PROCESS REDESIGN
Using evidence to simplify a legacy process
Used 18 months of validation evidence to secure agreement for a simpler process during cloud migration.
Context and problem
A partly automated process removed failed or disputed transactions from performance reporting. Stores could submit evidence against appealable decisions, with the validations team reviewing requests before reinstatement. The workflow generated administration and chasing, sometimes after commissions had closed.
Leadership had been reluctant to remove store appeals. During the GCP migration, I identified that the Oracle APEX workflow would require substantial redevelopment. This created a choice between rebuilding it and reconsidering whether it remained necessary.
Analysis and agreement
I established a working group involving retail leadership and worked with the validations team to review 18 months of weekly files. We separated decisions that could be appealed from those that could not, and examined how often appeals overturned removals. Approximately 1,000 transactions were removed each week.
The analysis showed that approximately 99% of removal decisions stood. This was a measure of decisions remaining unchanged, not proof that every original decision was correct.
I presented the findings and recommended automated adjustments with regular audit and a correction route. The evidence addressed leadership concerns and secured agreement to remove the store appeals workflow, avoiding redevelopment of the legacy process.
The revised process
The validations team supplied the transaction-exclusion file. The platform applied exclusions automatically and displayed affected transactions in an exception report. The team retained responsibility for auditing the file.
Where an incorrect removal was identified, the exclusion flag could be removed. The platform then recalculated the transaction into reporting and recorded reinstatement. As migration project manager, I incorporated the revised process into GCP.
Outcome
Automated transaction adjustments replaced the partly automated appeals workflow. The change removed recurring store appeals administration while retaining audit, correction and visibility of removals and reinstatements. It also avoided substantial redevelopment.