PROCESS

Here is How to Build

Design

Principles

What seeing is

You learned in the first chapter that you already run processes, and that a process is made of steps, joined by inputs and outputs, run in a sequence. Now the work begins, and the first part of that work is to see.

Seeing sounds like the easy part. It is not. A process that runs every day is mostly invisible, even to the people running it. They do the work, but they could not draw you the whole of it, because no one of them holds the whole of it. Each person sees their own piece. The process itself, the full chain from start to finish, lives in the gaps between them, in the handoffs, in the parts no single person watches. To see a process is to make that whole chain visible, when nothing about the daily work makes it visible on its own.

This is the first discipline because nothing else can happen without it. You cannot design a process you cannot see. You cannot fix what you have not looked at. You cannot sign off a change to a thing you only half understand. Every discipline that follows, design, sign, run, support, depends on a true picture of what is actually happening, and that picture is what seeing produces. Skip it, or do it carelessly, and everything built on top is built on a guess.

And seeing is harder in a large organisation than in a small one, for a simple reason. The bigger the operation, the more people the process passes through, the more handoffs it crosses, and the further the real process drifts from the one written down. In a small operation you can watch the whole thing from where you stand. In a large one, no one can, and the process hides across teams, markets and systems. The larger the organisation, the more disciplined the seeing has to be, because the gap between what is documented and what is real is wider, and the cost of acting on the wrong picture is greater.

The highest possible standard is to treat seeing as real work, not a glance, and to make the whole chain of a process visible before you form a single judgement about it.

Key Takeaway: Seeing is the first discipline, because every discipline after it depends on a true picture of what is actually happening. A running process is mostly invisible, since each person holds only their own piece. Seeing is the work of making the whole chain visible, and it is harder, and more necessary, the larger the organisation.

A running process is mostly invisible. Seeing is the work. That makes the process visible.

MarvinPro · PROCESS · Here is How to Build · Design · Principles · Discipline 2: See · Section: What seeing is

MarvinPro | June 2026

marvinpro.com

See what is, not what should be

There are always two processes. There is the one written down, and there is the one that actually runs. Seeing is the discipline of finding the second one.

The written process is a claim. It is what someone, at some point, said should happen, or intended to happen, or believed was happening. It may be honest and it may be careful, but it is still a description, and a description is not the work. The real process is what people actually do, today, to get the result. The two are rarely the same. Steps have been added that no one wrote down. Steps on paper have quietly stopped being done. Workarounds have grown up around problems that were never fixed. The real process has adapted to reality, and the document has not.

This gap is not a sign that people are doing it wrong. It is normal, and it is information. The places where the real process has drifted from the written one are exactly the places where the written one did not survive contact with the work. Those are the most important places to see, because they tell you where the real difficulty is. A process that matches its documentation perfectly is rare. A process whose drift you understand is one you can actually work with.

So the discipline is to look for what is, and to hold off on what should be. When you watch the work and notice it does not match the document, the disciplined response is not to correct the worker. It is to ask why the real process became what it is. The answer is almost always a reason, a constraint, a fix, a piece of knowledge that never made it onto the page. You are not there to judge the gap. You are there to see it, and to understand it.

The highest possible standard is to find the process that actually runs, treat the documented one as a claim to be tested, and understand every place the two have drifted apart before you decide anything.

Key Takeaway: There are always two processes, the one written down and the one that actually runs, and they are rarely the same. The gaps between them are not mistakes to correct, they are information about where the work is really difficult. Seeing means finding the real process and understanding its drift, not checking reality against the page.

The written process is a claim. The real process is what people do.

MarvinPro · PROCESS · Here is How to Build · Design · Principles · Discipline 2: See · Section: See what is, not what should be

MarvinPro | June 2026

marvinpro.com

See before you read

Here is the order that makes seeing work, and it is the opposite of what most people do. See first. Read the documentation afterward.

The instinct is to read first. You arrive at a process you do not know, there is a folder of documentation, and it feels responsible to study it before you go near the work. But reading first quietly damages your seeing. Once you have the documented version in your head, you cannot watch the real work with clear eyes. You watch it through the document, checking what you see against what you read, and the moment something differs you start a debate, in your own head or out loud, about which one is right. You have stopped seeing what is, and started defending or testing what should be. The picture you build is shaped by the page before the work ever had a chance to speak.

See first, and none of that happens. You arrive with no version in your head, so the only version you can build is the real one. You watch the work as it is, you ask the people what they do and why, and you take the process in directly, before any document has told you what to expect. There is nothing to debate, because you are not comparing, you are simply seeing. The real process writes itself onto a blank page instead of being squeezed into the margins of someone else's.

Then, once you have seen, you read. And reading is now far easier, which is the second gift of this order. Documentation read cold, before you know the work, is dense and abstract and slow to absorb. Documentation read after you have seen the real thing is fast, because every line now maps onto something you have watched with your own eyes. You understand the domain more quickly and more deeply, because you are fitting documents to a reality you already hold, rather than trying to imagine a reality from documents. See first, read second. You will see more truly, and you will understand faster.

The highest possible standard is to see the real work before you read a single document, so that the picture you build is the real one, and then to read, so that the documents land on a reality you already understand.

Key Takeaway: See before you read. Reading first puts the documented version in your head and turns seeing into a debate between what is and what should be. Seeing first lets you build the real picture with clear eyes, and reading afterward is faster and deeper, because every document now maps onto work you have already watched.

Read first and you debate. See first and you simply see.

MarvinPro · PROCESS · Here is How to Build · Design · Principles · Discipline 2: See · Section: See before you read

MarvinPro | June 2026

marvinpro.com

Go to the work

You cannot see a process from a desk, or from a meeting, or from a description. You have to go to where the work happens, and stand beside the people doing it.

This is shadowing, and it is the heart of seeing. You sit with the person who does the task, and you watch them do it, the real task, the real way, on a real day. You do not ask them to explain it in a room away from the work, because what they tell you in a room is the cleaned-up version, the version they think you want, the version that matches the document. What they do at the work is the real version. The gap between what people say they do and what they actually do is not dishonesty. It is that the real process has parts so habitual the person no longer notices them, and parts so awkward they would rather not mention them. You only catch those by watching the work itself.

And you start at the bottom. You begin with the people performing the tasks, not with the managers who describe them, and you move up from there. The people doing the work hold the real process, the whole of it that they can see, the workarounds, the informal fixes, the parts that never reached the document. Start at the bottom and you build the true picture from the ground. Then, as you move up through the levels, you can test that ground-level picture against how the work is understood higher up, and the differences you find between the floor and the layers above are some of the most useful things you will see. They show you where the organisation's understanding of its own process has drifted from the work.

Going to the work also means going in without imposing authority, and this matters more than it seems. You are there to see what is, and what the people who do the work actually experience. The moment you arrive as a figure of authority, checking and judging, the real process hides, because people show authority the version they think it wants. Arrive instead as someone there to understand, and the real process comes out. This is also how you build the connections you will need later, across every level, because you met people first as someone who came to see their work and listen, not to grade it. Seeing done this way earns trust at the same time as it earns the picture.

The highest possible standard is to go to where the work happens, shadow the real task beside the person doing it, start at the bottom and move up, and arrive to understand rather than to judge.

Key Takeaway: You cannot see a process from a desk. You go to the work and shadow the real task beside the person doing it, because what people describe away from the work is the cleaned-up version. Start at the bottom, where the real process lives, move up, and arrive to understand rather than to impose authority, which both reveals the real process and builds trust.

What people describe is the current version. Go to the work.

MarvinPro · PROCESS · Here is How to Build · Design · Principles · Discipline 2: See · Section: Go to the work

MarvinPro | June 2026

marvinpro.com

The notes people actually use

When you shadow the work, there is one thing worth more than almost anything else you can take away. It is the unofficial notes the people use to do the task.

In almost every process, the people doing the work have made their own notes. A scrap of paper by the screen, a personal checklist, a list of steps in their own words, a note of the exception that always trips them up and how to get past it. These notes are not the official documentation. They are the opposite of it. They are what the official documentation left out, written down by the person who needed it to actually get the work done. That is exactly why they are precious. The unofficial notes are the real process, recorded by the only people who truly know it.

So you ask for them. You make some notes of your own as you watch, but mostly you ask the people to share the notes they already have, the ones they actually use. This does two things. It hands you the real process in the words of the people who run it, far richer than anything you would capture watching alone. And it tells you, by what they felt they had to write down, where the process is hard, where it is unclear, where it bites. People do not make notes about the easy parts. They make notes about the parts that hurt. Their notes are a map of the difficulty.

And you do this for every market, because the same process is not the same process everywhere. What runs one way in one market runs differently in another, shaped by local rules, local systems, local habits, local history. If you see the process in one market and assume the rest are the same, you have not seen the process, you have seen one version of it and guessed the others. The discipline is to see each market on its own terms, gather each one's real work and its own notes, and let the differences be visible. In a large organisation those differences are not noise. They are the shape of the real thing.

The highest possible standard is to gather the unofficial notes the people actually use, in every market, and to read them as the truest record of the real process and a map of where it is hard.

Key Takeaway: The unofficial notes people make to do their work are the real process, recorded by the only people who truly know it, and a map of where the process is hard. Ask for them rather than relying on watching alone, and gather them in every market, because the same process behaves differently everywhere and each market must be seen on its own terms.

People do not make notes about the easy parts. Their notes are a map of the difficulty.

MarvinPro · PROCESS · Here is How to Build · Design · Principles · Discipline 2: See · Section: The notes people actually use

MarvinPro | June 2026

marvinpro.com

Follow the whole End-to-End

Seeing one task is not seeing the process. A process runs from a beginning to an end, across people and teams and handoffs, and you have not seen it until you have followed the whole of it, end to end.

This is where the building blocks from the first chapter become your tool. You follow the steps, and at each one you ask what it takes in and what it hands on, its input and its output, and you watch how the output of one step becomes the input of the next. You follow that chain across every handoff, from the first step to the final result, through every person and team it passes. The handoffs are where you look hardest, because the handoff is where the process is most likely to be invisible, no single person owns it, and it is exactly where things are dropped, delayed or quietly changed. Following the end to end means refusing to stop at the edge of one person's view, and tracing the chain through the gaps where it would otherwise disappear.

Once you have followed it, you map it. The map is the whole process made visible, the full sequence of steps, the inputs and outputs, the handoffs, drawn from what you saw rather than from what was documented. And then you align that map with the people who hold the process at every level. You take it to level one, level two and level three, and to the stakeholders, and you check it against their understanding. Alignment is not a formality. It is where your seeing becomes a shared, agreed picture instead of one person's view, and where the differences between how the levels understand the process come into the open and get resolved into one true map.

And alignment is also where you raise what your seeing has already shown you. By following the whole end to end you will have spotted problems, the places where the process is at risk, breaks, or is about to. The disciplined response is not to wait for the design phase to deal with them. It is to surface them now, the red flags, and at least the orange flags caught early, and to align with the stakeholders on the priority of need, which problems matter most and should be addressed first. Seeing done well does not just hand you a true picture. It hands you an early, shared, prioritised understanding of where the process is in trouble, before a single change is made. That early warning is one of the most valuable things seeing produces, and it is only possible because you followed the whole end to end, from the bottom up, across every market.

The highest possible standard is to follow the process across its whole end to end, map what you saw, align that map with every level and stakeholder, and surface the early flags and agree their priority before any redesign begins.

Key Takeaway: You have not seen a process until you have followed it end to end, across every handoff, using inputs and outputs to trace the chain through the gaps where it hides. Then you map what you saw, align the map with levels one, two and three and the stakeholders, and surface the red and orange flags found early, agreeing the priority of what needs fixing. Seeing done well delivers an early, shared, prioritised picture of risk before any change is made.

You have not seen the process until you have followed the whole of it, through every handoff.

MarvinPro · PROCESS · Here is How to Build · Design · Principles · Discipline 2: See · Section: Follow the whole End-to-End

MarvinPro | June 2026

marvinpro.com

A real example

A process leader joined a domain that was new to the leader, and the first thing the leader did was go in to see, before reading anything at all.

This was a deliberate choice. There was documentation, and it would have been the obvious place to start. But the leader went to the work first, on purpose, so that what the leader saw would not be coloured by what was written. If you read first, every observation turns into a question of whether what you are seeing matches the document. By seeing first, there was nothing to debate. There was only the work, as it actually was, and the people doing it.

So the leader sat beside the people who did the tasks, starting at the bottom and moving up. There was no need to impose authority, and doing so would have worked against the goal. The aim was to see what is, and to understand what the people who do the work actually experience, day to day. Arriving to understand rather than to judge meant the real work came out, and it built connections across every level at the same time, because people met the leader first as someone who came to watch and listen, not to grade them. The leader made some notes, but mostly asked the people to share their own, the unofficial notes they had made and actually used to do the task. Those notes held real process details missing in the documentation, and they showed where it was hard. And this was done for every market, because every market behaved differently, and seeing one would have meant guessing the rest.

Only after all of that did the leader go and read the documentation. By then it was far easier to absorb, because every page mapped onto work the leader had already watched. Reading first would have been slow and abstract, a reality imagined from documents. Reading after seeing was fast and deep, documents fitted onto a reality already held. The order did two things at once. It gave the leader a true understanding of what was happening at every level, including how the people felt about the work, and it made onboarding into the domain quicker and better than reading first could ever have been.

Then the leader mapped the end to end, and began aligning levels one, two and three with the stakeholders. That alignment was not only confirming the map. It was raising what the seeing had already surfaced, the red flags, and the orange flags caught early, and agreeing with the stakeholders on the priority of need, which problems mattered most and should be fixed first. Before a single change had been designed, the leader had a true, shared, prioritised picture of the process and its risks, built entirely from having seen it first.

See it before you read it. See how they see it.

MarvinPro · PROCESS · Here is How to Build · Design · Principles · Discipline 2: See · A Real Example

MarvinPro | June 2026

marvinpro.com

See

Seeing is the first discipline, and now you know what it asks. A running process is mostly invisible, because each person holds only their own piece, and the whole chain lives in the gaps between them. To see is to make that whole visible, and everything that follows, design, sign, run, support, depends on the true picture that seeing produces. In a large organisation it is harder and it matters more, because the real process drifts further from the documented one the more people and handoffs it crosses.

There are always two processes, the one written down and the one that actually runs, and seeing is the discipline of finding the second. The gaps between them are not mistakes to correct, they are information about where the work is really difficult. So you see what is, not what should be, and you do it in the right order. See first, read second. Read first and the documented version fills your head and turns seeing into a debate. See first and you build the real picture with clear eyes, and reading afterward becomes faster and deeper, because every document maps onto work you have already watched.

You cannot see a process from a desk. You go to the work and shadow the real task beside the person doing it, starting at the bottom and moving up, arriving to understand rather than to impose authority, which reveals the real process and builds trust at the same time. You gather the unofficial notes people actually use, in every market, because those notes are the real process recorded by the people who know it, and a map of where it is hard, and because the same process behaves differently everywhere. And you follow the whole end to end, across every handoff, mapping what you saw, aligning it with every level and stakeholder, and surfacing the red and orange flags early so the priority of fixing is agreed before any change is made.

That is seeing. It produces a true picture, a shared understanding across every level, the trust you will need for everything that comes next, and an early, prioritised warning of where the process is at risk. None of the disciplines that follow can stand without it. You cannot design what you have not seen. So you see first, fully and honestly, and only then do you begin to design. That is where we go next.

You can now see a process as it really is. You find the real process rather than the documented one, you see before you read, you go to the work and shadow it from the bottom up, you gather the notes people actually use across every market, and you follow the whole end to end, mapping it, aligning it with every level and stakeholder, and flagging risk early. Seeing is the first discipline, and the true, shared, prioritised picture it produces is the ground every other discipline is built on.

You cannot design what you have not seen. See first, fully and honestly, and then design has something true to stand on.

MarvinPro · PROCESS · Here is How to Build · Design · Principles · Discipline 2: See · Chapter Outcome

MarvinPro | June 2026

marvinpro.com

Think Simple.