What Four Months of Listening Revealed: A Real-World Field Study Case Study

We've all heard the phrase, "Go to Gemba." But what does that actually look like in practice?

Recently I shared a social media post about the importance of field studies and observing work where it actually happens. Today, I'd like to pull back the curtain and share a real project that demonstrates why this approach is so powerful.

The Challenge

A client had developed an impressive portfolio of customized leadership solutions over many years. Their ability to tailor programs to each customer was one of their greatest strengths.

Unfortunately, those processes had also evolved organically.

As new services were added, new technologies introduced, and teams expanded, the organization accumulated dozens of undocumented practices, manual workarounds, disconnected systems, and inconsistent ways of working. Everyone knew their own piece of the process—but no one had a complete picture of how the entire value stream functioned.

The organization recognized that if key employees left or the business continued to grow, these hidden inefficiencies would become even more difficult to manage.

Instead of immediately looking for technology solutions, we began with something much simpler:

Understand the process first.

The Field Study

Over four months, we conducted interviews and process observations with more than twenty stakeholders representing Sales, Product Management, Program Management, and Operations.

Rather than assuming we knew where the problems existed, we asked the people performing the work every day.

Questions included:

• What makes your job more difficult than it should be?

• Where do delays occur?

• What information do you wish you had earlier?

• What causes rework?

• What manual work could be eliminated?

• If you could change one thing tomorrow, what would it be?

These conversations became far more valuable than simply documenting process steps.

They uncovered the story behind the process.

What We Discovered

Although each department experienced unique challenges, common themes quickly began to emerge.

Manual Processes Everywhere

Employees relied heavily on spreadsheets, email, manually completed forms, and duplicate data entry.

Information was often entered multiple times into different systems, creating unnecessary effort and increasing the likelihood of errors.

Unclear Roles and Responsibilities

One of the largest themes was uncertainty around ownership.

Different teams often believed someone else was responsible for certain activities, resulting in missed handoffs, duplicated work, and confusion throughout the project lifecycle.

This wasn't a people problem.

It was a process clarity problem.

Disconnected Systems

Critical information lived in multiple applications with very little integration.

Employees spent valuable time searching for documents, copying information between systems, and emailing updates that could easily become outdated.

Instead of supporting employees, technology was often creating additional work.

Too Much Customization

Customization was one of the organization's competitive advantages.

Ironically, it had also become one of its largest sources of waste.

Even projects that required only minor adjustments frequently received the same level of customization as highly complex engagements.

This consumed valuable resources, extended timelines, and created unnecessary variation throughout the organization.

Communication Gaps

Several teams shared similar frustrations.

Information wasn't consistently communicated during project transitions.

Changes were often discovered late.

Lessons learned rarely made their way into future projects.

Without standardized communication practices, employees developed their own workarounds just to keep projects moving.

The Biggest Lesson

The most surprising discovery wasn't any single process issue.

It was how consistently employees identified the same underlying problems.

Different departments described nearly identical frustrations—even though they viewed them from completely different perspectives.

Once those recurring themes became visible, improvement opportunities practically prioritized themselves.

Instead of solving isolated symptoms, leadership could begin addressing systemic issues affecting the entire value stream.

Why This Matters

Many organizations immediately begin discussing automation, AI, or new software when performance starts slipping.

Technology certainly has its place.

But implementing new technology on top of a poorly understood process usually accelerates the wrong work.

Field studies provide something technology never can:

Context.

They reveal why people created workarounds.

They expose hidden dependencies.

They identify communication breakdowns.

Most importantly, they help organizations distinguish between isolated problems and systemic ones.

The Results

The findings became the foundation for future optimization efforts.

Improvement opportunities included:

• Standardizing processes across departments

• Clarifying roles and responsibilities

• Reducing manual effort through automation

• Improving system integration

• Simplifying documentation

• Strengthening feedback loops

• Building scalable processes capable of supporting future growth

  
  

Rather than guessing where to improve, leadership now had evidence-based priorities grounded in the experiences of the people closest to the work.

Final Thoughts

One of my favorite sayings in Continuous Improvement is:

"The process is perfectly designed to get the results it currently produces."

If we want different results, we first have to understand the process as it actually exists—not as we believe it works.

That's why I continue to advocate for field studies.

Not because they're complicated.

Because they're incredibly effective.

Sometimes the most valuable improvement tool isn't sophisticated software or advanced analytics.

Sometimes it's simply taking the time to go see, ask questions, and truly listen.

That's where meaningful improvement begins.