Administrative tasks can help a business stay accurate, compliant and coordinated. The problem starts when a process keeps asking people to collect, copy, check or approve information without a clear reason.
That work can be hard to spot because each step may seem small. A form takes a few minutes. A spreadsheet gets updated “just in case”. A routine request waits for another approval. Over time, the steps add up.
Here are signs that an administrative process may need a closer look—and a practical way to review it before changing anything.
1. The same information is recorded in several places
If staff enter a customer’s details into a form, a spreadsheet and a business system, ask what each record is used for. The duplication may be necessary for a specific handoff, audit or legal requirement. It may also be a legacy habit that creates extra work and makes records harder to keep consistent.
The UK Administrative Burdens Advisory Board recommends looking for opportunities to remove unnecessary processes and keep a value in one place, reducing the effort of reconciling multiple versions. UK Administrative Burdens Advisory Board, 2025
What to check: Which copy is treated as authoritative? Who uses the other copies, and for what decision? Could the information be captured once and shared with the right people?
2. Nobody can explain what a step is for
A report, checklist or sign-off may have been introduced to address a real issue. But if the people doing the work cannot explain what it protects, informs or enables, its purpose may no longer be clear.
That is a prompt to investigate—not a reason to delete the step on the spot. Ask who relies on it, what risk it manages and what would happen if it were changed. A control that feels routine to one team may still matter to finance, compliance or customers.
3. Routine work waits for several approvals
Approvals are useful when they help someone make a decision or manage a meaningful risk. They deserve review when routine, low-risk work regularly stalls while people wait for signatures that do not change the outcome.
Look at a recent example from start to finish. Who reviewed it? What did each person check? Did the approval catch an issue or simply repeat an earlier check?
If the review is necessary, the process may still be improved with clearer decision limits or a defined time to respond. Keep appropriate controls in place, particularly where regulation, safety, financial exposure or customer commitments are involved.
4. Staff use workarounds to get the job done
A separate spreadsheet, repeated reminder or informal shortcut can signal that the official process is difficult to use. It can also create its own risk if important information ends up outside the agreed system.
Talk to the people doing the work before changing the process. Ask where it slows down, which information they cannot find and what they do when the normal route fails. The workaround may point to an outdated instruction, unclear ownership or a tool that does not support the actual work.
5. Reports are produced but rarely used
Reports require time to prepare, check and distribute. Before reducing or stopping one, find out who reads it and what action follows.
The OECD’s 2026 survey found that reporting costs were identified as a source of administrative burden by business organisations in 67% of surveyed countries. This describes responses at the country level; it does not establish that a particular report in your business is unnecessary. It does reinforce the value of checking whether reporting effort supports a real need. OECD, 2026
What to check: Is the report used to make a decision, meet an obligation or spot a problem? Could it be shorter, less frequent or generated from information already recorded?
6. Admin repeatedly interrupts more important work
Frequent status requests, manual updates and one-off checks may break up the work they are meant to support. Research on workplace interruptions is mixed: effects depend on the task and context, and some interruptions carry useful or time-sensitive information. A review of interruption research highlights that these transitions can affect attention and performance, but does not mean every interruption is harmful. Leroy, Schmidt and Madjar, 2020
Track the interruptions for a few days. Which requests are urgent? Which could be grouped into a scheduled update? Which happen because people cannot find the information themselves?
A simple way to review a process
Choose one process that staff find frustrating or that regularly delays work. Map what actually happens, including the informal steps—not only the written procedure. FEMA’s process-mapping guidance recommends involving people with direct knowledge, capturing the steps and validating the map with the team. FEMA process-mapping guidance
For each step, record:
- Who does it, and roughly how often?
- What information or decision does it provide?
- What risk or requirement does it address?
- Does another step already do the same job?
- What would need to be protected if the step changed?
Then make one small, reversible change where the purpose is clear and the risk is understood. Check whether it reduces effort without creating errors, delays or gaps in oversight. Involve the people who do the work and the people accountable for the relevant controls.
Review before you automate
Automating a process can save manual effort, but it can also make an unnecessary step happen faster and at greater scale. First clarify the process, remove or combine steps where appropriate, and decide what needs human review.
Studio98.ai describes its AI Strategy and Transformation service as helping businesses identify operational margin leaks and broken workflows. For a business considering automation, understanding the workflow first is a sensible place to start. Studio98.ai
The useful question is not simply, “Can this task be automated?” It is, “Does this task still need to happen, and what is the safest way to handle it?”
FAQs
What counts as unnecessary administrative work?
A task may be unnecessary when it no longer serves a clear business, customer, legal or risk-management purpose—or when another step already serves that purpose. Treat this as a reason to investigate, not automatic proof that the task should be removed.
How can I tell whether a report is still needed?
Find out who uses it, what decision or obligation it supports, and how often it leads to action. If its purpose is unclear, check with the people who receive it and the people accountable for the information before changing it.
Should we automate a frustrating process?
Review and simplify the process first. Automation is more useful when the steps, ownership, information and necessary controls are understood. It does not by itself show whether the work should exist.
How do we reduce duplicate data entry safely?
Identify which system or record is authoritative, who needs access to the information and whether any copies are required for a specific obligation or control. Test a proposed change with the affected teams before removing existing records or checks.
Who should be involved in a process review?
Include the people who perform the work, the people who use its output and anyone responsible for relevant compliance, finance, safety or customer controls. They can help reveal both unnecessary steps and risks that are easy to miss.
What should we measure after changing a process?
Compare the process before and after the change. Useful measures may include time spent, waiting time, rework, errors, missed obligations or customer delays—depending on what the process is meant to achieve. Keep checks that matter and adjust the change if the results reveal a problem.