How to Do an As-Is/To-Be Analysis: Map the Current and Future State Side by Side
"Can you show the current state and the ideal on one page?" If a request like that — before a formal approval request for a new system, or before an improvement meeting — has left you stuck, you're not alone. Plenty of people know the terms As-Is and To-Be, but surprisingly few are ever taught what to draw, and how, so the two can actually be compared.
The trick is to draw the same process twice, as two process maps at the same level of detail, and mark the steps that changed.
This guide uses expense reimbursement to put the current flow and the desired flow side by side, then walks you through how to build the To-Be, how it differs from BPR, and how to measure the impact — all in a form you can take into a meeting.
What you'll learn
- What As-Is, To-Be, and gap mean, and why to draw them as process maps
- A real example with As-Is and To-Be maps of the same process side by side, and how to read what changed
- 6 steps to build the To-Be in ECRS order
- How process improvement differs from BPR (business process reengineering), and how to choose between them
- 3 metrics to measure impact, and how to build the one page that gets approved
What Is As-Is/To-Be Analysis? 3 Terms to Know
As-Is/To-Be analysis is a method for drawing a process's current state (As-Is) and its desired state (To-Be) in the same format, then deciding how to close the difference between them (the gap). It's also the order used in requirements definition — the phase where you decide what a new system should do: first understand today's process, then make the desired state concrete.
What As-Is, To-Be, and gap mean
| Term | Meaning | Deliverable in this guide |
|---|---|---|
| As-Is | The process as it actually runs today | A process map of the current flow (Figure 1) |
| To-Be | The next process that meets the goal | A process map of the desired flow (Figure 2) |
| Gap | The difference between the two maps: steps that disappear, merge, or move, and waiting time that shrinks | A table of what changed, plus a plan to close the gap |
Why process maps make the gap visible
Compare with bullet points or tables alone, and you lose the order of the steps, where the work waits, and who it gets sent back to. On a process map, you can follow the changes with your eyes: a step disappears, the order flips, the send-back arrow gets shorter.
Where it fits in process improvement
You use it in the design phase of an improvement effort. In the 6 steps from "How to Improve Business Processes," it covers everything from mapping the current state to designing countermeasures (Steps 2 to 4).
Minami
Process improvement lead
For a meeting deck, can't I just put "Current" and "Ideal" bullet lists side by side in PowerPoint?
Spark
DrillSpark consultant
Bullet points lose where the work waits and who it gets sent back to. Put the same process side by side as two diagrams, and the steps that disappear become the substance of your improvement.
One Process on Two Maps: An Expense Example and 4 Kinds of Change
Draw the same process twice at the same level of detail, and four kinds of change jump out: steps that disappeared, steps that merged, steps that changed order, and steps that got simpler. Let's put two maps side by side, using expense reimbursement as the example.
The setup: expense reimbursement at a 40-person company
Take a building services contractor with 40 employees that handles 80 expense claims a month. Expenses and travel costs go on separate paper forms. After the section manager stamps the form with a personal seal (a hanko — Japanese companies often use these stamps in place of signatures on approvals), claims of ¥50,000 or more (about 30% of the total, roughly 24 a month) also need the department head's seal. Accounting checks each claim, keys it into the accounting software by hand, closes the books at month-end, and pays out on the 25th of the following month.
The hands-on time per claim is about 25 minutes in total: 15 minutes to fill in the form, 5 minutes for accounting to check it, and 5 minutes to key it in. Yet it takes an average of 25 business days from claim to payment. Waiting for the section manager's seal — they're often out on job sites — takes 3 business days on average, the department head's seal another 2, and 15% of claims (12 a month) get sent back. The rest (about 20 business days) is waiting for the month-end close and the next month's payment date.
As-Is: the current flow (Figure 1)
Diagram contents (text)
Items in the diagram
- Pay the expense out of pocket
- Fill in separate expense and travel forms
- Section manager stamps the seal
- ¥50,000 or more?
- Department head stamps the seal
- Accounting checks the claim
- Anything missing or wrong?
- Accounting keys it into the accounting software
- Close at month-end and pay on the 25th of next month
- Reimbursement complete
Flow (arrows)
- Pay the expense out of pocket → Fill in separate expense and travel forms
- Fill in separate expense and travel forms → Section manager stamps the seal
- Section manager stamps the seal → ¥50,000 or more?
- ¥50,000 or more? → (Yes) → Department head stamps the seal
- ¥50,000 or more? → (No) → Accounting checks the claim
- Department head stamps the seal → Accounting checks the claim
- Accounting checks the claim → Anything missing or wrong?
- Anything missing or wrong? → (Yes) → Fill in separate expense and travel forms
- Anything missing or wrong? → (No) → Accounting keys it into the accounting software
- Accounting keys it into the accounting software → Close at month-end and pay on the 25th of next month
- Close at month-end and pay on the 25th of next month → Reimbursement complete
When you read Figure 1, look less at the number of steps and more at the time spent sitting on the arrows. The work adds up to 25 minutes, yet payment takes 25 business days. The problem with this process isn't slow work — it's the waiting created by the seals, the send-backs, and a once-a-month close.
To-Be: the desired flow (Figure 2)
Diagram contents (text)
Items in the diagram
- Pay the expense out of pocket
- Fill in one claim form and photograph the receipt
- Required fields complete?
- Section manager approves on a phone
- Accounting checks the claim
- Anything missing or wrong?
- Post journal entries automatically from the claim data
- Pay on one of two monthly payment dates
- Reimbursement complete
Flow (arrows)
- Pay the expense out of pocket → Fill in one claim form and photograph the receipt
- Fill in one claim form and photograph the receipt → Required fields complete?
- Required fields complete? → (No) → Fill in one claim form and photograph the receipt
- Required fields complete? → (Yes) → Section manager approves on a phone
- Section manager approves on a phone → Accounting checks the claim
- Accounting checks the claim → Anything missing or wrong?
- Anything missing or wrong? → (Yes) → Fill in one claim form and photograph the receipt
- Anything missing or wrong? → (No) → Post journal entries automatically from the claim data
- Post journal entries automatically from the claim data → Pay on one of two monthly payment dates
- Pay on one of two monthly payment dates → Reimbursement complete
Figure 2 is drawn in the same direction as Figure 1, with the same start and end. Keep those aligned, and when you set the two maps side by side, only the steps that changed stand out.
What changed: 4 kinds of change, with numbers
The changes fall into four kinds: E, C, R, and S. S (Simplify) is applied in two places: the section manager's approval, and data entry plus payment.
| What changed | As-Is | To-Be | ECRS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Department head's seal | Required at ¥50,000 or more (about 24 a month) | Removed; the department head reviews a monthly list after the fact | E (Eliminate) |
| Claim forms | Separate paper forms for expenses and travel | Combined into one claim | C (Combine) |
| Error check | Accounting finds problems after approval and sends them back | Required fields are checked at submission and sent back before approval | R (Rearrange) |
| Section manager's approval | Paper seal (a 3-business-day wait when out on site) | Approve on a phone | S (Simplify) |
| Data entry and payment | Accounting keys entries in by hand; payment once a month | Journal entries posted automatically from the claim data; payment twice a month | S (Simplify) |
None of the To-Be numbers are results; they're targets you set before you start. The goal is a lead time of 10 business days and a send-back rate of 5%.
In the As-Is, accounting spends 10 minutes per claim (5 to check + 5 to key in) × 80 claims, or about 13 hours a month. In the To-Be, manual entry disappears, and because required fields are checked at submission, the check itself should shrink to about 3 minutes per claim. The target is 3 minutes × 80 claims, or about 4 hours a month.
There's a reason S (Simplify) — where a system comes in — goes last. If the company had started by buying an expense system, the department head's seal would have survived as one more tier of electronic approval, and the waiting wouldn't have shrunk. ECRS order means asking "Do we need that seal at all?" first. For a full explanation of the four principles, see "What Is ECRS?"
Start by drawing one As-Is map of your own process. You'll build the To-Be by marking up that As-Is with the steps in the sections that follow.
Minami
Process improvement lead
I want to draw the To-Be, so drawing the As-Is first feels like a detour...
Spark
DrillSpark consultant
Without the As-Is, nobody can count what changed. Figure 1 showed 25 business days of waiting — that's what told us where to cut in Figure 2, right? Think of the As-Is as the rough draft of your To-Be.
6 Steps to Run an As-Is/To-Be Analysis
Set the goal and scope, draw the As-Is as it really runs, write times onto each step, draw the To-Be in ECRS order, plan how to close the gap, and pilot small — those are the six steps.
Diagram contents (text)
Items in the diagram
- Set the goal and scope
- Draw the As-Is as it really runs
- Write times per step and mark problems
- Draw the To-Be in ECRS order
- Plan how to close the gap
- Pilot small and measure
- Target reached?
- Make the To-Be the new As-Is
Flow (arrows)
- Set the goal and scope → Draw the As-Is as it really runs
- Draw the As-Is as it really runs → Write times per step and mark problems
- Write times per step and mark problems → Draw the To-Be in ECRS order
- Draw the To-Be in ECRS order → Plan how to close the gap
- Plan how to close the gap → Pilot small and measure
- Pilot small and measure → Target reached?
- Target reached? → (No) → Write times per step and mark problems
- Target reached? → (Yes) → Make the To-Be the new As-Is
Step 1: Set the goal and scope (the start and the end)
First, decide where the map starts and ends. For expenses, that's from "an employee pays an expense out of pocket" to "the payment is complete." Write the goal as a number, like "pay out within 10 business days," so you can judge whether the To-Be is any good.
If you're not sure which process to tackle first, list the candidates using the method in "How to Do a Work Inventory," and pick the ones eating up the most time.
Step 2: Draw the As-Is as it really runs
Draw the As-Is from what people actually do, not from the flow written in the manual. Have the person who does the work walk you through one real case, and include send-backs and exceptions (what happens when the section manager is away) instead of leaving them out. For the basics of symbols and drawing, see "How to Map a Business Process Flow."
Step 3: Write work time and wait time on each step, and mark the problems
On each step of your As-Is, write "work: X min" and "wait: X days." Value stream mapping (VSM), a technique from lean manufacturing, likewise records value-adding time separately from non-value-adding time such as waiting and moving. Writing them separately shows you in numbers where to cut.
When you mark problems, separate the symptom ("payment is slow") from the problem ("there are two tiers of seals, and the section manager is often away"). For spotting waste, see "The 7 Wastes in Office Work"; for digging into causes, see "How to Run a 5 Whys Analysis."
Step 4: Draw the To-Be in ECRS order
For each marked step in the As-Is, ask in order: can we eliminate it → combine it → rearrange it → simplify it? Then redraw the results as the To-Be. The next section covers this in detail.
Step 5: Plan how to close the gap
Split the differences between As-Is and To-Be into three kinds — process, tools, and people — and it becomes clear who needs to do what.
| Type of gap | Example | How to close it |
|---|---|---|
| Process gap | Two tiers of seals | Revise the expense policy and change the department head's seal to an after-the-fact review |
| Tool gap | Accounting keys entries into the software by hand | Put in a system that posts journal entries automatically from the claim data |
| People gap | The section manager is often out on site | Name a backup approver in advance |
Beyond when, who, and what will change, the plan should also say when to measure and who measures. Leave that out, and no one is left to check the result after the change.
Step 6: Pilot small, measure, and make the To-Be the new As-Is
Don't switch the whole company over at once. Start with one department or one month of claims. If you miss the target, go back to Step 3 and re-mark the problems; if you hit it, that To-Be becomes your next As-Is. The loop in Figure 3 shows this repetition.
How to Draw the To-Be: 4 ECRS Questions for Each As-Is Step
You don't draw the To-Be on a blank page. You mark each As-Is step by asking, in order, can we eliminate it → combine it → rearrange it → simplify it, then redraw the result.
Mark each step with E, C, R, or S
Here's what you get when you ask the questions of each As-Is step in the expense example.
| As-Is step | Question | Verdict | Shape in the To-Be |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fill in separate expense and travel forms | Do the forms need to be separate? | C | Combine into one claim |
| Section manager stamps the seal | Whose check is actually needed? | Keep + S | Allow approval on a phone |
| Department head stamps the seal | What would go wrong if we dropped it? | E | Review a monthly list after the fact |
| Accounting checks the claim | When is the earliest point to catch errors? | R | Check required fields at submission |
| Key it into the accounting software | Are we typing the same data twice? | S | Post journal entries automatically from the claim data |
The question that does the most work is "What would go wrong if we dropped it?" Any step where no one can name a problem is a candidate for E (Eliminate). In this example, the department head's seal had no reason behind it beyond "we've always done it this way," so we decided a monthly after-the-fact review of the list was enough.
We won't repeat the explanation of the four ECRS principles here. The point of this section is to apply them not to the process as a whole, but to each As-Is step, one at a time. Judge line by line, and instead of a vague "let's just systematize it," you get a To-Be where every step has a reason.
Redraw the To-Be from the marked-up As-Is
Once the marks are on, delete the E steps, merge the C steps, move the R steps, rewrite how the S steps are done, and redraw the result as your To-Be. Keep the same direction and the same start and end as the As-Is, and the two maps will be easy to compare later.
Deciding which steps get AI or automation
S (Simplify) includes steps you hand off to AI or systems. But hand off only the steps that are left after applying E, C, and R. Automate first, and you lock steps you could have eliminated into the system.
For choosing which steps to give to AI, see "How to Choose Which Tasks to Automate"; for mapping the split between AI and people, see "Designing Workflows for AI Agents and Humans."
Process Improvement or BPR? Two Ways to Draw the To-Be
If you want to cut the time and errors in today's flow, choose process improvement, which fixes the As-Is as its base. If customers or rules have changed and the assumptions behind today's flow no longer hold, choose BPR (business process reengineering) and redraw from scratch.
What BPR is: redrawing the flow from the ground up
BPR (business process reengineering) is an idea popularized by Michael Hammer and James Champy in their 1993 book. It means fundamentally rethinking and radically redesigning business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in cost, quality, service, and speed.
The same story is showing up with AI adoption. McKinsey's 2026 survey (The state of AI in 2026) reports that companies getting large results from AI were far more likely than others to say they had fundamentally redesigned their workflows.
Process improvement vs. BPR
| Aspect | Process improvement | BPR (business process reengineering) |
|---|---|---|
| Starting point | Uses the As-Is as its base | Draws from the goal, starting from zero |
| What changes | Steps and procedures | The assumptions behind the flow, the organization, and the systems |
| Typical duration | A few weeks to a few months | Six months to several years |
| Best for | Cutting time and errors | Rule changes, business pivots, system overhauls |
| Role of the As-Is | The thing you fix | A checklist for catching gaps during the transition |
The durations are only rough guides. They vary widely with the size of the process and the number of departments involved.
How to decide which to use (Figure 4)
If you're unsure, first ask: have the assumptions behind today's flow changed? If not, fixing the As-Is with ECRS is faster and safer. Even if they have changed, as long as the change is limited to part of the process, fixing the As-Is is still enough.
Diagram contents (text)
Items in the diagram
- Start drawing the To-Be
- Have the assumptions behind the current flow changed?
- Fix the As-Is with ECRS
- Is the change limited to part of the process?
- Draw the To-Be from the goal, starting from zero
- Check against the As-Is for gaps
- Mark the changed steps and compare
- Agree with stakeholders
Flow (arrows)
- Start drawing the To-Be → Have the assumptions behind the current flow changed?
- Have the assumptions behind the current flow changed? → (No) → Fix the As-Is with ECRS
- Have the assumptions behind the current flow changed? → (Yes) → Is the change limited to part of the process?
- Is the change limited to part of the process? → (Yes) → Fix the As-Is with ECRS
- Is the change limited to part of the process? → (No) → Draw the To-Be from the goal, starting from zero
- Draw the To-Be from the goal, starting from zero → Check against the As-Is for gaps
- Fix the As-Is with ECRS → Mark the changed steps and compare
- Check against the As-Is for gaps → Mark the changed steps and compare
- Mark the changed steps and compare → Agree with stakeholders
Cautions for small businesses taking on BPR
BPR has a big impact, and it stalls if you put off explaining things to the people whose roles will change. And if you draw from zero without an As-Is, exception handling and legally required procedures tend to fall through the cracks. Even when you draw from scratch, always keep the As-Is as a checklist to compare against for gaps.
Minami
Process improvement lead
Isn't BPR something for big corporations? It feels like overkill for a small company like ours.
Spark
DrillSpark consultant
Choose by whether the assumptions changed, not by company size. If a legal change or a customer going digital means your current flow no longer fits, even a small company can get real value from redrawing just one process from scratch. If the assumptions are the same, though, fixing the As-Is is faster and safer.
3 Metrics to Measure the To-Be's Impact, and How to Measure Them
Measure the impact with three metrics — lead time, effort, and quality — against the values from before you started.
The 3 metrics: lead time, effort, and quality
Lead time is the number of days from start to end, effort is work time × volume, and quality is the send-back rate or the number of errors. They map directly onto QCD (quality, cost, delivery), the framework commonly used in process improvement.
| Metric | How to measure | As-Is (example) | To-Be target (example) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead time | Record the gap between claim date and payment date for each claim | 25 business days on average | 10 business days |
| Effort | Accounting's work time × claims per month | About 13 hours a month | About 4 hours a month |
| Quality | Send-backs ÷ claims | 15% | 5% |
If you've written "work: X min, wait: X days" on each step of the As-Is map, you already have almost every number this table needs. The map doubles as your measurement log.
Capture the before values (the baseline) first
The before values you compare against are called the baseline. As a rule of thumb, record them for about 2 to 4 weeks before you start, and use the median as the representative value, since it isn't dragged around by extreme values.
Minami
Process improvement lead
I don't have time to measure... Can't I just count from memory after the improvement?
Spark
DrillSpark consultant
Numbers recalled after the fact always get picked apart in the meeting. You don't need everything. Start by adding just two things to your current list: the claim date and the payment date.
Separate numbers that move fast from numbers that pay off later
Metrics come in two kinds: leading indicators that move within a month (the share of claims submitted on a phone, days spent waiting for approval), and lagging indicators that only show up after a few months (accounting's overtime hours, whether the lower send-back rate has stuck).
If the leading indicators are moving, lagging indicators that haven't moved yet are no reason to stop. Show the two kinds separately in meetings, and you'll head off the misunderstanding that "it isn't working."
The One Page That Gets Approved in Meetings: 3 Elements
The one page you bring to a meeting has three elements: the As-Is and To-Be side by side in the same direction and at the same level of detail, marks on the steps that changed, and a table of the three metrics underneath. Add the goal and the decision you need, and the page is laid out in four areas:
- At the top, the goal in one sentence (e.g., cut the time to payment from 25 business days to 10)
- The As-Is on the left, the To-Be on the right
- The table of the three metrics underneath
- In the bottom right, one line on "what we need this meeting to decide"
Side by side, in the same direction and at the same level of detail
If the two maps differ in direction or level of detail, people's eyes go to the differences in drawing style rather than to the steps that changed. That's why Figures 1 and 2 are drawn in the same direction.
Mark the steps that changed
| Change | Example mark |
|---|---|
| Step removed | Gray it out on the As-Is side and strike it through |
| Steps merged | Draw a box around the two steps on the As-Is side |
| Step moved | Point an arrow to where it moved |
| New step | Color it on the To-Be side |
Add the numbers table, and push details down a level
Aim for 5 to 10 steps on the page. Include fine-grained work like accounting's checking procedure, and the key changes get buried. Split the details into a separate diagram, ready to open if someone asks in the meeting.
If you came here looking for a PowerPoint template: the slide frame takes no time to build. The hard part is getting two maps at the same level of detail. Build the maps in a diagramming tool and paste them into the slide as images, and you won't have to rearrange shapes every time something changes.
With DrillSpark, you describe the process in plain English, AI drafts a flowchart, and you refine it through conversation. Detailed procedures can be split into a lower level inside the diagram (a sub-process) that you drill down into, so your meeting page stays at 5 to 10 steps. Export the finished diagram as PNG or PDF and paste it into your slides.
4 Common As-Is/To-Be Analysis Mistakes and How to Avoid Them
Most failures come down to four: drawing the As-Is as the ideal, a To-Be that's just a diagram of a new tool, a To-Be that doesn't work in practice, and comparing without ever measuring.
| Mistake | What happens | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Drawing the As-Is by the manual | Send-backs and exceptions vanish from the map, hiding the real problems | Have the person who does the work walk through one case |
| A To-Be that's just a new system | Unneeded steps get digitized, and the waiting remains | Ask the questions starting from E, and leave S for last |
| A To-Be that doesn't work in practice | The flow stops on day one when an exception comes up | Draw the exceptions and their owners, and have the owners walk through the To-Be |
| Comparing without measuring | No one can explain whether it worked | Set a date to measure and name who will measure it in the plan |
Mistake 1: Drawing the As-Is by the manual
An As-Is drawn from manuals and policies won't show the send-backs and exceptions that actually happen. Have the person who does the work walk through one case, right down to how things run when the section manager is away.
Mistake 2: A To-Be that's just the old flow with a new system
A To-Be that simply swaps paper seals for electronic approval may look new, but the flow is the same. If the department head is on a business trip, the waiting remains even with electronic approval. Ask the questions starting from E, and leave S (Simplify) — where a system comes in — for last.
Mistake 3: A To-Be that doesn't work in practice
A To-Be that shows only the normal flow stalls on exceptions from day one. Draw in the exception handling and who owns it, and have the actual owners walk one case through the To-Be. For example, decide that "if the section manager is away for 3 days or more, the assistant manager approves instead," and phone approval won't stall either.
Mistake 4: Comparing without measuring
If you stop at a satisfying meeting where the two maps sat side by side, you'll never know whether the To-Be really worked. In the Step 5 plan, set a date to measure and name who will measure it, and review lead time and send-back rate after, say, one month.
Summary: Start by Drawing the As-Is for One Process
Key takeaways
- As-Is/To-Be analysis draws today's flow and the desired flow in the same format, then decides how to close the gap
- Draw the same process twice, in the same direction and at the same level of detail, and removed steps and reduced waiting stand out at a glance
- Build the To-Be by marking each As-Is step in E → C → R → S order and redrawing
- If the assumptions still hold, use process improvement; if they've broken, redraw with BPR and keep the As-Is for cross-checking
- Measure impact with lead time, effort, and quality against the before values
The most important thing in As-Is/To-Be analysis isn't drawing a beautiful To-Be — it's drawing today's flow honestly. The closer your As-Is is to reality, the better you can explain in numbers what the To-Be changes.
Start by deciding where one process begins and ends, and draw its current flow (As-Is) on a single page. Your To-Be starts the moment you put E, C, R, and S marks on that map.
Related Templates
Map expense reimbursement from claim to approval, accounting checks, and payment, with send-back branches and a drill-down of the checks.
Visualize your approval process from draft to final decision. Includes legal and finance review steps. Easy AI customization.
Visualize the Plan-Do-Check-Act management cycle. From goal setting and KPI definition to execution, evaluation, and improvement.
Related Guides
A practical guide to business process improvement: a 6-step method starting with process mapping, plus how to use ECRS, PDCA, 5W1H, and QCD frameworks.
Run a work inventory in 5 steps: a 5-column Excel sheet with an example, how detailed to get, which tasks to map, and how to turn one row into a flowchart.
ECRS improves any process via four principles applied in order: Eliminate, Combine, Rearrange, Simplify. Examples, a 5-step rollout, real cases, AI-era tips.
What do the factory's 7 wastes look like in office work? A table of office examples, 5 steps to find muda, mura, and muri on a flowchart, and common mistakes.
Pick tasks to automate by 5 criteria: volume, steps, input, impact, lifespan. Learn RPA vs. AI, what to cut first, and where to keep human checks.
Run a 5 Whys analysis that reaches process causes, not blame: 5 steps, question rewrites, an invoice mix-up example, 3 types of fixes, and a report format.
Learn how to map a business process flow in 5 steps — symbols, layout rules, and real examples by department. Start with templates and AI generation today.
AI agent success depends on workflow design: pick a coordination pattern and place human approval and escalation (human-in-the-loop). Free template.