Comparative analysis of five document sets covering Achieve Australia's client journey and revenue process — produced by four different parties across 18 months. Where they align, where they conflict, what they reveal about how this improvement work was actually run. Source of record: feedback-loops/achieve-journey-maps-deep-dive.md.
Six photographs from a single ideation session. Whiteboard, four flipchart FROM/TO papers, one handwritten action plan. Mandate: "Strategic Priority — Systems + process improvements, shaped by a CX + EX lens." Produced aspiration, not process design. The "What's Next" paper explicitly frames this as upstream input for journey maps and process mapping. No document records that handover happening.
Who: Executive/strategy language throughout. No frontline staff voices. No participant or family voice. FROM sticky notes are staff beliefs about client experience, not client-reported experience.
Three polished, branded road-map style journey diagrams — same template, Achieve logo, clean icons, no uncertainty markers. Accommodation/SIL covers enquiry to 3–6 monthly check-ins (~20 steps). Day Programs requires 15+ intake documents at site visit including mealtime, behaviour support, dysphagia, epilepsy management plans. Respite has a Nursing Service Manager clinical eligibility gate early in the process.
What it is: Aspirational published process. Likely represents intended future state, not verified operational reality.
25-page independent technology advisory assessment. Based on interviews with 14 senior leaders across 4 days (April 2026). SIL journey only, four stages: Stage 0 Marketing, Stage 1 Enquiry & Selection, Stage 2 Transition & Move-In, Stage 3 Operation & Ongoing Service. Application heat map: HubSpot Red; VisiCase, QuickClaim, SharePoint, ELMO, SafetyCulture Amber; Micropay Green.
Core finding: "Processes exist. The challenge is that processes were developed locally in silos, and do not consider effective information sharing across other departments." First document to formally name Off-Boarding as a stage.
Large-format swimlane map covering billing and claiming from SOS creation through to reconciliation and AR. Five layers: process steps, touch points (roles + systems), pain points (by type: Technology / Process / People / Culture / Leadership), insights, opportunities.
What it is: The most honest, most granular document in the set. Built from operational staff knowledge — NDIS Administrators, Rostering Officers, Service Managers. Contains quantified leakage, named single-person dependencies, explicit gaps ("OLD MAP — Awaiting Confirmation," "Role TBC," "reconciliation not currently being done").
Multi-page colour-coded swimlane for SIL. Five actors: Participant (Lime), Support Coordinator (Blue), Both (Teal), Achieve Employees (Purple), SDA Provider (Yellow). Distinctive notation: solid arrows = confirmed; dashed arrows = "Unclear contingent process"; # = "Institutional knowledge." Scope runs from vacancy creation through to "Participant leaves SIL Accommodation (undocumented)" — the only document that explicitly marks departure, and does so by naming it as a gap.
What it is: The most complete scope of any document (includes Stage 0 and departure). Also the most honest — the gap-notation system is a self-audit built into the map. Participant has a named swimlane but remains passive throughout — Achieve acts, participant receives.
| Stage | Workshop | Visual Reps | ME Services | Revenue Maps | CJM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stage 0: Vacancy / Marketing | Implied | ✕ starts at enquiry | ✓ named | ✕ | ✓ |
| Stage 1: Enquiry → Intake | Thematic | ✓ all 3 lines | ✓ SIL only | ✕ | ✓ SIL only |
| Stage 2: Transition → Move-in | Thematic | ✓ | ✓ | ✕ | ✓ |
| Stage 3: Ongoing service delivery | Thematic | Partial (check-ins) | Named, minimal | ✓ billing/claiming | Check-ins |
| Departure / Offboarding | ✕ | ✕ | Named, never described | Implied (final billing) | "undocumented" |
All five sources agree on the shape: vacancy/marketing → enquiry → initial engagement → information gathering → suitability/clinical assessment → funding validation → SOS → service commencement. Labels differ; the sequence does not.
Revenue Maps, Customer Journey Map, Visual Representations, and ME Services all confirm HubSpot as the entry-stage CRM — from different directions. ME Services rates it Red (underutilised). Customer Journey Map marks the HubSpot → VisiCase transition with #. They are describing the same point in the system from different vantage points.
ME Services: "high coordination load on Service Managers." Customer Journey Map: SM owns transition planning, risk assessment, move-in date, and all post-move check-ins. Visual Representation (SIL): SM starts transition within 5 business days and owns all subsequent touchpoints. This structural dependency is not a design choice — it is a pattern that appears in every source independently.
Revenue Maps documents it exhaustively. ME Services names it as the defining weakness: "manual, non-automated workflow, leading to potential data loss or delays." Customer Journey Map marks boundaries with # and dashed arrows. Workshop images list "disconnected/hard to navigate systems" and "manual + disjointed system" as current-state pain points. Four independent sources, the same finding.
Revenue Maps, Customer Journey Map, and all three Visual Representations identify the Statement of Service as the step that enables billing to commence. ME Services identifies the static, non-searchable PDF SOS as a structural problem. All sources agree it is the join point between the experience side and the financial side — and none of them designed that join.
Visual Representation (SIL), Customer Journey Map, and ME Services all identify this review as part of suitability assessment. ME Services and Customer Journey Map both flag it as inconsistently triggered — ME Services explicitly, Customer Journey Map with a # marker at the engagement step.
| Source | Terminology | Participant appears as |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue Maps | "client" — administrative | Subject of a billing transaction |
| Customer Journey Map | "Participant" — gives them a swimlane | Actor with named questions and experience — but passive; Achieve acts, participant receives |
| Visual Reps | "the person and their family" — person-first NDIS language | Recipient of Achieve's procedural steps |
| ME Services | "Participant" — but researched via senior leaders only | Subject of staff descriptions; "positive experience reported" is staff-reported, not participant-reported |
| Workshop | "Customer" and "Client" interchangeably | Beneficiary of a better experience that Achieve believes it is designing |
# mark — institutional knowledge, not documentedOnly the Visual Representations cover all three service lines — as separate documents with no cross-line view. The differences are structurally significant:
No document in this set includes participant or family voice in its construction. No participant satisfaction data cited as input. No family-reported pain points. No lived-experience perspective in the workshop sticky notes.
ME Services' SWOT lists "Positive End User experience reported" as a strength — sourced from senior staff saying participants report positive experiences, not from direct feedback. The Board's request for Client Voice KPIs (August 2024, still "to be decided" as of June 2026) confirms there is no mechanism for participant voice in system design. Every document describes Achieve's process as Achieve experiences it.
The April 2025 workshop produced a six-step "What's Next" action plan to convert ideation into process design. Fourteen months later, ME Services (April 2026) found the same current-state problems and used the same language as the workshop's FROM slides — without citing the prior workshop.
The Visual Representations may represent the implemented design from a communications perspective. ME Services, working from operational interviews 12 months later, found the same friction points the design was meant to resolve.
The Revenue Process Maps are the only document built with frontline operational staff. The result: information that appears nowhere else — the $1.2M pending revenue figure, the single-person dependency, the $5k/month timesheet leakage, the 1,100 open claim errors, the ledger/sub-ledger reconciliation gap.
Everything that appears in the Revenue Maps and not in the executive-level documents is information that only the frontline had. Executive-only research produces executive-level findings. Operational problems are invisible until the operational staff are in the room.
None of the four document sets references the others directly. Revenue Maps are cited in the Supporting Potential engagement contract as a known input, but not referenced in the Customer Journey Map or workshop. ME Services lists "customer journey maps" in Appendix B as a reviewed document — gives it no citation and no cross-reference in findings. The Visual Representations are not mentioned anywhere.
ME Services may have independently re-derived the same findings as the 2025 workshop because neither party knew the other's work existed. This is not a criticism of the teams involved. It is a structural observation: four overlapping exercises, by different parties, across 18 months, with no integrating document, no cross-referencing, no recorded handover.
Every document in this set is built from Achieve's internal view. The workshop asked what Achieve believes clients want. The Visual Representations show what staff should do. ME Services researched via senior leaders only. The Customer Journey Map colours the participant lane differently but keeps participants passive throughout. The journey maps describe the door. They say almost nothing about the house.
Revenue Maps and client journey documents cover adjacent halves of the same delivery reality and were designed entirely separately. The billing process cannot work reliably without accurate case file setup. The case file cannot be accurate without reliable intake data. These documents describe the same problem from opposite ends without connecting. The SOS is the join point both sides depend on — and neither side designed the join.
Workshop (April 2025): disconnected systems, unwritten processes. Revenue Maps (Nov–Dec 2024): $1.2M pending, 1,100 claim errors, unowned reconciliation. Customer Journey Map: institutional knowledge dependencies, undocumented departure. ME Services (April–May 2026): silos, manual movement of information, no single source of truth. The same finding. Different authors. 18 months apart. No document in this set shows that any prior diagnosis was implemented and closed.
Accommodation, Day Programs, and Respite have different front-door roles, different clinical gatekeeping, different intake document sets, different post-start cadences. No cross-line view exists in any document. ME Services, Revenue Maps, and Customer Journey Map focus exclusively on SIL. Any improvement designed for SIL may not translate to the other lines — they will need separate work, or the assumption of transferability needs to be explicitly tested.
Four separate exercises covering overlapping territory, by different parties, with no integrating document, no cross-referencing, no evidence of handover from one to the next. ME Services may have independently re-derived the same findings as the 2025 workshop because neither party knew the other's work existed. The organisation's pattern of "one problem, one solution, by whoever is closest" produced these improvement documents in exactly the same disconnected way it produced the CI register entries, the mealtime plan tracking spreadsheet, and the billing workarounds. The design gap and the operational gap are the same gap.