Don’t complicate

The Dew-X team has a key saying: “Estonian workflow”

This is a reference to the Estonian CIT. When we think about the complexity of legal regulations in European countries, we feel terrified. VAT, PIT, CIT, COVID – it’s a pity to talk. I have not heard anyone say they are in favor of complicating them further – rather, we only hear voices for simplification and rewriting.

On the other hand, whenever we have the opportunity, we complicate ourselves as much as possible. The implementation of document and case workflow processes is a good example of such an action. The emergence of an electronic system sometimes even encourages to confuse the procedures that exist before implementation – because such an opportunity arises. As a result, monster processes are created, of such a complexity that even reading their maps requires a lot of determination and experience.

Can it be done differently?

At Dew-X, we believe so. We think that if the maximum simplification of processes was one of the basic goals of the implementation, this would be the case.

One way to do this is to divide large processes into several smaller ones. To illustrate this example, let’s look at a holiday request process.

It usually combines various types of absences: vacation leave, occasional, on demand, child (maternity, paternity – parental and child-care), training, unpaid and all forms of paid and unpaid absence of service providers.

Now let’s think about the map of such a process and its complexities – actors, types of decisions, conditions, etc. To design something like this, you need an expensive analyst (and it’s still quite a simple process, comparing it, for example, to some invoice workflows).

Meanwhile, if each case was designed separately, then “clicking” one of them (forms and flow) without drawing a map at all would probably take several minutes. Moreover, filling out simpler forms would also be much more convenient for later users.

So why is this way of thinking not universal?

First, not everyone agrees that simpler is better.

Second, the implementation should be shrouded in a fog of secret knowledge, reserved only for initiates.

Third, vendors often license per process and / or earn money on implementations.

It’s different with Dew-X. You can follow the path of the “Estonian” workflow with it.

Great. How to get started?