Process mapping and roadmap

Know where to start, from a process map of your work

You receive a map of how the work flows today, the systems and data behind it, every gap traced to its cause and ranked by what it costs, a design for what it should look like instead, and a sequence for what to fix first.

From $2,000
2 to 6 weeks
Three depths
Every engagement starts here

Book a discovery call See what you get

Why mapping gets skipped, and what it costs

Most projects are scoped before anyone has written down how the work runs

The solution usually arrives before the problem has been mapped, so the scope is set against what somebody assumed. These six are the patterns that come up most often across the engagements we have run.

The same record lives in three systems

Sales holds one version, finance holds another, and the spreadsheet somebody maintains holds a third.

Every report starts with an argument about which number is right.

Leads arrive through four routes and stop

Enquiries come through a form, an inbox, a phone and a direct message, and each route ends somewhere different.

Work you already paid to generate goes cold.

How the work runs is in people's heads

The documented version stopped matching reality years ago, and the current version is known by two people.

One resignation takes the process with it.

The reporting is rebuilt by hand every month

Somebody exports from two systems, pastes into a spreadsheet, and reconciles the difference before anyone can read it.

Days of senior time, for a number that arrives too late to act on.

Nobody has audited what you are paying for

Licences accumulate and overlap, and stay on the card after the person who chose them has gone.

Spend you cannot defend, on software half the team does not open.

There are several proposals and no agreed order

Marketing has one, operations has another, finance has a third. Each was costed on its own merits and none against the others.

The loudest team sets the order, not the business case.

Three routes

One method, three routes through it

The map is the same discipline every time: how the work runs, what it runs on, where it breaks, and what it should look like instead. Which route it takes follows what you are trying to fix, and it is agreed on the discovery call rather than assumed.

Digital adoption

For Systems that do not talk to each other, work handed between people by email, data in three places, reporting rebuilt by hand, no single system of record.

You receive A map of how the work flows today, an inventory of the systems and data behind it, every gap traced to its cause and ranked by what it costs, a future-state design, and the order to build it in.

AI adoption

For AI already in informal use, a board asking where AI fits, or several AI proposals with no agreed order.

You receive Everything in the digital adoption route, plus a readiness score across seven areas, every AI opportunity marked on the map rather than listed apart from it, each one ranked against money the business already counts, and the governance risks that would stop a build.

Both

For Most organizations, because the systems have to hold before AI has anything clean to run on.

You receive Both sets of outputs in one roadmap, sequenced so the foundation work and the AI work do not compete for the same people in the same quarter.

The route is a finding, not a preference. If the evidence says the systems have to be fixed before anything runs on top of them, that is what the roadmap says, whether or not AI was the reason you called.

What you receive

Documents your leadership can decide from

Each one is a document or a map you keep, use in the next engagement, and hand to a vendor who is not us. Seven are produced on every engagement. Five more are added when the AI route runs, and those are marked below.

Current-State Process Map: How the work flows, including the steps nobody documented and the handoffs where it stalls. Confirmed by the people who run it before it is released.
Systems and Data Inventory: What you run, what each system is the source of truth for, where the same record is held twice, and who can see it.
Pain Points and Root Causes: Each problem traced past the symptom to the thing causing it, scored on impact and how often it happens, so the list has an order.
Future-State Design: What the work should look like instead, with the steps that go away, the ones that get automated, and the ones that stay manual on purpose.
Gap Analysis: The distance between the two maps, priced in effort and dependency, so nothing gets committed before the thing it depends on.
Sequenced Roadmap: What to do first, second and third, and what each step depends on finishing before it starts.
Executive Decision Brief: One document your leadership decides from: build, govern, train, deploy, or wait.
AI Direction Brief AI route: Your business priorities and what you want AI to do about them, written in one place and agreed by leadership.
Readiness Scorecard AI route: Where you stand across seven areas: business direction and sponsorship, workflow clarity, data quality, governance and risk controls, people capability, tools and integrations, and measurement. Scored with evidence, so you can see which gap is load-bearing.
Workflow Opportunity Map AI route: Every point in the flow where AI removes friction or improves the result, marked on the map rather than listed apart from it.
Value Map AI route: Each opportunity scored on value, risk, effort and adoption, and ranked by how close it sits to money the business already counts.
Risk Heatmap AI route: The governance, data and operating risks that would stop a build, flagged before you fund one.

Price and duration

Three depths. Same method, different reach

The band is the same whichever route the engagement takes. Where you land follows the number of processes in scope and how many people have to be interviewed to map them, and it is scoped before the work starts.

Snapshot

$2,000 to $3,000

About 2 weeks

One priority workflow, mapped and costed. Take this when a decision has to be made before a deeper engagement can be justified.

Current-State Process Map, one workflow
Systems and Data Inventory
Top three gaps, ranked
Roadmap summary
Executive Decision Brief

Blueprint

$3,500 to $5,000

About 4 weeks

The full engagement across multiple workflows. Take this when the next step is a build and you need evidence to scope it.

Everything in Snapshot, across multiple workflows
Pain points traced to root cause
Future-State Design and gap analysis
Risk heatmap
Cost or return estimate on the top item

Build-Ready

$5,500 to $7,500

About 6 weeks

The engagement plus the specification. Take this when a build is already likely and you want it to start without a second discovery.

Everything in Blueprint
Level 2 Workflow Map, build-ready detail
Written requirements a builder can quote from
Implementation sequence with dependencies

Canadian small and medium businesses have used federal digital adoption funding to cover this work. Two of the engagements below were funded that way. We will tell you on the call whether you are likely to qualify.

Proof

Two engagements, and what they produced

A legal operations practice and a specialty food manufacturer. Different sectors, same starting point: nobody had written down how the work ran. Both ended with a plan another implementer could pick up.

Digital readiness assessment for a law clerk firm

A legal operations practice needed to know which parts of its filing and client intake work could be modernized, and in what order.

CDAP funded engagement 4 pillars transformation strategy

Read the case study

Digital adoption plan for a specialty food manufacturer

Every department was interviewed before a single system was recommended. The plan that came out of it was approved and funded.

8 weeks start to approved plan All departments interviewed

Read the case study

Fit

Whether this is the right first step

Mapping is worth buying when a decision is waiting on evidence. If the left column describes where you are, start here. If the right one does, each line names the engagement that fits better.

Start here if

You are about to spend on a system, a build or a platform and want the scope set on evidence rather than on a demo
The same work is done differently by different people and nobody has written down which way is right
Your teams are using AI informally and you want to know what to formalize
You have several proposals, AI or otherwise, and no agreed order
You can give us a leadership sponsor and access to the people who run the process

Start somewhere else if

One workflow is already mapped, with a named owner and agreed success metrics. Go straight to FusionBuild.
Staff are already using AI on client or regulated data with no rules in place. Go to FusionGuard first.
The systems are built and what you need is somebody running them. Go to Managed Operations.
The blocker is capability rather than direction. Go to AI Systems Mastery.
You want a free read on where you stand before paying for anything. Take the systems readiness assessment.

After the map

Where the findings usually send you

The engagement ends at a decision point. Which of these you take depends on what the map and the gap analysis turn up, and it is written into the decision brief rather than left for you to work out.