Business process inventory
List actual tasks, ownership, inputs, outputs, and time on a common basis before choosing a process to improve.
Use an inventory when a team feels busy but cannot explain where its effort goes. Include routine work, ad hoc requests, follow-up, and rework rather than copying job descriptions.
A defined team or process, an observation period, actual task records, and a consistent definition of time. Separate active work from waiting and avoid counting the same effort twice.
An editable seven-column task inventory and a short list of improvement candidates with evidence to investigate next.
How to use it
- Define the scope and period. Say whether time is per occurrence or the total for the period, and whether it represents staff effort or elapsed time.
- Record actual tasks with the people doing them. Include interruptions, follow-up, and rework that formal procedures may omit.
- Write one task per row with an owner, frequency, input, output, time, and observed issue. Use To verify where information is missing.
- Reconcile the time basis and overlapping entries before comparing tasks. Keep waiting time separate from active effort.
- Choose a candidate using the observed burden and repeated problems. Inspect that process before deciding on a change.
Keep its limits in mind
An inventory describes recorded work; it does not establish a root cause, rank employees, or calculate recoverable capacity. Weekly staff-hours and elapsed lead time measure different things. Check units and observation periods before combining records.
Locate repeated work in a service team
Fictional example: Xinggang's five-person service team feels busy while delivery remains slow. Members record one week of actual work. The three listed tasks are only part of the team's work, not a full capacity assessment.
On a small screen, scroll across the diagram to read it.
Recorded effort: The three rows contain 18, 22, and 10 staff-hours for the week: 50 in total. This is listed effort, not the five members' full available capacity or a promise to save 50 hours.
Investigation: Request triage and submission checks show repeated entry or follow-up. The table identifies work to inspect; it does not prove why it happens or attribute blame.
Next step: Trace the submission-checking process and locate the first missing information. Once the steps and controls are clear, use ECRS to explore changes.
Three reasons to pause before interpreting a workload inventory
Use the inventory to make actual work discussable: what triggers it, who contributes, what output is needed and where effort is recorded. Include follow-up and rework instead of copying job descriptions. Define the team, period and unit before comparing rows. This is a local worksheet format, not an industry certification or employee-ranking system.
Pause when weekly staff-hours are mixed with minutes per request or elapsed waiting. Pause when the same contribution appears in two rows without a rule for allocating it. Pause when a partial list is being treated as a full capacity assessment. Fix those boundaries before claiming that someone is underused or a task can be removed.
Preserve the original unit and explain any normalization. For an independent unit illustration, two people spending thirty minutes together contribute sixty person-minutes, or one staff-hour. That meeting may last thirty minutes. This illustration is not additional effort in Xinggang’s ledger and must not be added to its totals.
Choose describing work, tracing a process or proposing a change
An inventory identifies work worth inspecting. It does not by itself locate the first missing input or establish a recoverable saving. Use another view when the next question requires more detailed evidence.
| Method | Input | Output |
|---|---|---|
| Business process inventory | Bounded work records with common units | A partial or complete work list with gaps stated |
| Business process flowchart | Triggers, steps, decisions and handoffs | A path to inspect for waiting and exceptions |
| ECRS | Current work and required outputs or controls | Redesign candidates to test |
| PDCA | An agreed trial and execution records | A check and a proposed next action |
Worked case: calculate the listed effort without inventing capacity
This continues the fictional Xinggang five-person service team. The supplied period is one week; its exact dates are not given. All three time figures are total staff-hours for their task in that week, not elapsed duration or hours per person. The list is explicitly partial. There is no complete team calendar, leave record or full inventory.
The rows describe triage from several request channels, submission checks and weekly reporting. Their arithmetic sum is 18+22+10 = 50 staff-hours. Submission checking is 22/50 = 44% of the listed effort, triage 36% and reporting 20%. Those shares describe these rows, not the five people’s whole week or available capacity. Do not multiply the headcount by an assumed forty-hour week and present the difference as unused time.
The symptoms justify questions, not blame. Duplicate entry could involve channel design or required controls; repeated follow-up could begin before the reviewer receives the form. Raw work-item logs are not supplied, so check allocation and duplicate counting before treating the summary as a verified ledger. A role label also does not establish which individual caused a delay.
| Work / owner | Input → output | Hours / listed share | Question exposed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Triage / duty operator | Several channels → task list | 18 / 36% | Where does duplicate entry occur? |
| Checks / reviewer | Submission form → complete submission | 22 / 44% | Where is information first missing? |
| Reporting / team lead | Work records → weekly report | 10 / 20% | Which copying is necessary? |
| Listed total | Only these three activities | 50 / 100% | Other work and full capacity unknown |
Trace the first missing input, then review the whole output
The proposed priority is to standardize submission fields first, then observe checking effort. It is not an approved implementation or a promise to recover 22 hours. The inventory suggests inspecting the submission path because follow-up is visible there, but the first missing input may originate elsewhere. Walk through an actual authorized record with the relevant roles before selecting a redesign.
For the next recording period, agree the dates, staff-hour definition and unique work-item identifiers. Capture each contribution once, including work transferred to another role, exception handling and preparation. Record elapsed waiting with timestamps separately. If one meeting supports several tasks, document a single allocation rule rather than charging the full duration to every row. Keep incomplete records visible and explain any change in coverage.
At review, ask the output users which fields and controls are necessary and confirm who can approve a trial. If ECRS candidates are proposed, include setup, maintenance and validation alongside recurring effort. A smaller checking total may reflect fewer submissions, moved work or missed controls rather than an improvement. Compare compatible complete periods and required outputs before claiming a saving. Keep the original partial inventory as the starting point, append actual findings and leave full capacity and recoverable time unknown until they have their own evidence.
Check your work
- Are scope, period, time units, and the measurement basis explicit?
- Does each row have seven cells in the stated order, separated by |?
- Have you checked for missing ad hoc work, rework, and double counting?
- Are issues observations rather than unsupported judgments about people?
- Does the next investigation follow from the recorded work, without promising savings?
Put the framework to work
Copy the outline and add your question, evidence, and open questions.
Read a practical guide →Practice with an example
Choose a preparation route for progress, a resource or decision request, or a period review. Use one service case to inspect openings, review checks and focused guides, and keep a preparation note.
Prepare a work update: start with the purpose →