Case Study: Reducing Operational Friction by Connecting Disconnected Tools
- Katina Ndlovu
- 1 day ago
- 3 min read
Context
This case involved a service-based business using multiple digital tools to run daily operations.
Each tool worked well in isolation, but there was no clear system connecting them.
As a result, information had to be manually copied, checked, and reconciled across platforms. Work was getting done, but only through constant coordination.
“Systems fail when people have to connect tools manually.”- Katina Ndlovu
The Core Problem- Connecting Disconnected Tools
The business relied on disconnected tools without a defined flow between them.
Key issues included:
Client information duplicated across systems
Manual copying of data between tools
Inconsistent updates and version confusion
Tasks falling through the cracks when handoffs were unclear
The tools existed, but the system did not.
Why This Was a Workflow and Systems Issue
This was not a tooling problem. This required support connecting disconnected tools.
The issue was the absence of clear trigger points and ownership between steps. Without defined connections, people became the glue holding systems together.
This increased cognitive load and made the operation fragile.
The Approach
The work focused on creating a clear system using the tools already in place.
Key actions included:
Identifying the single source of truth for client and project data
Defining what event triggered the next step in the workflow
Clarifying which tool owned which part of the process
Removing unnecessary duplication of information
Establishing predictable handoffs between systems
No new tools were added. Existing tools were aligned.
What Changed
After restructuring, work flowed more predictably between tools.
Information no longer needed to be manually reconciled, tasks were triggered consistently, and updates were visible where they were needed. The system required less oversight and fewer manual checks.
Operations became more resilient.
Evidence of Operational Improvement
The impact was visible in how work moved day to day.
Specifically:
Fewer manual data transfers were required
Reduced need to double-check information across platforms
Clearer ownership of tasks at each stage
Less interruption caused by missing or outdated data
The system supported the work instead of depending on people to bridge gaps.
Time and Cost Impact (Conservative Estimate)
Before restructuring, manual coordination between tools required approximately 1 to 1.5 hours per day, spread across checks, updates, and corrections.
After connecting tools into a clear workflow, this was reduced to approximately 10 to 20 minutes per day.
Estimated time saved:
40 to 60 hours per month
Using a conservative operational cost of $40 to $75 per hour, this represents:
$1,600 to $4,500 per month in recovered time capacity
This value reflects reduced coordination effort, not increased workload or headcount.
Why This Matters for Workflows and Systems
Disconnected tools create invisible drag.
By defining how tools interact, businesses reduce reliance on human memory and constant checking. Systems become more reliable, and work becomes easier to maintain as volume increases.
Where This Pattern Commonly Appears
This issue frequently affects:
Businesses that adopt tools incrementally
Teams using multiple platforms without integration logic
Operations where people manually reconcile data
Systems that break when volume increases
Relationship to Workflows and Systems Work
This case demonstrates how workflows and systems work focuses on alignment rather than accumulation. Connecting existing tools into a coherent system creates operational stability without additional complexity.
How Can I Help?
If your business relies on people to manually connect tools and information, this work focuses on building workflows that make systems dependable without adding complexity.
You can explore related workflow case studies or get in touch to discuss where operational friction may be slowing things down.
Author
Katina Ndlovu works on workflows and systems for service-based businesses, focusing on reducing operational friction through clear structure rather than additional tools. Her work centres on mapping how work actually flows, defining ownership and handoffs, and aligning existing systems so operations are easier to run and maintain.
She documents applied systems work through case studies that show how clarity and structure translate into measurable time savings and more reliable delivery.
Comments