It is a simple text file. Open it in any text editor, or paste it into ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini and ask for help filling it in.
How to use it
Use the template in a process interview, document, or AI assistant with approved notes.
Walk through a recent instance of the process. Record what actually happened rather than the intended procedure.
Review the friction map with the people doing the work. Select one intervention to test before automating anything.
What you will need before you start
The current steps and handoffs
People responsible for each step
Examples of delays or exceptions
The template
Fill in the blanks for your business. This is what you get when you download or copy it.
Use when
A recurring process feels slow, unclear, or overly dependent on one person, but its real friction is not yet visible.
Inputs
Intended outcome
Current steps, handoffs, and tools
Owners and decision points
Known exceptions
Method
Map the current workflow in the order it actually happens.
Mark delay, repeated work, missing context, unclear ownership, and avoidable re-entry.
Identify which steps should remain human-led, be AI-assisted, be automated, or be removed.
Recommend the smallest useful intervention before designing a broad system.
Name the person who reviews the recommendation before implementation.
Output
Current-state map
Friction register
Opportunity shortlist
Recommendation and rationale
Review gate and next owner
See an example
A made-up example, so you can see what a filled-in version looks like.
This is an illustrative scenario, not a client case study or a measured result. Do not reuse its details as facts about your work.
A sample publishing workflow repeatedly returns drafts because the review owner is unclear.
Sample inputs
Demonstration inputs only: writer → shared folder → reviewer → publisher. The sample handoff note does not name a reviewer. No timing data is available.
Example output
Current-state map
Writer finishes draft → places it in shared folder → review waits for an owner → publisher waits for approval.
Friction register
[Fact within this demonstration] The handoff note has no named reviewer.
[Inference] Missing ownership may contribute to the waiting state. Its impact has not been measured.
Opportunity shortlist
Add a required reviewer field to the handoff.
Define how the reviewer accepts or returns a draft.
Recommendation
[Recommendation] Test the handoff change with the next draft. Keep approval human-led. Do not add a tool until the ownership rule is clear.
Review gate
Owner: [Name the editorial lead]. Confirm the proposed handoff before changing the live process.
How to tell it is done well
The map reflects a real instance; observed friction is separate from suspected causes; the next intervention has an owner and a review point.
Where a person should decide
A process description alone does not establish the cause, cost, or frequency of a delay. Keep consequential actions with the named human owner.
A process description alone does not establish the cause, cost, or frequency of a delay.
Edit your own copy on this siteAbout this version
Version 1.1 adds setup guidance, an illustrative example and a review checklist. Provider-neutral Markdown instructions; no installation or platform compatibility is implied. Runtime behaviour has not been verified across AI providers. Reuse terms have not yet been published.