When employees work around an official process, it may be a sign that the prescribed steps do not fit the work as it actually happens. That is useful evidence—not proof that the process is fixed, that the workaround is safe, or that an employee is at fault. Find out what people are trying to accomplish, assess the consequences, and then decide whether to redesign, enable, adopt, or stop the workaround.
What a workaround can—and cannot—tell you
A workaround is a departure from an established procedure or system to get work done. It might compensate for software that fits poorly, a system failure, an unclear instruction, practical details a written procedure misses, or an earlier error that makes the prescribed next step impossible. It can help complete a task, but it can also add effort, cost, or risk. The same observed behavior may have different consequences in different circumstances.
Research points to mismatches between goals and processes as one reason people deviate. In a qualitative study across six case-study organizations, Soffer and colleagues found that workaround motivation could stem from perceived misalignment between organizational, local-unit, or personal goals and the way processes realize those goals. That is a reason to investigate constraints and competing priorities before attributing a workaround to carelessness or misconduct. Read the 2023 study.
A workaround is not automatically an improvement. It may help one employee while creating extra work for colleagues, confusing customers, weakening quality checks, or bypassing a security or compliance control. Treat it as a clue to investigate, not a solution to copy or a performance verdict.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches#1 Best Overall
How to investigate the gap between the written process and real work
1. Ask employees to show what happens
Invite the people doing the work to walk through a recent example: what they were trying to achieve, what happened, where they left the prescribed path, and who else was involved. Ask what made the usual route impractical. “Do you follow the written process?” alone is unlikely to reveal the constraints, handoffs, or exceptions that explain the behavior. Interviews and observation can provide context that system records miss.
2. Compare the prescribed workflow with actual practice
Map the intended steps and compare them with what employees and systems actually do. If suitable event logs exist, process mining can help flag patterns for inspection. Before interpreting a pattern, check that the official process description is complete and that system events have clear meanings. A missing step in the model or ambiguous data can make apparent deviations misleading.
In 2025, van der Waal and co-authors evaluated SWORD, a framework using 22 patterns to identify potential workarounds in event logs. In two hospital departments, the researchers identified 11 unique workaround types. Those figures describe that particular evaluation; they do not establish how common workarounds are generally or show that the same approach transfers unchanged to every organization. See the SWORD study.
Log analysis is a starting point, not a complete diagnosis. A 2023 small-company case study reported that incomplete descriptions of the intended process hindered detection and that people needed to interpret findings for organizational learning. A 2026 paper likewise describes process-mining indications as non-conclusive and non-exhaustive; interviews and observation can add context, but take time. Read the 2023 case study.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →3. Describe each workaround in context
For each pattern, record the conditions that trigger it, the goal it serves, the steps taken, the participants, and frequency if it has actually been measured. Then examine the effects on employees, customers, quality, safety, compliance, security, and workload. Do not infer intent or impact from a log pattern alone.
4. Find the cause before choosing a fix
Ask what obstacle or goal conflict makes the official route difficult or impossible. The cause may be a system limitation, an unrealistic sequence, unclear policy, a missing exception path, or competing demands. A fix aimed at the apparent behavior rather than its cause can leave the friction intact—or move it elsewhere.
Rank #4
Choose a response based on the consequences
There is no universal rule to adopt or eliminate every workaround. Compare the plausible responses against the underlying cause, the goals they serve, the risks they create, and whether the organization can change the process or system.
| Possible response | When it may fit | What to check |
|---|---|---|
| Redesign the process or information system | The workaround compensates for a recurring system or workflow mismatch. | Whether the redesign removes the original friction without creating new risks or burdens. |
| Clarify the policy or provide a legitimate exception | The prescribed rule is unclear, or a predictable situation has no workable approved route. | Whether employees can recognize when the exception applies and follow it consistently. |
| Adopt a local practice | The practice has demonstrable benefits and its consequences have been assessed. | Effects on safety, quality, compliance, security, customers, and other teams before broader use. |
| Block or stop the workaround | The path creates unacceptable harm or bypasses a necessary safeguard. | Whether a safe, workable alternative is available so the original problem does not simply persist. |
This comparison is a practical decision aid, not a validated scoring system. Beerepoot, van de Weerd, and Reijers reviewed 70 articles on information-systems workarounds and discussed their potential for process improvement; that body of work does not make every workaround beneficial. See the 2019 review record.
Best Value
Check whether the change solved the problem
After changing a process, system, policy, or exception path, revisit the work. Ask the people doing the task whether the original obstacle has gone, look for new workarounds, and check the relevant outcomes—such as errors, delays, customer impact, or control breaches—using measures appropriate to the process. A change that closes one gap may expose another.
A 2026 paper proposes a workaround-driven improvement cycle centered on recurring patterns, root-cause analysis, and structured selection of a response. It reports three case studies and evaluation interviews with seven process-improvement experts; those settings support presenting it as a proposed approach, not as proof of guaranteed productivity or financial gains. Read the 2026 paper.
Use process data to guide questions, not to monitor blame
Event logs can reveal where recorded activity departs from an expected sequence, but they do not by themselves explain why. Pair data with employee accounts and, where useful, observation. Keep the focus on the work conditions, system fit, and process consequences rather than treating deviation as evidence of individual performance or intent.
Organizations that listen carefully can turn workarounds into specific questions: What is the employee trying to achieve? What makes the official route fail? Who bears the consequences? Which response addresses the cause while protecting people, customers, and controls? Answering those questions is more useful than either copying every workaround or trying to stamp them all out.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
