Process Modelling: Actual vs. Target

But here’s the catch: over 70% of business process reengineering initiatives — the very definition of radical target modeling — end in failure. And actual models aren’t faring much better. According to our own survey, around 80% of actual models are created solely to tick the box for a quality certification. In day-to-day operations, they’re rarely used and have little impact.

So, what’s the solution? A modern, effective process management approach that combines the best of both worlds.

What Are Target Processes?

Target processes represent how work should be carried out in the future. They follow a solution-based mindset, which often makes them feel more motivating than the problem-focused nature of actual models.

These idealized models are usually consistent, linear, and cleanly structured. Since they represent a future state, they don’t require constant updates to stay “accurate.” But therein lies the risk: because they are theoretical constructs, they can feel disconnected from reality. Most employees don’t engage with the model until implementation, by which point it’s too late to gather useful input.

Target Process Modeling
Opportunities

• Solution-focused and motivating
• Simple and structured
• Clear vision of the desired outcome

Risks

• High failure rate in implementation
• Lacks real-world integration
• Ignores current problems and best practices

What Are Actual Processes?

Actual processes depict how work is actually done today. They require less imagination from users and are easier to relate to — which makes them a better fit for documentation and training purposes.

These models promote consistency and allow for small, targeted improvements over time. However, critics argue that they become outdated quickly and are often too detailed or complex to maintain. Because they mirror today’s pain points, they’re also less inspiring to engage with.

Actual Process Modeling
Opportunities

• Grounded in reality
• Supports standardization
• Enables precise, incremental improvements
• Easy integration into daily work

Risks

• High maintenance burden
• Often complex and variant-rich
• Less emotionally motivating
• Can obscure the bigger picture

The Solution: Agile and Collaborative Process Management

Actual modeling is too labor-intensive. Target modeling is too idealistic. The answer lies in agile, collaborative process management — an approach that blends structure with flexibility:

• Collaboration reduces the burden: Everyone contributes to process modeling with minimal rules.
• Agility fuels improvement: Processes are defined and improved step by step, based on real-world feedback.
• High relevance drives adoption: Employees recognize their own workflows in the models, which builds trust and boosts engagement.

The best way to start is with a collaborative actual model — made possible by lightweight, interactive tools like Q.wiki. These tools make it easy for employees to adjust documentation on the fly, even daily, to reflect current best practices. Over time, this small-step evolution naturally defines target processes, turning vision into reality.

So, Is Actual Modeling Always the Better Choice?

Almost always, yes — especially if your process management tool is interactive and distributed across teams. In centralized, expert-only BPM tools, however, target modeling may be more practical. The same goes for major organizational changes (e.g., restructuring, system migrations, launching a new location), where a target model offers a clearer roadmap.

Even then, the ultimate goal should be to reconnect your documentation with the day-to-day reality as soon as possible.

In Summary

The best practice? Start with a living actual model and evolve it through continuous, small-step improvements on an interactive platform like Q.wiki. That’s the path to meaningful, accepted, and effective process management. When large change projects require it, target modeling can provide structure — but even then, it should be just a starting point.

And whatever you choose: decide early. Redesigning your modeling approach later is just as much effort as starting from scratch.