What IS a Process Map?

What IS a 'process map' to you?

  • It illustrates MULTIPLE processes (eg, flowchart, diagram or similar)

    Votes: 14 30.4%
  • It describes MULTIPLE processes (mainly or all text)

    Votes: 3 6.5%
  • It shows MULTIPLE processes (combines graphics/diagram & text descriptions)

    Votes: 14 30.4%
  • Sets out a SINGLE process only, graphically (eg, flowchart etc)

    Votes: 9 19.6%
  • Describes a SINGLE process only, in text

    Votes: 1 2.2%
  • It can show either MULTIPLE processes, or a SINGLE process

    Votes: 15 32.6%
  • I don't really know

    Votes: 1 2.2%
  • I avoid 'process maps'

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • There's no difference between a 'process map' and a documented 'procedure'

    Votes: 3 6.5%

  • Total voters
    46
J

JaneB

What do you mean by a 'process map'? A few discussions in a couple of recent threads reminded me that this term is often used to mean different things, which can be very confusing for the 'uninitiated'.

I'm interested to see if there's a broad consensus of meaning (or not), and what people think a process map 'should' be / contain / look like.
 
W

William Gr

It all depends on what you are trying to map! As higher level processes will break off into smaller ones. For example, process mapping new product development. Many areas in the company each with thier own smaller process will become part of the bigger map. On the simpler end is a process map for making the morning coffee, were everything is local and can flow in sequencial events. In both cases. the map should be a step by step recreation of actual events, including decision points.
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
What do you mean by a 'process map'? A few discussions in a couple of recent threads reminded me that this term is often used to mean different things, which can be very confusing for the 'uninitiated'.

I'm interested to see if there's a broad consensus of meaning (or not), and what people think a process map 'should' be / contain / look like.

In general, process maps are confused masses of symbols, arrows and text that purport to explicate the interactions of processes. In most cases they do nothing of the kind and serve mainly to have something shiny and colorful to present to a CB auditor as evidence of understanding process interactions. Give me good ol' logically derived process flow diagrams any time. Or better yet, actually describe in writing how processes interact.
 

Stijloor

Leader
Super Moderator
In general, process maps are confused masses of symbols, arrows and text that purport to explicate the interactions of processes. In most cases they do nothing of the kind and serve mainly to have something shiny and colorful to present to a CB auditor as evidence of understanding process interactions. Give me good ol' logically derived process flow diagrams any time. Or better yet, actually describe in writing how processes interact.

I believe that "a picture is worth a thousand words." The problem is that folks developing these process maps are trying to cram way too much information on an 8.5 x 11 (or an A4) piece of paper. The scope of the map is not set right so it becomes indeed a "mass of symbols, arrows and text."

The new AIAG FMEA 4th Ed. manual shows a neat (simple) example of how a process map (high level) can be broken up into separate flow charts (lower level).

But then again, I am a picture guy...:D

Stijloor.
 
J

joshua_sx1

:2cents:

process map – is an overall methodology plan of how each major activity within an organization interact or connected with each other…

...then describing the detailed of how each major activity shall be carried-out can be done using flowcharts, procedures and/or working instructions… (and as required) supported by forms to have an evidence that they were performed accordingly…
 

Peter Fraser

Trusted Information Resource
What do you mean by a 'process map'? A few discussions in a couple of recent threads reminded me that this term is often used to mean different things, which can be very confusing for the 'uninitiated'.

I'm interested to see if there's a broad consensus of meaning (or not), and what people think a process map 'should' be / contain / look like.
Jane

About time too, thanks! The use of the term has been causing confusion for far too long - have you ever been in a meeting and discovered after a couple of hours that someone is talking about something different from what you thought, because they are using a term that you thought "everyone knows what that means" but they use it differently? Or (even) reading posts in a forum for years and then suddenly realising that some posters are doing the same!

As is often the case, there is no "right" answer. Deming talked of "operational definitions" - what terms mean in a particular context. The important thing is that the meaning is understood by everyone, and that isn't the case here.

And other examples make it worse ... a "town map" and a "street map" are probably the same thing - ie a map (a visual or diagrammatic representation) of a town, made up of streets. But you wouldn't talk of a "town map" if you meant a map of a country which showed the main towns.

To me, if a "map" is a "visual or diagrammatic representation" of what is mapped, then the ideal would be to call the "picture" of your management system a "system map", and reserve "process map" (or similar) for the description of an individual process.

What is also important is why these various types of "map" are produced - I have seen enough (bad) examples to suggest that many of them confuse rather than clarify, and often they are produced because the author thinks that they have to draw one rather than because their target audience will gain benefit.
 
U

Umang Vidyarthi

What do you mean by a 'process map'? A few discussions in a couple of recent threads reminded me that this term is often used to mean different things, which can be very confusing for the 'uninitiated'.

I'm interested to see if there's a broad consensus of meaning (or not), and what people think a process map 'should' be / contain / look like.

A 'Process Map' is a bird's eye view of a process or processes, giving you broad information about the process in one shot. Just like a picture.

BTW the 'uninitiated' also get confused with synonymous terms viz: Process flow diagram, process flow chart, process model etcetra.

Umang :2cents:
 

Bifften

Involved In Discussions
My understanding and use of the term "Process Map" is something that shows a single process (be it macro (high level) or micro (low level). These maps can include graphics, symbols and text descriptions.

I can and do have several processes which means several "Process Maps" which can all be related / linked.
 
C

curryassassin

A some have stated, the process map could be very complicated or it could be very simple. It depends on the intended use of the map and the process or processes you are mapping. Many times the quality system as a whole is mapped, when attempting to show how ISO9000 requirements are addressed. This can produce a very complicated map. Or mapping can illustrate the main activities and tasks of one critical process.

Process mapping can help improve efficiency, effectiveness, identify customer / supplier relationships, identify how to measure whether the process is performing as required, who owns the process etc. Or simply to illustrate what a thousand words in SOPs actually mean.

I like the definition of 'visual or diagrammatical representation' of the process or processes. I am aware of the following types of mapping and flow charting, each with their own benefits and drawbacks:

  • Process Flowcharts
  • Cross Functional or Swimlane
  • Integration Definition for Function Modelling
  • Relationship Diagrams or Input / Output Diagrams
 
J

JaneB

have you ever been in a meeting and discovered after a couple of hours that someone is talking about something different from what you thought, because they are using a term that you thought "everyone knows what that means" but they use it differently?

Too often :D

Only yesterday, I saw that a draft procedure I"d sent a client had had the following sentence added to it (which I most certainly didn't write!)

"This procedural process is to be adhered to... "
Or was it a 'processional procedure' that he called it? Groan. :confused:

Or then there's the case of 'translation' where you look up a word in a dictionary and then use it, thinking it has the meaning you looked up, only to find it's quite different. I did this with the word 'embarrasoza' (may have spelled wrongly) in talking to some Spanish speakers in a professional situation, and wondered why they looked at me funny. I was trying to say I was embarassed about something; apparently I communicated to them that I was pregnant.

As is often the case, there is no "right" answer. Deming talked of "operational definitions" - what terms mean in a particular context. The important thing is that the meaning is understood by everyone, and that isn't the case here.

Yes, just so. The phrase 'process map' isn't defined anywhere (which doesn't stop people hotly defending or writing as if it were), and then to add to the confusion, it also has synonyms, as Umang points out. Meanings DO at times depend & yes, I know is something that the dyed-in-the-wool engineering types don't like! As long as we avoid the Cheshire Cat approach.

So I thought it was worth breaking this question out and polling it - early results and comments already show some interesting results. I look forward to more.

What is also important is why these various types of "map" are produced - I have seen enough (bad) examples to suggest that many of them confuse rather than clarify, and often they are produced because the author thinks that they have to draw one rather than because their target audience will gain benefit.

Yes, me too, and very good point. If they're not useful and meaningful, I wouldn't bother. And I've seen some truly hideous examples which no doubt took the creator a long time to do... and essentially communicated zilch (except perhaps 'boy, have I spent a long time in VIsio copying in the clauses from the relevant Standard!) Hence perhaps Jim's aversion, which I thoroughly understand. (Great definition, Jim!)
 
Top Bottom