Most organizations believe they know where their inefficiencies are.
They point to slow approvals.
Too many handoffs.
Manual steps that should have disappeared years ago.
Sometimes they’re right.
More often, the real problem sits elsewhere. In the gaps between systems. In the work people do quietly to keep things moving. In steps no one officially owns.
This is why process mining and task mining matter today. Not as analytics tools. But as ways to see operational reality without assumptions.
The Myth of the “Broken Process”
When leaders say a process is broken, they usually mean one of three things:
-
outcomes are inconsistent,
-
timelines are unpredictable,
-
teams rely on informal fixes.
What’s rarely true is that the process itself is unclear.
Most processes are well documented.
They just aren’t followed in practice.
Mining exposes this gap. Not by blaming people. But by showing how work adapts when systems, rules, or timing don’t match reality.
That difference is where efficiency is lost.
Where Traditional Improvement Efforts Fall Short
Many improvement efforts start with workshops and flowcharts.
Those methods rely on memory and consensus.
Both are unreliable.
People describe how work should happen.
Or how they wish it happened.
What gets missed:
-
workarounds that feel normal,
-
shortcuts taken under pressure,
-
steps added “temporarily” and never removed.
Mining works because it doesn’t ask.
It observes.
Why Task-Level Insight Changes the Conversation
System data shows sequence.
It rarely shows effort.
Task-level insight reveals:
-
repeated copy-paste work,
-
manual checks added due to mistrust,
-
rework caused by unclear inputs.
This matters because efficiency is not about time alone.
It’s about cognitive load.
When people spend energy compensating for systems, performance degrades quietly.
You won’t hear complaints.
You’ll see drift.
Rethinking What “Good” Efficiency Looks Like
Faster is not always better.
Some steps slow things down on purpose.
They absorb risk.
They create clarity.
The mistake is treating all friction as waste.
Mining helps separate:
-
necessary friction from accidental friction,
-
stabilizing work from compensating work,
-
intentional controls from inherited habits.
That distinction is critical before making changes.
A More Practical Way to Use Mining
Instead of starting with full visibility, start with intent.
Ask one question:
-
Where does work feel heavier than it should?
Then:
-
Observe that slice of the process.
-
Look for repetition and correction.
-
Identify which steps exist only because something earlier is unreliable.
-
Fix upstream first.
This approach produces smaller changes.
They tend to last longer.
Why Automation Is Not the First Answer
Mining often leads teams toward automation.
That’s understandable.
But automation hardens assumptions.
If the underlying work is compensatory, automation scales the problem.
A safer sequence:
-
clarify,
-
simplify,
-
then automate.
Mining supports this order by showing why work exists, not just how often it happens.
From Insight to Habit
The most effective teams don’t run mining once.
They revisit it:
-
after system changes,
-
during policy updates,
-
when performance starts drifting.
They treat it as feedback.
Not diagnosis.
This is where process mining and task mining stop being tools and start becoming operational discipline.
The Quiet Benefit Most Teams Miss
Mining creates a shared reference point.
Arguments shift from opinion to evidence.
From “this is how it feels” to “this is what’s happening.”
That alone reduces friction.
Not because the data is perfect.
But because it’s grounded in reality.
Closing Thought
Efficiency is rarely blocked by lack of effort.
It’s blocked by invisible work.
When you make that work visible, improvement becomes less dramatic.
And far more sustainable.
That’s the real value of mining.
Not insight.
But alignment.
Top comments (0)