ANSWER

When I’m deciding whether a process just needs a tune-up or a complete tear-down, I start with a quick reality check: Is the process basically sound but sluggish, or is it fundamentally getting in the way of our goals?

First, I look at performance metrics and complaints. If we’re missing targets by, say, 10–15 percent and the issues cluster around clear bottlenecks—extra approvals, manual re-keying—there’s usually mileage in streamlining what we already have. Small fixes like removing duplicative steps or adding a bit of automation can get us back on track quickly and at low risk.

If the gap is big—think 30 percent or more—or if the pain points come from deeper problems such as outdated tech, new regulations, or a process that just doesn’t fit how the business operates now, patching won’t cut it. In that case, I lean toward re-engineering: stepping back, redefining the objectives, and designing a fresh workflow that’s future-proof.

Two other things help me choose. Cost and risk: I run a rough cost-versus-benefit comparison. If incremental tweaks deliver most of the value for a fraction of the effort, optimization wins. But if maintaining the old process exposes us to fines, lost customers, or tech debt, a reboot makes more sense. Culture matters too. In a team comfortable with steady, Kaizen-style improvements, optimization sticks. If leadership is pushing a wider transformation, people often have the appetite—and the air cover—for radical change.

So, in short, I optimize when targeted tweaks will meet the goal, and I re-engineer when the current architecture blocks the business from moving forward. It’s always a balance of impact, cost, risk, and readiness.