Process Audit vs Current State Map
When looking into a proactive analysis of the current state of the process, department, or organization, the terms "Current State Map" and "Process Audit" are often used interchangeably. It is important to note however, that there is a distinction, and doing one while you believe you're doing the other can be an expensive or misleading mistake.
Put simply, a process audit is a review of a specific process or processes against a defined standard or benchmark. This is typically compliance-oriented, focused on the question of "are we doing what we said we'd do?" This is a question that middle management roles are usually placed perfectly to be able to answer, with a narrow scope looking at one process or department at a time, and a pass/fail finding. This is a very common function especially in regulated industries, with ISO certifications, for quality management, or productivity analysis.
However, a current state map is a holistic picture of how the business operates with a scope that can go from a single process all the way to the organization as a whole across processes, systems, people, and decision points. A current state map is not benchmarked against a standard or a goal, it is created to align with the real-world state of the organization. Even in narrower scopes, an important aspect of current state maps is to understand how things interconnect, so even when looking at a single process the reader can see how different processes and stakeholders may interact with the mapped process. An output is a broad and deep understanding of the full operational picture related to that process. This type of function is common during periods of transformation, redesign, and pre-strategy work.
When comparing them, audits check to see if the process lines up with a standard, while current state maps ask what is actually happening. Audits look backwards, while current state maps look at the...well, the current state in order to create a foundation on which to make strategic decisions. Audits produce findings with a limited scope, and can be done by a third party or internal stakeholders without a ton of context. Current state maps, given the level of understanding required, require deep listening and an intensive interview process, especially on larger scope projects.
Do you need to verify adherence to a defined process? Conduct a process audit, make adjustments and reconduct if the initial finding is a fail.
Do you want to redesign, restructure, or transform the process, department, or organization? Build a current state map.
An audit is a very powerful tool that can find problems, but a current state map usually does a better job at discovering the root causes of those problems. If you've only done audits, you may have a lot of compliance data but no coherent picture of how the business actually runs or why certain areas tend to pass or fail. And if you've focused on current state mapping, you may have done a significant amount of work understanding the business processes but not benchmarking them to certain standards. In either case, using the wrong tool can be a costly mistake: use a current state map when you should use a process audit could cost you tens of thousands in additional labor and time, while using a process audit when you should build a current state map could cost you hundreds of thousands or millions if your strategy is based on an incomplete understanding of the organization.
