Operations v IT
Workers completing quality inspections, then manually hunting through that data to fill out a separate warranty form. Same information, different order. 30+ minutes of transcription per truck.
The Problem
Same data, different forms, double the work.
A global manufacturing client had workers completing quality inspections, then manually hunting through that data to fill out a separate warranty compliance form. The inspection checklist and warranty form asked for the same information — just in different orders. Result: 30+ minutes of transcription per truck, production delays, and missing warranty documentation that cost them real money.
The Disconnect
IT and Operations weren't speaking the same language.
IT built what they thought was a logical warranty form — organised by their system's requirements. Operations were tearing their hair out trying to use it because it didn't match how they actually did the work. Neither side was wrong — they just weren't speaking the same language, and the workers were caught in the middle.
The Solution
Reorganise to match the workflow.
I mapped out both requirements visually using blocks of colour to show what information connected where. Then I reorganised the inspection checklist to follow the warranty form's exact sequence. Same information, same workers, same system — just reordered. What took 30+ minutes of frustrated hunting became a 3-minute task.
The Insight
Most data problems are design problems.
The workers weren't the problem. The process was. When you reorganise information to match how humans actually work — not how systems want to receive it — compliance becomes effortless instead of painful. That's when I realised: most 'data capture problems' aren't technology problems. They're design problems.