Workflows rarely get designed all at once. More often, they accumulate over years, with small workarounds added to handle exceptions, and those workarounds eventually become permanent, unquestioned parts of the process.
Ask why each step exists
When we review a workflow, we ask why each step exists, and it's common to find steps that were added to solve a problem that no longer applies. Nobody removes these steps because nobody is quite sure they're safe to remove.
Approval chains deserve particular scrutiny
Multi-step approval chains are especially prone to unnecessary accumulation. Each additional approver was likely added for a specific, reasonable concern at the time, but the cumulative effect is often a process that takes far longer than the risk being managed actually warrants.
Automation should follow redesign, not replace it
It's tempting to automate a workflow exactly as it currently exists. We push clients to redesign the workflow first and automate the improved version, since automating an inefficient process just makes the inefficiency faster.
Document the new process clearly
A redesigned workflow that isn't clearly documented tends to drift back toward old habits within months. We treat documentation as part of the deliverable, not an afterthought, so the improvement actually sticks.