An operations manager is considering automating a weekly copy: take statuses from the team's tracker and paste them unchanged into a presentation sheet. In this fictional example, the copying is repetitive. Whether the second sheet is needed is still an open question.
Start there. Identify who uses the output, what they do with it and which obligations depend on it. Then propose retaining, redesigning or stopping that specific copy. A step that looks redundant may preserve a historical snapshot or supply someone else's workflow.
This guide offers a MAJLS output-use worksheet for that decision. It does not authorize deleting reports or removing controls.
Examine the output before the automation
MAJLS's published approach puts understanding and redesigning the process before building the roles and systems to run it.[1]
The Lean Enterprise Institute describes current-state value-stream mapping as capturing actual material and information flow, and distinguishes improving the whole from optimizing individual processes.[2]
Our interpretation for office work: trace the copied output to its consumers before making the copying faster. This worksheet is an original MAJLS recommendation, not an LEI standard or a deployed product.
LEI's waste definition also distinguishes activity that creates no customer value but is currently unavoidable from activity that can be removed.[3]
That distinction matters here. Do not label a control unnecessary because it produces no new information. Ask its owner what purpose it serves. The worksheet does not establish legal retention duties; records and control owners must resolve those separately.
Output-use worksheet template
Use one row per output, not one row per recipient email. Split versions when their uses differ.
- Identify the producing step, authoritative source, copied output and exact version or period.
- Name the intended recipient, accountable consumer and decision or task the output supports.
- Attach evidence of use and the last confirmed use: a referenced meeting record, downstream input reference or dated consumer confirmation. Store a verification state separately.
- Record dependencies and controls in separate fields: downstream input, cutoff snapshot, approval evidence, audit or history purpose, and records-owner requirements.
- Check confidentiality and access constraints. An alternative source is unsuitable if its intended reader cannot legitimately access it.
- Add the proposed disposition, unresolved questions, owner and next review point.
An unread email, absent tracked view or missing reply does not prove no use. Record what you checked and whom you still need to hear from. A producer's impression that "nobody reads it" is an investigation lead, not a removal decision.
Filled example: the weekly-status duplicate
All records, receipts, dates and people below are synthetic. The two presentation-sheet rows are alternative findings for the same copy step, not simultaneous facts.
| Output | Evidence and accountable consumer | Dependency or control purpose | Proposed disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Live tracker T-01 | Team lead confirms current statuses are read during weekly coordination; receipt C-01, 2 October | Source history remains available under records-owner requirements | Retain |
| Presentation sheet P-01, variant A | Meeting chair confirms the 2 October meeting used its frozen view to compare changes; receipt C-02 | Chair cannot substitute a live, changing view without redesigning meeting preparation | Redesign copying; retain the needed view |
| Presentation sheet P-01, variant B | Chair and all registered consumers confirm no use since the 18 September switch to T-01; receipts C-03/C-04 dated 2 October | Dependency check D-01 confirms no input link; records owner confirms snapshot S-01 is separate | Propose stopping future P-01 copying; authorization pending |
| Period snapshot S-01 | Records owner receipt R-01 confirms required history even though nobody reads it weekly | Required period snapshot, approval evidence and access restrictions | Retain |
| Status export E-01 | Downstream coordinator has not answered query Q-01; last use unknown | Possible input to another workflow remains unconfirmed | Investigate; hold change |
Variant A has a real use. Consider preparing the needed frozen view differently, but ask the chair to accept any replacement before changing the step.
Variant B supports a narrower proposal: stop producing P-01 after confirmation and authorization. It does not justify stopping S-01, changing E-01 or deleting past sheets. If the dependency search covered only the manager's own folder, mark it incomplete and investigate further.
Decision guide: four proposed dispositions
Retain an output with a confirmed use or required control purpose. Redesign a needed output whose production method can change without losing that purpose. Propose stopping a verified unused duplicate when dependencies and obligations are resolved. Investigate when use, ownership or authority remains unknown.
These are recommendations. Consequential approval for changing a workflow stays with the named human process owner, with records and control owners resolving their requirements. A preparation role may assemble permitted evidence and draft the proposal; it may not approve or execute the change.
Removal-proposal template
For fictional variant B, proposal RP-01 should say:
- Stop only future copying from T-01 into P-01, beginning at a date the process owner separately authorizes. Approval receipt and start date are currently blank.
- Preserve T-01 and its history, S-01 snapshots, existing P-01 records, approval evidence and current access permissions. Leave E-01 unchanged while Q-01 is unresolved.
- Attach C-03/C-04, D-01 and R-01; identify the affected meeting chair and registered consumers. Require any newly discovered consumer to be resolved before starting.
- Ask the operations process owner to authorize a bounded two-cycle trial. Do not start it from this draft. Ask the chair to return a review receipt after each cycle.
- Reinstate the copy if a confirmed consumer needs P-01, a downstream input breaks or the required snapshot cannot be produced. The process owner must assign reinstatement responsibility before authorizing the trial.
Before: T-01 feeds P-01 for presentation; T-01 also feeds S-01 and the unresolved E-01.
Proposed after authorization: stop only the P-01 branch. Keep T-01, S-01 and E-01 unchanged. This is a proposed process sketch, not an observed result.
Test the proposal before asking for approval
Run a tabletop with the owner. A confirmed reader should lead to retain or redesign. A required snapshot should remain. An unanswered dependency should hold the change. Unsupported no-use claims should lead to investigation. Even confirmed no use should produce a proposal awaiting human authorization.
Use the worksheet fields, filled register and RP-01 above to make those checks repeatable. They provide no savings estimate; a benefit claim would need an authorized measurement of actual work.
For broader process selection, use Start with one process. For risks in steps you retain, use the workflow failure-mode map. Here, the next action is narrower: pick one copied output and ask its accountable consumer to confirm the use, the dependency and the evidence.