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
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.
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!)