Why reality must come before process, and why “documentation theatre” quietly destroys transformation
Introduction: Why documentation is not the same as truth
Most organisations have no shortage of documentation.
Process maps.
Standard operating procedures.
Service catalogues.
Policy manuals.
Playbooks.
Operating model diagrams.
And yet, despite all of this, delivery still breaks.
Workarounds still dominate.
Stakeholders still disagree on what is “really happening”.
Projects still take longer than planned.
Change still fails in execution.
The uncomfortable truth is that a lot of documentation is not designed to describe reality.
It is designed to look like control.
At Ministry of Insights, we prioritise something different:
Operational truth over documentation.
Because if you document how things should work before you understand how they actually work, you are building transformation on fiction.
The common failure pattern: artifacts first, reality later
Many transformation and improvement efforts follow the same sequence:
document current state
define future state
design new process
produce artifacts
begin delivery
discover reality
Reality tends to arrive late, usually during implementation, when it becomes expensive and politically difficult to change direction.
This is why programmes suffer from:
- surprise dependencies
- “unknown unknowns”
- hidden capacity constraints
- low adoption
- political resistance framed as “stakeholder management issues”
- delivery plans that collapse under real operational conditions
It’s not because the team didn’t work hard.
It’s because the sequence was wrong.
The Ministry of Insights position: reality first
Our sequencing is deliberately different:
1) Reality first
2) Artifacts second
3) Packaging last
This is a non-negotiable design principle.
Because the organisation doesn’t run on documented process.
It runs on:
- behaviour
- informal agreements
- shortcuts
- institutional memory
- approvals that happen in chat
- hidden labour
- operational constraints
- capacity limitations
- legacy systems
- incentives
This is the real operating model.
And until you see it clearly, documentation is just theatre.
What “Operational Truth” means
Operational truth is the evidence-based view of how work actually happens.
It answers questions like:
- Where does work really start?
- Where does it really end?
- Where does it stall?
- What is the real bottleneck?
- What is the shadow process keeping things moving?
- What decisions happen informally?
- What risks are silently accumulating?
- Which parts of the process only work because of heroics?
Operational truth is not a criticism of people.
It is the foundation of sustainable change.
Why “documentation theatre” happens
Documentation theatre emerges when organisations confuse the appearance of maturity with maturity itself.
It happens for understandable reasons:
1) Documentation feels safe
A document doesn’t challenge anyone. It doesn’t threaten ownership. It can be approved.
Reality is messier, and it makes people uncomfortable.
2) Documentation creates the illusion of progress
You can generate 40 pages of process artifacts in a week.
But that does not mean you have improved operations by 1%.
3) Documentation protects reputations
Operational truth often reveals misalignment, inefficiencies, and informal practices. Documentation can conceal those realities under neat headings.
4) Documentation makes governance easier
Committees can approve documents.
They struggle to approve messy reality, because messy reality forces trade-offs.
The cost: you end up transforming the wrong thing
When documentation drives the initiative, organisations tend to improve what is visible rather than what is true.
That leads to predictable outcomes:
- automation of bad processes
- transformation that reinforces shadow work
- duplicated systems (old + new running in parallel)
- low adoption blamed on “change resistance”
- delivery teams burning time on rework
- governance operating on inaccurate reporting
In short:
You get better documentation, not better operations.
The MOI sequencing framework (insight-driven delivery)
This is the sequencing we apply in Decision Assurance work and across Labs.
Step 1: Observe operational truth (before you map it)
We start by gathering evidence from multiple angles:
- staff interviews (ground truth)
- workflow observation (how it actually runs)
- artefact review (what people really use, not what’s published)
- system evidence (logs, timestamps, access patterns)
- shadow process identification (“unlogged work”)
This step produces insight, not diagrams.
Step 2: Identify constraints and behavioural realities
We map:
- bottlenecks
- informal decision points
- handoff failure points
- hidden labour
- constraint zones
- legitimacy / stakeholder triggers
Step 3: Only then create artifacts
Artifacts are a product of reality, not an input into it.
Process maps, SOPs, RACI models, and governance documents are created after operational truth is known.
Step 4: Package for different audiences last
Packaging is the final step:
- executive narrative
- governance brief
- delivery plan
- training guidance
- artefact suite
This avoids a common failure mode: producing polished artifacts for executives that don’t match delivery reality.
What changes when you lead with operational truth
When reality leads, transformation outcomes improve.
1) Adoption improves
Because the future state reflects the way people actually work, not how they’re expected to work.
2) Workload becomes visible
Hidden coordination work and shadow processes are exposed, reducing burnout and single points of failure.
3) Governance becomes meaningful
Decision-making shifts from “approve the document” to “manage the consequences”.
4) Delivery accelerates
Not because you rush, but because you avoid rework.
A simple test for organisations
Here’s a diagnostic question that reveals whether your organisation is stuck in documentation theatre:
Do teams argue about what is true, or only about what is written?
If delivery teams consistently say:
- “that’s not how it works”
- “the process map is wrong”
- “we don’t use that template”
- “we had to create a workaround”
…then the organisation is operating on narrative rather than evidence.
That is exactly where operational truth work becomes valuable.
Conclusion: truth is the foundation of sustainable change
Documentation has a place.
But it must sit in the correct sequence.
If your organisation wants reliable execution, stronger governance, and successful AI adoption, then the key principle is:
Reality first. Artifacts second. Packaging last.
Without operational truth, documentation becomes a performance.
With operational truth, documentation becomes a tool.
And that distinction is the difference between transformation theatre and transformation outcomes.
