An article I wrote on how to avoid the common mistakes people often make when performing business process mapping. The article was originally published on the PEX Process Excellence Network.

1. (http://processexcellencenetwork.com/)
178
Home (/) > Business Process Management (BPM) (/business-process-management-bpm/) > Articles
(/business-process-management-bpm/articles/)
4 Common Process Mapping Mistakes (And How to Avoid
Them)
Contributor: Shu-wing Pang (/contributors/2505-shu-wing-pang/)
Posted: 10/05/2011 12:00:00 AM EDT
(/contributors/2505-shu-wing-pang/)
Rate this Article: (4.9 Stars | 270 Votes)
Tags: Shu Wing Pang (/search/shu-wing-pang/) | Process Mapping (/search/process-mapping/) | process
visualization (/search/process-visualization/) | process visualisation (/search/process-visualisation/) |
process architecture (/search/process-architecture/) | Process Management (/search/process-
management/)
Process mapping (http://www.processexcellencenetwork.com/pex-tools-technologies/white-
papers/infographic-process-mapping-vs-process-modelling/index.cfm) provides a structural analysis
approach and a capability of delivering systematic outputs. But the effectiveness of process mapping is
affected by howit is selected as the method of analysis, howit is planned and executed, says
contributor Shu-Wing Pang. Here are 4 common ways process improvement professionals go wrong
with process mapping.
Process mapping is an analytical tool commonly applied by process improvement professionals. By
capturing real-world operation and reflecting it through a set of processes, they can, firstly, visualize the
inputs, interactions, deliverables and parties involved in an organisation’s operation and decision-
making, and secondly, identify process inefficiencies, disjoints and improvement opportunities.
The effectiveness of process mapping, however, varies significantly based on the writer’s experience
and observations. On one procurement process reengineering project, for example, process mapping
was appropriately applied to summarize core processes and identify non-value-added activities to
facilitate improvement; but on another project, the consultants involved failed to capture the true scale of
the operational processes in the organisation and the resultant improvement was unable to address the
real underlying problems.

2. TWEET SHARE
Barry McIntyre wants to know …
Which do you consider more important for
success in your transformation program?
Process Mapping
Process Modeling
Make Your Own Poll!
Problem of Ineffective Process Mapping
The following are four common problems which adversely affect the use of process mapping on
identifying improvement opportunities. These problems are related to the appropriate use of the process
mapping method, how process mapping is planned and executed.
Mistake #1:
Apply process mapping on inappropriate types of processes
Most organizations' business operation can be categorized into three types of processes:
transformational processes, transactional processes and decision-making processes.
Transformational processes refer to the interactions where specific inputs are reshaped to outputs with
changes in physical or virtual forms. Manufacturing (change in physical forms) and systems
development (change in virtual forms) are typical examples of transformational processes.
Transactional processes refer to the interactions of different input parties where they accomplish to
generate specific outcomes. Call centre support and most sales activities are examples of transactional
processes; Decision-making processes refer to the interactions of different input parties where they
accomplish to make decisions. The decisions made can be within a pre-defined range (e.g. approve or
reject an application) specific or open-ended (e.g. what is the optimal market entry price level?). Pricing,
market forecasting and inventory control are examples of decision-making processes.
Process mapping is more effective on identifying improvement opportunities on transformational and
transactional processes than on decision-marking processes, especially those involving high-level,
open-ended decisions.
This is because, firstly, the outputs from such transformational and transactional processes tend to be
more specific and objectively-defined (e.g. specific products and service outputs) and secondly,
process variations are more traceable. By contrast, high-level, open-ended decision-making processes
tend to be abstract and intangible. Also, the fact that such decision-making involves a lot of dynamic,
unpredictable factors mean that it is the quality of individuals gathering, processing and analyzing the
information which matter. Process mapping is seldom the most optimal method of identifying and
visualizing improvement opportunities in these circumstances.

3. INTERESTED IN LEARNING MORE ABOUT THIS TOPIC?
PEX Week 2016 | 18-22 January 2016, Florida
No matter what your interest – operations, process excellence, workflow management, data and customer
analytics, BPM, business rules & decisions, business architecture – learn how you can go from passenger to
driver in your quest for business performance excellence at PE...
Mistake #2:
Being unclear about the focus of your process mapping
Preliminary analysis can point to areas where process inefficiencies or disjoints occur, but their
underlying causes may reside outside the processes where these problems are diagnosed. For
example, I was once involved in a hotel process improvement project where the problem of room
service was addressed. The delivery process was mapped and analyzed and no major shortcoming
was identified. But when it came to interviewing and Gemba assessment, it was found that the problem
was not caused by room service delivery but because staff lifts were frequently occupied by
housekeeping team for transporting laundry.
This case showed that cause of process inefficiency can be caused outside the process being
addressed. Additionally, the effectiveness of process mapping will diminish if the process improvement
team is ambiguous on determining whether it is the core or secondary processes (i.e. variations from
core processes to cater for exceptional and unique scenarios, transitional (interim) processes or
supplementary processes) on which they should focus on.
Mistake #3:
Trying to create the “perfect” process maps (and forgetting why you’re process
mapping in the first place)
Improvement professionals and their business-side counterparts sometimes bury themselves in
process mapping analysis and forget the goal of improvement (i.e. improving the business) and instead
focus on building ‘perfect’ process maps. For instance, when business communities visualize how their
processes are reflected on process maps, they are tempted to describe and explain it in a way which
will make the processes ‘join together and make logical sense’.
Mistake #4:
Weakness on cross-party responsibilities
As a format of presentation, process maps are never ideal when it comes to showing multiple
responsibilities among different parties, especially when one of them plays a leadership role. For
example, on a swim-lane diagram, a cross-team activity is usually indicated by a task which extends
across several swim-lanes to the responsible parties; it, however, is difficult to display a leading party in
a clear way graphically. Less experienced process analysts and improvement professionals may
overlook the leadership dimension on the analysis.
Developing Better Practice for Process Mapping

4. The effectiveness of process mapping as a continuous improvement tool diminishes when process
improvement practitioners are not aware of the problems mentioned above. The following guidelines are
recommended to address these problems.
Establish Clear Continuous Improvement Objectives:
What are the objectives of the improvement initiative? Is the goal of improvement to resolve existing
operational problems (e.g. error reduction) or capture emerging market opportunities? Is process
standardization the objective of improvement initiative? Is it primarily driven by technological change? Is
it a major restructuring effort or an incremental change? These are key questions which help continuous
improvement practitioners clarify the goals and objectives of the improvement efforts and therefore
identify suitable methods of analysis.
For example, in an IT-related process improvement exercise, for example, process mapping can be
highly valuable to outlining existing processes, identifying problems and areas where technological
changes can facilitate the improvement. Process mapping also produces concrete deliverables which
become an input to system requirements. However, for an organisational transformation which involves
drastic changes on organisational structures, job roles and responsibilities, and staff’s knowledge and
skill-sets, process mapping may not be the best method to be used at least at the beginning (vision
planning may be better suited in this case). It is essential that continuous improvement professionals
have the capability to clarify improvement goals, objectives and requirements at the beginning,
understand the pros, cons and applicability of different improvement methodologies, and apply the right
methods in the right situation.
Use Process Mapping Where It’s Most Appropriate:
Process improvement practitioners should proactively assess the nature of processes being addressed
and decide if process mapping can yield most benefits in identifying improvement opportunities and
assessing the scope of change. They should also determine if process mapping can be as a
standalone tool or in conjunction with other analysis methods such as document analysis and Gemba
It has been explained before that process mapping tends to be more effective on transformational and
transactional processes. Performing process mapping on a high-level and open-ended decision-making
process may not yield the best results in identifying improvement opportunities. Therefore, when
attempting to analyze such processes for driving change, process improvement professionals should
apply such as decision-making schemas and documentation analysis in addition to process mapping in
order to look at the quality and congruence of decisions made.
Make Use of Process Architecture (if it exists):
In organizations where process maturity is relatively high and process architecture is established, the
process architecture is a valuable and structural input to process improvement professionals. Process
architecture, which includes process map structures, process management guidelines, standards and
methodologies, is a comprehensive visual representation (in graphical, diagrammatic or other forms) of
an organisation’s key processes and interactions. It provides an integrated Organisation-Process-
System-Information visibility and is used to assess how the organisation’s structure and process can
support its strategy.
Assess the Impact of Organizational Structures (Look at the Big Picture):
When conducting process mapping, continuous improvement professionals should pay attention to
macro-level features such as organizational structures and headcounts because these issues may be
hidden within formal processes and it also generates new ideas on what to improve.

5. (/contributors/2505-
shu-w ing-pang/)
Contributor: Shu-w ing Pang (/contributors/2505-shu-w ing-pang/)
(/lean-six-sigma-
business-
transformation/columns/street-
smart-lessons-
from-a-caveman/)
You Should Check Out:
Identify Multiple Responsibilities on Tasks:
To tackle the limitation that process maps are less effective in showing cross-party responsibilities,
especially when some of them play a leadership role, process analysis practitioners should pay
particular attention when analyzing relevant processes or activities to ensure that such multiple
responsibilities and the roles of each party are clarified. Documentation analysis, for instance, is a good,
complementary analysis method in this aspect. Such clarification on multiple responsibilities and
ownership may also yield insights on potential improvement opportunities which can be explored further
(if no clear ownership can be identified or responsibilities among different parties are blurred, for
example).
Conclusion
Applying suitable analytical methods to study current processes and spot opportunities for improvement
is key to the success of such initiatives. Process mapping, with its structural analysis approach and
capability of delivering systematic outputs, is a widely-used methodology. However, like other
continuous improvement methods, the effectiveness of process mapping is affected by how it is
selected planned and carried out. Whether or not process mapping is actually an appropriate method of
continuous improvement in a particular situation is also a determining factor.
Therefore, continuous improvement practitioners should be clear about the strengths and limitations of
different process improvement methodologies, and their applicability in different improvement initiatives.
The above discussion points out several areas where the practitioners should pay attention to in order to
maximize the benefits of improvement through process mapping.
(/business-
process-
Business Process
Management: The Seven
Deadly Sins (/business-
process-management-
bpm/articles/seven-deadly-
(/lean-six-sigma-
business-
transformation/articles/harnessing-
Four Ways to Combine Six Sigma
With Theory of Constraints (TOC)
(/lean-six-sigma-business-
transformation/articles/harnessing-
the-synergy-six-sigma-and-theory-
(/lean-six-sigma
business-
transformation/articles/pro