When Not to Map: Avoiding the Trap of Over-Analysing As-Is Processes in Enterprise Software Projects
If anyone was going to defend mapping out your processes to the nth degree, you’d expect it to be the Director of a team of process mapping rockstars. But the truth is, that’s not what we’re about. Even though process mapping is one of our tools, it’s not our purpose. We help visualise outcomes, not memorialise the past.
As someone who genuinely values the clarity a well-crafted process map can bring, the alignment, the shared understanding, the “aha” moments, it feels counterintuitive to say this, but mapping your current state processes isn’t always the right move.
The Problem with Over-Mapping
It’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the more we document, the better prepared we are. But in reality, over-analysing “as-is” processes can cause more harm than good:
Loss of momentum: Endless workshops, endless diagrams, and very little progress.
Designing for the past: You risk re-creating outdated processes in a new system.
Stakeholder fatigue: People lose interest and disengage from the project.
Mapping can become a comfort zone, a way to delay hard decisions about what needs to change.
When Process Mapping Adds Value
We’re not anti-mapping. We’re just intentional about when and why we do it.
Mapping is powerful when:
You need clarity on a specific pain point or bottleneck
You’re identifying functional requirements for software selection
You’re preparing for automation or compliance audits
Or when there’s cultural misalignment or change resistance that needs to be surfaced and addressed
In these cases, mapping is purposeful, not performative.
It can also be a valuable tool when multiple stakeholder groups have differing understandings of current processes. In these situations, mapping the “as-is” creates a shared baseline, a safe and structured way to align perspectives before exploring what the future could look like.
Where there’s misalignment, resistance, or conflicting perspectives, current-state process mapping creates a safe and neutral starting point, giving people the space to share their views, find common ground, and shift focus towards what’s possible.
By doing this early, they help avoid misunderstandings that derail projects down the track. It supports smoother decision-making, stronger engagement, and ultimately better adoption of the future state, saving time, reducing cost, and unlocking value faster.
“Mapping the current state isn’t just about documenting processes, it’s about making people feel heard. When done with the right intent, it helps uncover blind spots, build trust, and create space for teams to co-design a better future together.”
If this alignment hasn’t been established early, we often see the need for increased support from our People and Business Readiness (PBR) team, a group of highly experienced change managers who help build engagement, clarify the ‘why’, and support those impacted to adopt and embed new ways of working. To hear more about how early alignment and human-centric change strategies support adoption, watch Mastering Change Management: Actionable Strategies for Success, an episode of our On the Couch with SMCpodcast featuring Fiona Palermo and Mile Dimkovski.
Focus on the Future, Not the Past
In our approach, we keep things outcome-driven. Instead of asking “What are you doing now?”, we ask:
“What are you trying to achieve?”
“What’s holding you back?”
“What needs to change?”
We often use light-touch techniques like high-level swimlanes, current-to-future process comparisons, and decision trees. These give you the clarity you need to move forward, without getting stuck in the weeds.
What to Do Instead
If you’re heading into a digital transformation, ERP upgrade, or software evaluation, here’s what we recommend:
Align around business drivers and strategic goals first.
Identify key pain points and capability gaps.
Use mapping selectively to support decision-making, not as a default activity.
Mapping is a means to an end, not the end itself.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is process mapping still valuable if we’re not documenting every detail?
Absolutely. Business process mapping is still a powerful tool when used to support decision-making and align stakeholders. The key is to avoid turning it into an exercise in documentation. Instead, focus on how process mapping supports outcomes in enterprise software implementation. Learn more about our approach to business process alignment and future-state modelling.
How do we know when to stop mapping and move on?
If your team is stuck in analysis paralysis, revisiting the same processes without progressing toward decisions, it’s a clear sign to shift gears. Once you’ve uncovered pain points, business drivers, and functional requirements, it’s time to explore fit-for-purpose solutions and digital strategy development that support scalable growth, whether you’re upgrading HR software, modernising finance systems, or evaluating new ERP platforms.
What’s the risk of over-analysing as-is processes?
You risk delaying business value and designing new systems around outdated ways of working. Over-mapping often leads to HRIS system or ERP implementations that replicate inefficiencies. That’s why we focus on designing a better digital future, not preserving the past. Our transformation planning helps organisations move forward with confidence.
What should we focus on instead of detailed mapping?
Is there ever a time when detailed process mapping is appropriate?
Yes. In highly regulated environments or complex operational settings, like aged care, manufacturing, or mining, detailed process documentation is essential. It can support compliance, automation, or vendor implementation decisions. When aligned with digital transformation delivery, it ensures precision without losing sight of the bigger picture.
