Hi,

This might sound a dumb question but i want to know is there a common practice for the 'language' used during process mapping. For example when I am making a process map; how should i define a process, 'Prepare raw material' OR 'Raw material preparation' should I use Verb or Nouns, the reason why i am asking that is that during brain storm sessions when we are making PFMEA or Control plan, what part of speech we use can affect engineer's thinking and it can lead/mislead in a particular direction of thinking, so if you don't use a proper language during Process map / PFMEA; can result in good / bad document. Personally i prefer to use 'Prepare raw Material' in Process map and use 'Raw material preparation' during FMEA preparation.

Is it only i who is thinking this way or other people have also experienced that.

cheers
:applause:

Hi,

This might sound a dumb question but i want to know is there a common practice for the 'language' used during process mapping. For example when I am making a process map; how should i define a process, 'Prepare raw material' OR 'Raw material preparation' should I use Verb or Nouns, the reason why i am asking that is that during brain storm sessions when we are making PFMEA or Control plan, what part of speech we use can affect engineer's thinking and it can lead/mislead in a particular direction of thinking, so if you don't use a proper language during Process map / PFMEA; can result in good / bad document. Personally i prefer to use 'Prepare raw Material' in Process map and use 'Raw material preparation' during FMEA preparation.

Is it only i who is thinking this way or other people have also experienced that.

cheers
:applause:

Use active voice, present tense.
Keep titles short.

Stijloor.

When I was taught Process Mapping (by a couple of Brits, so nothing was lost in translation:lol:) the preferred method was to use 'verb/noun' relationships.

So typically, you'd use:

"Reviews Customer Order", or "Issues PO", "Approves Requisition", and so on and so forth.

I've found it very useful to do this when coaching a session, since if the job can't be described this way, it may be covering up some non-value-added stuff which neds exposing and re-engineering out of the system.

....... Personally i prefer to use 'Prepare raw Material' in Process map and use 'Raw material preparation' during FMEA preparation.

On a linguistic note, do you "prepare" :)

How about "Assemble Raw Materials" :confused:

On a linguistic note, do you "prepare" :)

How about "Assemble Raw Materials" :confused:

I think this would depend upon the process/ end product.

On a linguistic note, do you "prepare" :)

How about "Assemble Raw Materials" :confused:

Preparing might mean a whole slew of things like "cutting to length", "weighing a quantity", etc. Not just bringing them together........

Ah, the power of the English language..........:lmao:

Surely everyone uses the standard format "The organization shall ...." ;)

Only kidding .... please write in the language you use (leaving out the expletives of course.) :lol:

Preparing might mean a whole slew of things like "cutting to length", "weighing a quantity", etc. Not just bringing them together........

Ah, the power of the English language..........:lmao:

Hi Andy,

Yes you are right, in my case 'Preparing' means a lot of things, 'Prepare raw material' is part of the 'High level Process map' and when I move to its sub-level process; Prepare means lots of activities, such as 'correct mixing ratio', 'connect fibre rolls' and so on. so i guess i should use a general terms to describe them all so i don't make my High level process more complex.

Here is a definition of active vs passive voice:

The passive voice also sounds more formal, because it implies objectivity. (Nobody is involved.) This is why the passive voice is almost always used for experiments, studies, and technical information.

Using the active voice usually produces a sense that the message is direct (to-the-point), people are an important part of the "equation", the action is more dynamic, there is more immediacy (happening now), and in general, that the message is more sincere.

In my opinion, when writing process maps, procedures, and policies I prefer the use of the passive voice only because as stated in the definition above, it produces formality in the writing.

Here is a definition of active vs passive voice:



In my opinion, when writing process maps, procedures, and policies I prefer the use of the passive voice only because as stated in the definition above, it produces formality in the writing.

It doesn't "produce formality," it creates the illusion of formality. QMS documentation should tell what happens, not what "shall" happen.

It doesn't "produce formality," it creates the illusion of formality. QMS documentation should tell what happens, not what "shall" happen.


hmmm some nice replies, but i think we should also consider that the same map will read by everyone from China to US; so we have to make sure everyone interprets it same

Here is a definition of active vs passive voice:



In my opinion, when writing process maps, procedures, and policies I prefer the use of the passive voice only because as stated in the definition above, it produces formality in the writing.
For exactly the reason you think passive is "formal," many, if not most, feel it is "stilted" and awkward since it is far different from the way most people really speak when they want to convey information.

I was once in a courtroom waiting to observe an interesting case when I noted this interchange between the judge, the opposing counsel, and a defendant who was acting as his own attorney in an earlier case on the docket. The defendant was arguing his summation: (D = defendant; J = Judge; P = Plaintiff's counsel)
D: "Your honor should find me not liable because . . ."
P: "Objection!"
J: "Accepted."
D: "What!?"
J: "Counsel is cautioned to use the third person when referring to defendant."
D: "You can't be serious, Judge." [lot of tonal sarcasm in voice]
J: "Oh, but I am. I further caution defendant's counsel to speak in a civil tone or be found in contempt."
D: "Your honor should not find the defendant liable because . . ."
{At this point I had to leave the courtroom to keep from laughing out loud and getting myself found in contempt}

Bottom line:
Stilted language in instructions and procedures for processes is a major factor in the worker misunderstanding the procedures and instructions and thus creating nonconformances.

Written instructions work best when they are straightforward and readily understood by the intended audience. Just because I can understand instructions written in "gobblespeak" (my own term for "highfaluting" language) doesn't mean the guy who actually has to do the job can understand it. I can write in classical Latin, which my teachers (if they were still alive) would probably rate as an "A." Do you think those guys on the assembly line who are barely fluent in their native language will easily follow the Latin? Well, "gobblespeak" often produces the same effect as if it were written in a language foreign to the reader.

"gobblespeak" = any terminology which has more to do with the ego of the writer and his wanting to appear "smart and educated" than in the intent to make the written document useful and unambiguous for the folks who actually have to use and interpret it into meaningful action.

…active voice is better when doing process mapping since the subject of the verb does the action…

…anyway, correct me if I’m wrong but I believe it would be better to use the same format when dealing with process mapping, or FMEA, or Control Plan, procedures, etc. to come-out with the same interpretation wherever you use them…

…the point is, you are trying to standardize everything, right? well, put that principle into practice…

I would think that the purpose is effective communication, rather than standardization - IMHO. Two very different goals

I would think that the purpose is effective communication, rather than standardization - IMHO. Two very different goals

Different but related, at times. We can improve communication by standardizing definitions of potentially ambiguous terms, for example. The active/passive voice thing is more a matter of style than actual substance, but setting a standard for it might be helpful in achieving the overall goal of standardization without sacrificing effective communication.