The Potential of Workarounds for Improving Processes

Via a systematic review of 70 studies, this explored the potential for workarounds to improve business processes. By synthesising the recommendations from the reviewed research, the authors described five key activities to help organisations manage workarounds.

A workaround is a “goal-driven adaptation, improvisation, or other change … to … an existing work system in order to overcome … or minimize the impact of obstacles … established practices, management expectations, or structural constraints that are perceived as preventing that work system or its participants from achieving a desired level of efficiency …or other … goals” (p2).

It’s argued that whereas workarounds have been viewed negatively in the past, the current literature highlights a more positive view on them, where workarounds have been found to help identify poorly designed processes.

First they cover the emergence of workarounds, where dysfunctionality of work systems is seen as a primary factor.

The review indicated that workarounds frequently came about to overcome constraints, incompatibilities, inadequacies, flawed specifications and more. Interestingly in healthcare, clinicians sometimes believe that the healthcare IT systems are themselves barriers to delivering quality care to patients and thus necessitate workarounds.

A host of other reasons are implicated including a tension between top-down pressures from the external environment and bottom-up constraints from day-to-day operational work. Workarounds help alleviate this tension. Another reason is the balance between standardisation and flexibility, where “hospital nurses enact more workarounds when they are coerced into using standardized routines” (p5).

For effects of workarounds – research indicates that they may add value, save time or improve efficiency; allowing workers to continue work by finding temporary solutions to obstacles. They can also have negative effects, like impacting safety or efficiency. Besides workarounds breeding frustration, discontent and disengagement (p5), they are also “usually hidden”, with management often unaware of them, leading to managers having an “inaccurate view of system usage, as workarounds mask “underlying system weakness” [and creating an] illusion that dysfunctional systems are indeed functioning” (p6). This makes it difficult for managers and IT vendors to know about the issues and thus fix them. For managers, they may make decisions on processes “based upon an illusion of actuality and not on the reality of workplace activities” (p6).

The next section covers how to utilise workarounds as a feedback mechanism to improve, as workarounds “offer a blueprint” to redesign information flows, IT and work processes because they provide insights into the day-to-day activities people need to perform.

Improving processes via workarounds:

Measure: Research indicates the importance of knowing why workarounds are performed, where the use of workarounds “often constrains or decreases the overall effectiveness of the system, especially for those ‘downstream’ from the workaround” (p7).

Measuring workarounds can be done in-situ via interviews, observations, shadowing & focus groups. Goal-directed learning may be necessary as workarounds may otherwise be hidden, and not reflected in work logs and the like.

Act: Although workarounds may need to be addressed in some way, different types require different approaches. Research suggests that organisations should facilitate or adopt appropriate workarounds and prevent or block the inappropriate ones. Many studies advise against trying to categorically eliminate workarounds as this may result in negative outcomes because it may not eliminate the reasons why the workaround was put in place.

Involve: Emphasised is the need to involve and collaborate with workers on process redesign. This involves having them share workarounds. Designing human-centred systems which “considers the natural responses of employees when they encounter operational failures will be helpful in creating improvement programs that are successful over multiple dimensions, such as safety and efficiency” (p8).

Importantly, “Designers cannot foresee perfectly how their system is used [51], but by involving users in the process, misfits can be resolved” (p9).

Educate: As is usually stressed is the need for education and coaching programs to help workers & managers with both efficient and appropriate ways of working. One topic specifically for workarounds that should be covered are the downstream effects of workarounds. This is important since the local optimisation which makes sense to the workaround creator may not “fully comprehend their place in the task chain” and be unaware of the implications of the workaround on other parts of the business.

One study noted a "‘light bulb effect’ when participants were made aware of the broader implications of their actions, leading to improved work practices thereafter” (p9).

Authors also note research highlighting the need for workers to speak up about the daily obstacles they perceive in their work. [However, in my view, issues around psychological safety and learned helplessness if management are perceived to never fix things may impact the effectiveness of this suggestion.]

Monitor: It’s argued that an “operational work system is dynamic, rather than static and unchanging” and thus in a state of flux requiring different ways of tackling static systems (p9). Therefore, problems aren’t easily fixed in single steps or one-time measures and when measures are put in place, new workarounds may develop.

Quoting the paper, “As the development of additional workarounds is unavoidable and their evolution cannot be predicted, the system needs to be monitored over time” (p9).

A number of suggestions are provided based on evidence for monitoring. One is quite predictably checking the extent to which participants follow processes on an ongoing basis but also tracking the downstream effects of workarounds. This would likely include closing the loop when implementing new or revised processes in ensuring that it hits the mark, and if not, revising the process to suit reality and constraints (or further addressing the constraints) rather than trying to change routines to suit reality; depending on context.

Overall, it’s argued that rather than just being seen as negative process violations, workarounds can rather also be seen as potential insights into process and work redesign; improving learning, efficiency and safety. However, to ensure this takes place, the authors suggest several steps to minimise the impact of unintended consequences.

We can also infer from this review the importance of fostering an environment where people can safely speak up about workarounds (and rather than them being categorised as “procedural violations”) and critical control departures etc. – since these are too important not to learn about. 

Link in comments.

Authors: Iris Beerepoot, Inge van de Weerd, Hajo A. Reijers, BPM 2019: Business Process Management Workshops pp 338-350