/10
- Target: 8.5/10
Net Promoter Score (NPS):
- Onboarding NPS
- Current: -18
- Target: +40
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
SUMMARY:
Total Quantified Annual Cost of Current State:
- Direct labor: $272,160
- Rework: $4,350
- Excess churn: $215,000
- Opportunity cost (capacity constraint): ~$80,000
- TOTAL: $571,510/year
This becomes the baseline for ROI calculation.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
The Current State Analysis Deliverable
All of this analysis gets compiled into a comprehensive Current State Analysis document.
Document Structure:
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
CURRENT STATE ANALYSIS: CUSTOMER ONBOARDING PROCESS
[Company Name]
Version 1.0 | [Date] | Prepared by [Consultant Name]
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (2 pages)
- Process overview
- Key findings
- Quantified impact
- Primary recommendations
SECTION 1: PROCESS DOCUMENTATION (8-12 pages)
- Detailed process flow (As-Is process map)
- Step-by-step walkthrough
- Roles and responsibilities
- Handoffs and decision points
- Visual process maps (swimlane, value stream)
SECTION 2: TIME AND WASTE ANALYSIS (4-6 pages)
- Cycle time analysis
- Touch time vs. wait time
- Waste identification and quantification
- Efficiency metrics
- Bottleneck identification
SECTION 3: DATA AND SYSTEMS ANALYSIS (4-6 pages)
- Data flow mapping
- System inventory
- Integration gaps
- Data quality issues
- Technology stack assessment
SECTION 4: EXCEPTION AND VARIATION ANALYSIS (3-5 pages)
- Exception catalog
- Frequency and impact
- Root causes
- Current exception handling
SECTION 5: WORKAROUND DOCUMENTATION (3-4 pages)
- Workaround inventory
- Time and cost of workarounds
- What workarounds reveal about needs
- "Shadow system" analysis
SECTION 6: PAIN POINT ANALYSIS (4-6 pages)
- Stakeholder pain points (by role)
- Customer satisfaction data
- Qualitative feedback themes
- Impact on morale and retention
SECTION 7: PERFORMANCE METRICS (3-4 pages)
- Current state baseline metrics
- Volume and capacity analysis
- Cost analysis
- Customer outcome metrics
- Benchmarking (if available)
SECTION 8: ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS (3-4 pages)
- Synthesis of root causes across all analysis
- Fishbone diagram
- Prioritized root causes
- Systemic vs. localized issues
SECTION 9: OPPORTUNITY ASSESSMENT (2-3 pages)
- Quick wins identified
- Strategic improvement opportunities
- Estimated impact of improvements
- Implementation complexity assessment
APPENDICES:
- Detailed process maps
- Interview excerpts
- Survey data
- Time study data
- Photographs/screenshots
- Calculation methodologies
TOTAL: 40-60 pages
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
The Meta-Principle: Credibility Through Rigor
Current State Analysis is where you earn the right to make recommendations.
Clients can smell nonsense a mile away:
❌ “We’ve assessed your process and it’s inefficient” = Generic consultant nonsense
✅ “We shadowed 6 onboardings, timed 47 distinct activities, documented 18 exception scenarios, quantified 7 types of waste totaling $77K/year, and identified 12 workarounds your team uses to compensate for broken systems. Here’s the 52-page analysis.” = We did the actual work
The rigor of your current state analysis directly correlates with:
- Client trust in your recommendations
- Implementation team confidence in your expertise
- Stakeholder buy-in for solutions
- Accuracy of your ROI projections
- Success of your implementations
Shortcuts in current state analysis = failures in implementation.
Do. The. Work.
What aspects of current state analysis are you most concerned about? Time study methodology? Gaining access to shadow employees? Getting honest feedback about pain points? Documenting exceptions without overwhelming detail? Balancing comprehensiveness with timeline constraints?