In 30 seconds

A map is only useful if it matches reality. Validate it by walking real cases through it with the people who do the work, including a difficult case. Fix it in the conversation.

Why this comes up

It is easy to produce a map that looks complete and is quietly wrong. You filled gaps with reasonable guesses, or captured one person's version. Validation is how you catch that before it becomes a design.

Walk a real case through the map

Take a recent, real case and follow it step by step using only the map. Do not narrate from memory. If the map cannot handle the case without you adding unwritten knowledge, that missing knowledge is the point.

Then do it again with a difficult case. The happy path usually validates easily. The exceptions are where maps fall apart.

Ask the sharpening questions

While walking through, ask the people involved:

  • Where does the map become inaccurate?
  • Which step contains more judgment than it looks?
  • What information is missing here?
  • Who else would describe this step differently?
  • What did we draw that never actually happens?

Update the map live. It is a shared thinking tool, not a report to defend.

Check with more than one person

One person validates one perspective. If different shifts, regions or roles handle the workflow differently, validate with someone from each. A map that only one person recognizes is not yet a shared model.

A small example

A team validated a returns map that looked complete. Walking a real case through it revealed that "inspect the item" actually branched three ways depending on the item's value, and that high-value returns went to a different person entirely. The happy path was right. The map had hidden a whole decision and a handoff.

What this does not solve

Validation confirms the map matches how the work happens. It does not confirm the work should happen that way. Whether the current process is good is a separate question for later stages.

Good enough to move on when

  • At least one real case walked through the map cleanly.
  • A difficult case was tested and the map handled or exposed it.
  • The people who do the work recognize the map.
  • Corrections were made where the map was wrong.