Q 772. What’s One Practice in Your Organization That Looks Efficient — But Isn’t?
In many organizations, certain practices or reports are praised for being “lean,” “automated,” or “standardized.”

But on closer inspection, they may add little value, hide inefficiencies, or even mislead decision-makers. Think of one such practice in your organization or past experience. Why is it perceived as efficient? And what makes it actually ineffective when viewed through a Business Excellence lens?

 

🏆 The best answer will be selected on the basis of:

• Insightfulness of the chosen practice

• Depth of analysis in identifying hidden inefficiencies

• Relevance and clarity in linking it to Business Excellence principles

 

Note for website visitors -

• This platform hosts two weekly questions, one on Monday and the other on Thursday. 
• All previous questions can be found here: https://www.benchmarksixsigma.com/forum/lean-six-sigma-business-excellence-questions/. 
• To participate in the current question, please visit the forum homepage at https://www.benchmarksixsigma.com/forum/.
• The question will be open until Monday or Thursday at 5 PM Indian Standard Time, depending on the launch day. 
• Responses will not be visible until they are reviewed, and only non-plagiarised answers with less than 5-10% plagiarism will be considered for winner selection. 
• If you are unsure about plagiarism, please check your answer using a plagiarism checker tool such as https://smallseotools.com/plagiarism-checker/ before submitting. 
• All correct answers shall be published, and the top-rated answer will be displayed first. The author will receive an honourable mention in our Business Excellence dictionary at https://www.benchmarksixsigma.com/forum/business-excellence-dictionary-glossary/ along with the related term.

• Some people seem to be using AI platforms to find forum answers. This is a risky approach as AI responses are error-prone because our questions are application-oriented (they are never straightforward). Have a look at this funny example - https://www.benchmarksixsigma.com/forum/topic/39458-using-ai-to-respond-to-forum-questions/

• We also use an AI content detector at https://quillbot.com/ai-content-detector. Only answers with less than 45-50% AI-generated content will be considered for winner selection.

In SAP SD projects, small enhancements like adding a new field, change in the pricing logic and in the output, should have a full FS document for consistency in documentation and feel like everything is captured, it will make development and testing easier but in actual it’s not.

Because FS document template should have business background and functional overview, flow diagrams, error handling, test scenarios, authorizations etc.

Just adding a single field and changing the pricing logic does not need 10-12 pages of documentation and it delays the development and it’s an unnecessary time-consuming task.

The better alternative is Lightweight documentation. Documentation should have a problem statement, affected tables, table changes, brief test scenarios and approvals.

PRACTICE:

 

Daily Automated OEE Reports (Overall Equipment Effectiveness)

PORTRAYED Efficiency:

 

In this scenario, my organization automated the daily Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) report. The automated generation of the daily Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) reports was seen as a lean best practice. These reports were derived from data gotten directly from machines and were displayed and used as real-time performance metrics showing availability, performance, and quality across the various production lines. Stakeholders thought it was an example of the industry 4.0-driven efficiency which is known to be fast, data-driven, and standardized.

Why It’s Actually Ineffective:

Though this practice looked effective from a business excellence point of view, it actually masked significant inefficiencies like:

1. Over dependent on surface level metrics: In depth analysis could not be gotten with surface level data. Even though OEE is a valuable KPI, it should not be used to drive primary performance decisions. For example, lines with high OEE scores may sometimes experience frequent stoppages or unforeseen quality issues that wouldn’t be flagged clearly in the summary metric. Instead of investigating underlying problems, operators would only be concerned about “protecting the numbers”
2. Lack of Contextual Interpretation: Because reports were auto generated and shared, they lacked frontline insights and narrative context. This in turn gave room for doubts regarding the data provided in meetings because the integrity of the data was not trusted.
3. Illusion of Continuous Improvement: The automation portrayed a false sense of control and progress because the data could not be depended on. Without accurate data for RCAs, stakeholders could not use the report to drive real improvement. The organization tracked problems but could not manage them, this act violates a core principle of business excellence.

Business Excellence Lens:

In a framework like lean six sigma, excellence requires not just the collection of data, but the usage of data for learning and innovation. The OEE reports that were automated lacked feedback loops and cross-functional engagements with other teams like shopfloor teams, thereby limiting organizational learning.

 

Conclusion:

What seems efficient will not always be effective. In this scenario, the automation of reporting replaced human insight with speed, optimizing for data delivery, but did not give data value. Business Excellence calls us to go deeper: using metrics as tools for engagement, improvement, and aligned decision-making, and not just dashboards for compliance’s sake.

 

A Method That Appears Effective but Isn’t: Automated Recurrent Status Meetings

Scheduled in calendars for coordination, yet frequently lack urgency, significance, or practical results.

Why It’s Perceived as Efficient

• Scheduled once in each person's calendar, no additional coordination required.
• Automated Scheduling: Once set in everyone's calendars, no additional coordination required.
• Consistency: Guarantees a regular cadence for disseminating information, promoting harmony.
• Active Risk Management: Viewed as a protective measure for identifying problems early on. Scheduled once in each person's calendar, no additional coordination required.
• Viewed as a proactive method to “keep everyone aligned.”
• Responsibility Tool: Participants are motivated to keep track of their tasks, aware that they must update their progress.
• Common notion:
• “With a weekly status check-in, nothing important will be overlooked.”
Why it’s inefficient:
• Numerous instances happen without pressing concerns or practical results.
• Consumes shared time (often several person-hours each week) on status updates that are more effectively addressed asynchronously.
• Reduces efficiency and incurs opportunity cost.
• Reasons It’s Truly Ineffective (From a Business Excellence Perspective)
• Absence of Purpose Alignment - Meetings occur out of routine, not out of need. Frequently, there isn’t any new or essential material to talk about. Time is squandered when there are no issues or decisions awaiting resolution.
• Excessive use of Resources - Every meeting takes up important time for several individuals. When applied to multiple projects or departments, it results in a considerable loss of productivity.
• Procedure Over Worth  - The gathering takes place due to the schedule indicating it, rather than because it offers value on that particular day. It emphasizes procedural consistency rather than significant business results.
• Excess Information or Replication - Updates frequently reiterate what has already been recorded in project trackers, dashboards, or emails. Meetings turn into sessions for verbal status updates instead of platforms for making decisions. Illusion of Control Routine meetings may foster complacency, leading to issues being postponed for the next scheduled meeting rather than being tackled right away through direct, agile communication.
• Cultural Ineffectiveness - Fosters a culture prioritizing meetings instead of taking action. The time dedicated to preparing for and participating in meetings takes away from the time available for real problem-solving or productive work.
Violation of Business Excellence Principle:
Processes that add value, emphasizing essential aspects, and eliminating waste.
• Value Emphasis - The time spent is not consistently providing value to customers or stakeholders.
• Process Efficiency - The meeting proceeds without clear agreement on outcomes or requirements.
• Waste Reduction (Muda) - Engages time, energy, and focus without equivalent advantage.
• Ongoing Enhancement - Due to its frequent occurrence and acceptance, its worth is seldom challenged or assessed.
• Decision Making Based on Facts - Frequently misses prompt, essential, and pertinent information, functioning more as a catch-up venue than a decision-making platform.
How to Reimagine for Genuine Efficiency
Substitute regular recurring meetings with:
Decision forums convened as needed based on specific project thresholds or exceptions.
Status updates can be shared asynchronously using dashboards, email summaries, or project management platforms 
If meetings are necessary, regularly evaluate and explain their importance. Cancel or adjust timings depending on project requirements. Ensure that agendas concentrate solely on matters needing discussion, decisions, or escalations. Restrict participants to individuals who are directly involved with or affected by the agenda topics. Establish specific objectives for each meeting (e.g., “Approval decision for Project X milestone” vs. “Report from all teams.”
Auto-scheduled recurring status meetings appear effective as they imply organization and oversight, yet in reality, they frequently contradict fundamental Business Excellence principles such as intentional action, value creation, waste reduction, and adaptability. The most intelligent, top-performing teams substitute regular status meetings with more efficient, immediate, and decision-focused options.

Business Excellence isn't merely about operating efficiently; it's about efficiently doing the right things.
The fact that something is automated, standardized, or scheduled doesn’t guarantee its excellence.
Achieving Business Excellence involves periodically pausing and inquiring:
"Does this practice provide genuine, up-to-date, practical value — or is it just an exercise in show?"

 

 

 

An automated weekly performance dashboard in my previous organization appeared efficient because it saved time and looked professional. However, it was ineffective as it focused on vanity metrics, lacked context, and often misled decision-makers. It gave a false sense of control without driving real improvements, failing to align with strategic goals or support informed actions.

 

 

One Practice That Looks Efficient — But Isn’t: The “Standardized” Audit Timesheet Reporting System

Perceived Efficiency:
In audit firms, including ours, audit timesheets are widely used to track staff time against clients, activities, and project codes. These are seen as “standardized” and “necessary” for billing, resource planning, and performance tracking. The process is digitized, and reports are auto-generated weekly. On paper, this seems lean, structured, and efficient.

Why It’s Actually Ineffective (from a Business Excellence Perspective):
    1.    Activity Groups Are Often Misused or Left as ‘Unassigned’:
Many timesheets are submitted with vague or incorrect activity groupings like “Others” or “Unassigned,” which misrepresents how time is actually spent. This misleads resource utilization analysis and defeats the purpose of structured categorization.
    2.    Focus on Logging Hours Over Deliverables or Value:
Staff often enter hours just to comply with requirements rather than to reflect actual productivity or output. For example, someone might log 8 hours on “Execution,” but without linking it to tangible milestones like audit documentation reviewed or issues resolved.
    3.    No Real-Time Insight for Managers:
While the reports are generated weekly, managers don’t get real-time visibility into whether time is being overrun or inefficiently utilized. This delays intervention, especially on critical high-risk or low-margin engagements.
    4.    No Root Cause Analysis of Overruns:
If a job consistently exceeds estimated hours, the system doesn’t prompt any structured review of why. There is no integration of feedback, learnings, or corrective actions into future planning — violating the principle of continuous improvement.
    5.    Data Quality Is Poorly Governed:
Without proper validation checks or audit trails in the system, timesheets may include back-dated entries, rounding errors, or incorrect codes, reducing the reliability of performance reports derived from them.

Business Excellence Lens:
    •    Fact-Based Decision Making: Is compromised when inaccurate or incomplete timesheet data informs staffing, billing, and partner evaluation decisions.
    •    Customer Focus: Audit clients expect timely, efficient audits — but inaccurate time logs hinder workload optimization and timely delivery.
    •    Process Orientation: The focus is on input (logged hours) rather than throughput (audit progress) or output (audit completion with quality).
    •    Continuous Improvement: There’s no feedback loop to correct systemic issues in resource estimation or audit execution.

Conclusion:
While the timesheet reporting system may appear lean and standardized, it becomes a compliance burden rather than a performance tool. A Business Excellence approach would re-engineer the system to capture meaningful, real-time metrics linked to audit quality and project outcomes, supported by periodic reviews and feedback loops.

One common practice that seems efficient but actually isn’t is over-reliance on automated dashboards for decision-making.

Why It’s Perceived as Efficient

Organizations love dashboards because they promise real-time insights, standardized reporting, and quick decision-making. With sleek visuals and predefined metrics, they create an illusion of clarity and control. Executives feel empowered to make data-driven decisions without deep-diving into details.

Why It’s Ineffective

Under a Business Excellence lens, dashboards often:

• Mask data quality issues – If the underlying data is inconsistent or biased, the automated visuals can mislead rather than inform.
• Encourage surface-level decision-making – Metrics may not capture nuanced insights, leading to short-sighted choices rather than strategic thinking.
• Ignore contextual factors – Real-world complexities (market shifts, customer sentiment, process nuances) rarely fit into predefined graphs.
• Promote passive consumption – Decision-makers might trust the numbers blindly instead of questioning, validating, or cross-referencing insights.

Instead, organizations should complement dashboards with deep dives, contextual analysis, and feedback loops to ensure decisions are truly informed rather than just data-driven.

 

When we think on the the over-reliance on automation and standardized procedures without considering the diversity of customer's expectations, demands is any one approach in service organizations that may appear efficient but is frequently ineffective/ most likely having good case for the improvement. Many times automations initiated without considering the risk prone areas and end with chaos.

Although the aim of automating techniques and processes is to reduce errors, time consuming gaps, and simplify processes, they might result in a lack of adaptability and reactivity.

In a way while reducing variability and enhancing quality should be the main aim of an any organization in the view of process experts, placing so much emphasis on standardization may obscure the particular needs of each customer in unnecessary automation.

This will increased consumer discontent and an inability to adequately handle particular concerns, might arise.

At the end, putting efficiency with quality first through inflexible automation or procedures may degrade service authentication, reliability, quality and impede long-term success and client loyalty.

Capacity Utlization : Efficiency often looks good on paper, but in practice, there can be hidden inefficiencies that keep things stagnant. Capacity utilization might appear optimized, but without an accurate Average Handling Time (AHT) assessment, the true bandwidth required for daily operations remains unclear.
A Time and Motion Study is a great approach to pinpoint inefficiencies at a granular level. It helps reveal how much time each task truly requires, preventing inflated FTE requirements and ensuring manpower is aligned with actual business needs. Regular AHT revisions keep these calculations up-to-date, ensuring the workforce is adjusted dynamically rather than staying fixed due to legacy operational habits.
If done well, this strategy can lead to significant cost savings while maintaining productivity. There are any major pushbacks from the team in implementing such a shift? Sometimes resistance to change plays a big role in keeping inefficiencies alive.

A common practice that appears efficient but isn’t is the monthly automated performance dashboard—widely used in many organizations, especially in operations or sales departments.

---

Why It's Perceived as Efficient:

• Automated: Data is pulled automatically from systems (e.g., ERP, CRM), reducing manual work.

• Visual: Dashboards use charts and color coding, making them appear modern and easy to read.

• Standardized: Everyone sees the same metrics, implying alignment and transparency.

• Frequent: Delivered monthly, creating a rhythm for review and action.

---

Why It’s Actually Ineffective (Through a Business Excellence Lens):

1. Focuses on Lagging Indicators:

   • Most dashboards emphasize outcomes (e.g., revenue, productivity, cost), not root causes or processes.

   • By the time an issue appears in the dashboard, it's often too late for meaningful correction.

2. Encourages Passive Consumption:

   • Leaders often “review” the dashboard without digging deeper.

   • It creates a false sense of control and understanding.

3. Misalignment with Strategy:

   • Standard metrics may not align with key business goals or current improvement priorities.

   • “What gets measured gets managed,” but if the wrong things are measured, effort is misdirected.

4. Lack of Context or Narrative:

   • Dashboards lack explanation. A drop in customer satisfaction might appear without any context on causes.

   • Business excellence requires understanding the “why” behind the data, not just the “what.”

5. Overhead in Maintaining Relevance:

   • As business needs evolve, dashboards are rarely updated promptly.

   • Maintaining data accuracy and relevance often involves hidden manual work or complex patching, defeating the “automation” claim.

---

A Better Practice:

Replace static dashboards with regular cross-functional performance dialogues, where:

• Metrics are tailored to strategic priorities.

• Both leading and lagging indicators are discussed.

• Insights are tied to specific actions or improvements.

• Qualitative context complements the numbers.

One practice in any organization that seems efficient but isn't is the Automated weekly status reports. These reports are generated automatically from our project management software and are supposed to provide a quick overview of project progress.

At first glance, this practice appears efficient because it saves time and ensures consistency. However, when viewed through a Business Excellence lens, several hidden inefficiencies become apparent:

• Lack of Context: The automated reports often lack the context and nuances that a manual report might include. Important details about project challenges or team dynamics are missing, which can mislead decision-makers.
• Data Accuracy: The data pulled into these reports is only as good as the input. If team members do not update the project management software accurately or timely, the reports can contain outdated or incorrect information.
• Over-Reliance on Automation: There's a tendency to rely too heavily on these reports without cross-checking the data. This can lead to overlooking critical issues that aren't captured by the automated system.
• Reduced Engagement: Team members may feel less engaged with the reporting process since it's automated. This can result in a lack of ownership and accountability for the data presented.

In terms of Business Excellence principles, these reports fail to provide the necessary insights for continuous improvement and informed decision-making. They create a false sense of efficiency while hiding underlying issues that need attention. A more effective approach would involve a combination of automated data collection and manual review to ensure accuracy, context, and engagement.

Recently, I worked on the billing and invoicing process for a Business Unit in my company. At first glance, it appeared to be a very efficient process, especially considering the small number of people handling a large volume of invoice, billing, and collection transactions. A benchmark analysis indicated that the team is on par with the top 90th percentile of performers. Despite this, there were some inherent system issues, but the team identified RPA (Robotic Process Automation) solutions to address these inefficiencies.

 

Upon deeper investigation, I realized that the processes were not as efficient as they seemed from the outside. There were many patchwork processes and RPAs used to bridge gaps. Before simplifying or transforming a process, it is essential to ask, "Do we even need that step/process/workflow to begin with?" If we can eliminate processes and still achieve the desired business outcome, that would be the ideal scenario.

For example, the team accepted physical cheques and used manual processes to scan and deposit them. In today's business environment, this is an outdated practice. As a team, we decided to make the right business decisions to accept only wire transfers or credit card payments.

 

Another area we examined was exception handling. All standard processes were automated with RPAs, while exceptions were routed through human intervention. We are now exploring the use of AI agents to handle both automations and exceptions with minimal human oversight. With the advent of AI agents, the future team structure will be a hybrid model, with bots to automate tasks, AI agents to manage exceptions and close workflows, and humans providing oversight.

There are many practices which are efficient. However, few practices just appear as efficient. One of such example practices is to have Back-to-Back Meetings
At first sight, it seems a productive way to keep everyone engaged and ensure that problems are addressed promptly. It creates a sense of momentum and encourages collaboration. Though, this approach often backfires sometimes. Back-to back meetings do not leave any no room for focused work. It leads to mental fatigue and poor decision-making. Moreover, few meetings without clear outcomes often result in follow up meetings to revisit unresolved points.

I will take as an example of the procurement report (weekly/monthly).
Why I can say that report is efficient because of the following reasons mentioned below:

• It is an auto-generated report that pulls the data from the system and sends an automatic email to the team (weekly). The report comprises the vendor details, item description, category or section, cost (material, freight & duties), order status, and timeline to reach the factory, etc. This allows team to track the purchase list and plan the work (maintenance) at the factory. 
• The report is generated monthly in a standardized format with consistent charts and tables, which makes it easy to visualize at a glance.
• The report will give real-time visibility to the report because it is integrated with Power BI, so anyone can access and view the report.

From a business excellence perspective, this seems ineffective because it focuses on reporting data rather than driving strategic actions and value optimization.

Lack of Actionable Insights:
While the shows you that what was spent and where, it rarely explains why the purchase occurred or what opportunities exist for optimization. For example, it might show a high spend in the "machine category or particular machine section," but it won't show if that purchase was strategic, redundant, or if there were better alternative options.

Hiding Inefficiencies and Poor Practices:
A high expense shown for "emergency breakdown machine parts that we bought and also items shipped by air cargo (air freight cost higher than sea freight)" in the report, but the report doesn't give an idea why these purchases occur and what the manufacturing loss will be if these items do not arrive on time to the stakeholders (e.g., poor planning, lead time, vendor issues, etc.).

Supplier Performance Valuation:
The report focuses on items bought in different "categories and section" and how much the "supplier contributes in overall purchases", not on supplier performance or contract compliance. It won't highlight if a low-cost supplier is consistently delivering the material late or with quality issues, which leads to manufacturing downtime & production loss.
 

Focus on Cost, Not on Value:
 The report highlights the expenses, it doesn't show what value was received for that purchase. Higher expenses in a certain category might be justified to the stakeholders if they lead to significant improvements in productivity and quality.

What’s One Practice in Your Organization That Looks Efficient — But Isn’t?

 

Being in manufacturing/ distribution industry, we have needs different codes for raw materials, finished product material, packaging material, engineering part, consumable etc.

 

As a general practice we generate codes for each material for specific vendors for procurement, identification, same code to be aligned for creating internal specifications for testing, transfer of stock, taxation, stock evaluation, costing etc.

In our organization, we have multiple site where they are implemented to have smooth execution (procurement, testing, stock transfer) and have traceability of material.

 

In order to generate codes, we had standardized guideline to achieve harmonize, lean process (avoid multiple code generation) and automated process but with closer inspection over the time, we have observed multiple codes in the system. With closer look we have found that there are times were codes are generated only for procurement which is not linked to section/testing, codes generated with same name with slight modification (which goes unnoticed) which is not linked to all sites, individual sites create individual codes.

 

Thus there are numerous code for same material. The actual practice for creating unique code applicable to all sites which would cater procurement, testing, valuation, stock transfer is not met and has created lot of confusion.

 

To overcome this issue, we need to restrict new codes and trigger if same material code is required by any user. We need to check for completeness fro teh genrated code or else disable the code.  To achive thhis integration with AI enabled system ican be planned which would restrict creating another duplicate code, message would be pop up to the user sharing the details for the already existing material code and if still required permission would be required as check box (notice to be shared to management). Individual ingredient item code would be similar across the sites following single specification for testing. This would limit the creation of duplicate codes and existing code to be filled all the required details.

Guess we are leveraging AI models to get the answers as most of the answers are similar in nature

While it is good to get some ideas from AI models, but we are looking for genuineness in the answers which AI will never have!

 

The best answer to this question has been provided by - Vatsala Muthukumaraswamy. Well done!
 

Answer from Nwamaka Benedicta Olorungbade is also an interesting read.