process mapping thesis

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 14 April 2021

Process mapping in healthcare: a systematic review

• Grazia Antonacci   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7742-8003 1 , 2 ,
• Laura Lennox 1 ,
• James Barlow 2 ,
• Liz Evans 3 &
• Julie Reed 3  

BMC Health Services Research volume  21 , Article number:  342 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

48k Accesses

53 Citations

14 Altmetric

Metrics details

Introduction

Process mapping (PM) supports better understanding of complex systems and adaptation of improvement interventions to their local context. However, there is little research on its use in healthcare. This study (i) proposes a conceptual framework outlining quality criteria to guide the effective implementation, evaluation and reporting of PM in healthcare; (ii) reviews published PM cases to identify context and quality of PM application, and the reported benefits of using PM in healthcare.

We developed the conceptual framework by reviewing methodological guidance on PM and empirical literature on its use in healthcare improvement interventions. We conducted a systematic review of empirical literature using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology. Inclusion criteria were: full text empirical study; describing the process through which PM has been applied in a healthcare setting; published in English. Databases searched are: Medline, Embase, HMIC–Health Management Information Consortium, CINAHL-Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus. Two independent reviewers extracted and analysed data. Each manuscript underwent line by line coding. The conceptual framework was used to evaluate adherence of empirical studies to the identified PM quality criteria. Context in which PM is used and benefits of using PM were coded using an inductive thematic analysis approach.

The framework outlines quality criteria for each PM phase: (i) preparation, planning and process identification, (ii) data and information gathering, (iii) process map generation, (iv) analysis, (v) taking it forward.

PM is used in a variety of settings and approaches to improvement. None of the reviewed studies ( N  = 105) met all ten quality criteria; 7% were compliant with 8/10 or 9/10 criteria. 45% of studies reported that PM was generated through multi-professional meetings and 15% reported patient involvement. Studies highlighted the value of PM in navigating the complexity characterising healthcare improvement interventions.

The full potential of PM is inhibited by variance in reporting and poor adherence to underpinning principles. Greater rigour in the application of the method is required. We encourage the use and further development of the proposed framework to support training, application and reporting of PM.

Trial Registration

Prospero ID: CRD42017082140

Peer Review reports

There is a growing awareness that quality and safety failures in healthcare are attributable more to systems and processes than to human errors [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. To address this, healthcare leaders are increasingly applying quality improvement (QI) and process-oriented management practices from other industries including Lean, Six Sigma, Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA), Failure Mode, Effects, Criticality Analysis (FMECA), and operational research and process-oriented costing approaches such as Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing (TDABC) [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ].

Applying QI methodology is challenging as healthcare processes are highly variable, distributed and multidisciplinary, involving stakeholders with differing interests and motivations [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ]. Research shows that the success of QI interventions is heavily influenced by their context of implementation [ 16 , 17 , 18 ]. Developing interventions that are adapted to the local context and setting is an essential component of successful QI [ 19 , 20 , 21 ], along with engagement of stakeholders [ 22 , 23 , 24 ]. Process mapping (PM) has the potential to support QI projects in healthcare by engaging stakeholders to create a shared understanding of the systems they are trying to change [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 ]. However, there is little research on the use of PM in healthcare and whether it is achieving its full potential. The term ‘process mapping’ is used to describe several approaches and techniques. Here we refer to the “entire approach that leads to a holistic understanding of the process under review” [ 12 , 30 ].

Research shows that the full benefits of PM are accomplished when it is used throughout all the stages of a QI project to plan, implement, monitor and evaluate interventions [ 12 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 33 ]. However, the application of PM within QI initiatives has proved challenging due to the limited time clinicians can devote to it and their limited knowledge of PM methods [ 34 , 35 , 36 ].

Although more informed and systematic use of PM in the design and management of healthcare delivery is advocated [ 37 , 38 ], there is poor evidence on the use of PM and its effectiveness in healthcare [ 39 , 40 , 41 ]. To advance current knowledge on PM and improve its use in practice, we need greater insight into how it works in different contexts, the mechanisms underlying its successful use, and challenges to its implementation [ 42 , 43 ].

There is currently no systematic review of the use of PM in healthcare practice. Most published literature only describes empirical studies of individual interventions using PM. There is very limited information on the range and type of healthcare settings in which PM has been used or the benefits of its use. This problem is compounded by the lack of formal criteria to guide the implementation, evaluation and reporting of PM. Some methodological guides focus on PM in healthcare improvement initiatives [ 29 , 31 , 32 , 44 ]; none are based on the structured review of the research evidence. Limited knowledge of the use of PM as a QI method in healthcare hinders its wider adoption [ 45 ]. Therefore, increased awareness of its possible applications and benefits, as well as evidence-based quality criteria for its use, are needed.

This paper reviews the empirical literature and methodological guidance on PM to increase understanding of its use in healthcare to: (1) develop a conceptual framework identifying different phases in PM, with quality criteria for each, to guide the effective implementation, assessment and reporting of this method; (2) identify the context of use of PM in healthcare QI projects; (3) assess adherence of the application of PM as described in empirical literature to the proposed conceptual framework quality criteria and (4) explore the reported evidence for the benefits of using PM in improvement work.

Conceptual framework development

Given there was limited literature available on the use of PM and little practical guidance on its use in healthcare, we recognised the need to draw on evidence from other relevant fields such as manufacturing and other service industries. We conducted a snowballing review of methodological literature on PM in both healthcare and non-healthcare settings (Fig.  1 , online supplementary appendix 1). The objective was to identify recommended good practice methods for conducting PM [ 46 ]. We identified the most cited studies by searching online databases (Google Scholar, Scopus, Medline, Embase) with keywords derived from our research questions. We then screened citations and reference lists from these sources and included relevant studies. Given the high number of irrelevant articles derived from the online database search, the snowballing technique was very useful to identify the few available methodological studies on PM, as it allowed us to find grey literature, that might be missed by conventional online search methods. We then assessed methodological guidelines (online supplementary appendix 1) and empirical literature selected in the systematic review (2.2, Fig. 1 ) and through a process of inductive and deductive analysis we developed a conceptual framework identifying overarching quality criteria for each phase of the PM process (3.2, Fig.  2 ). These criteria were discussed by all authors and selected if they could be applied to a wide range of PM approaches and QI project types. Iterative development of the framework continued as new ideas emerged through discussions and feedback from experts and practitioners.

Literature review - Study Method

Conceptual framework for process mapping describing a. Phases of PM b. overarching criteria / standards for the PM process (* including 2 cases saying training was not needed as team members already had experience of PM [ 47 , 48 ])

Systematic literature review

A systematic literature review of empirical research reporting on the use of PM in healthcare was performed following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) standards [ 49 ] and registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42017082140).

Search and information sources

The search was designed to identify English-language empirical studies describing the use of PM in healthcare. The definition of search strategies was supported by an expert medical librarian. Databases searched were Medline (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), HMIC–Health Management Information Consortium (from 1979), CINAHL-Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (from 1937), Scopus (from 1960). The last search date was 9 November 2019. Search terms used were “process map*” as a free text search term in title, abstract and keywords for all the selected databases except Scopus, where the search was “process map*” AND “health”. No restrictions on time were imposed on the search.

One author (GA) performed the search and extraction of article references and abstracts.

Data collection process and study selection

Inclusion criteria were: full text empirical study; describing the process through which PM has been applied in a healthcare setting; published in English. Methodological studies, posters and conference proceedings were excluded. Articles were first screened by title and abstract by GA. Two reviewers (GA, LL) then independently assessed 20% of full-text articles to test the objectivity of selection criteria, which were then refined. GA and LL independently continued the selection process for the identified articles. Disagreements between reviewers occurred in 4% of cases and were resolved through discussion between all authors.

Data extraction

A data extraction form was designed to collect general study information alongside a set of features characterising a PM exercise (e.g. adherence to main criteria for each phase of PM, way in which PM was created, software used to draw the process map, use of online supplements to report complete process maps), from a wide range of projects with different characteristics. The development of the data extraction sheet (online supplementary appendix 3 ) was based on the findings from the snowballing review of literature on PM methodologies and a preliminary screening of all the full text articles included in the empirical research literature review. This initial version was pilot-tested on the 20% of articles (purposively selected to represent different contexts of use of PM) and progressively refined during the data extraction process. Each step in the refinement of the data collection sheet was agreed by all the authors.

Data were extracted from included studies independently by two authors (GA, LL). When disagreements occurred, the other reviewers were involved, and agreement was reached through consensus.

Data synthesis and analysis

The analysis was performed independently by two authors (GA, LL) and discussed with the other reviewers. Each manuscript underwent line by line coding. Context in which PM is used (3.3) and benefits of using PM in improvement work (3.5) were identified from the selected studies and coded using an inductive thematic analysis approach [ 50 , 51 , 52 ]. Compliance of application of PM to the conceptual framework criteria (3.4) was assessed by coding empirical articles’ adherence to each of the quality criteria and counting the number of studies reporting on the presence of corresponding data item [ 46 ]. To ensure accuracy and control for bias in the analysis, all stages of the analysis were progressively discussed by authors and various QI experts and practitioners (researchers, improvement science managers, project managers, and data analysts from the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Northwest London (CLAHRC NWL) who were trained in improvement science systematic approaches and tools) [ 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 ]. Results were summarised using descriptive summaries as well as ratios (for details on the analysis process see online supplementary appendix 2).

Quality assessment and risk of bias

The quality of each study and risk of bias were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist [ 58 , 59 ]. Two authors (GA, JB) rated the articles independently with disagreements resolved through consensus (see online supplementary appendix 4). CASP was selected because several of the articles included in the review were qualitative studies and covered a wide range of QI projects. Assessing the effectiveness of the projects in which PM has been used was not relevant for this review, therefore results of individual studies were not analyzed. As reported in other qualitative reviews, articles were not excluded or stratified by risk bias [ 50 , 51 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 ]. Rather, we considered the relative contribution of low/high quality studies in the analysis phase [ 50 , 61 ]. Moreover, as the review is based on information reported in the selected empirical literature, publication bias as well as bias due to the reporter and the selection of studies may have affected the results of this study ( see Limitation section).

The conceptual framework

Six studies were identified in the snowballing literature review of methodological publications on PM in healthcare and other service and manufacturing industries to develop the conceptual framework (online supplementary appendix 1). The conceptual framework (Fig. 2 ) described below provides quality criteria for each of the five phases characterizing the process of PM taken from the methodological literature.

Preparation, planning and process identification

The service family under analysis and those who will use the process/service (e.g. patients/services users/customers etc.) should be clearly identified and representatives from these groups should be involved in the project. It’s also important that participants have the right skills required to participate in the PM exercise, which might vary depending on the type of project, modelling language and methods used for the analysis. Training should be provided to PM participants to fill skills gaps, if needed. For example, for simple PM exercises this might include a quick introduction to the PM method, while for PM exercises involving more sophisticated approaches (e.g. Six Sigma) and/or more structured modelling languages (e.g. Business Process Modelling Notation), a more technical intensive training might be appropriate.

Data and information gathering

Information should be gathered to inform the PM exercise. In addition to multi-disciplinary meetings, data can be collected using different approaches, such as direct observations, interviews, self-reported patient experiences, analysis of electronic health records or other relevant databases, literature or document analysis.

Process map generation

Different perspectives should be gathered by people having diverse roles in the process, each bringing their view and knowledge of the process under analysis.

The process map should be analysed to identify gaps in the systems and opportunities for improvement. The final process map should be checked for accuracy and validated by key stakeholders/experts. During the analysis phase it’s good practice to annotate the process map with information derived from the analysis (e.g. activity durations, resources involved) and transfer paper-based maps in an electronic format. Having a tidy electronic version of the process map supports the analysis and the documentation of the PM exercise and it’s also useful to disseminate and share the map with interested parties or those involved in the process for comments and validation.

Taking it forward

Process maps should be used to guide process improvement initiatives. Improvement ideas and actions generated throughout the PM exercise should be implemented to improve current systems and practice.

General study characteristics

The study selection process for the systematic review of empirical studies using PM is reported in Fig.  3 . A total of 105 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review (online supplementary appendix 3). Study quality was moderate-high with 31% study scoring 10/10, 43% scoring 9/10, 20% scoring 8/10 and 6% scoring 6–7/10 (online supplementary appendix 4). 86% were published in or after 2010 and 65% were conducted in the USA and UK (online supplementary appendix 5).

PRISMA Diagram. Description of study selection process

Context in which PM is used

PM exercises were reported from a wide range of healthcare settings including, in-patient services (32%), multiple settings (29%), outpatient (11%), A&E (8%), community care (6%), care provided in other settings (5%), primary care (5%), prevention and health promotion (3%) and laboratory services (3%). The most common type of projects reporting the use of PM in healthcare were process improvement/QI initiatives (68%), which include the use of FMEA/FMECA (11%) and Lean and Six Sigma (12%) approaches. Use of PM in health information technologies (HIT) projects was reported in 10% of studies. A few studies outline its use to develop and share evidence-based recommendations and pathways (9%). Others reported using PM to identify care process steps within activity-based costing methodologies (6%) or to provide a visual representation of patient journeys (5 %). Only 3% of papers described the use of PM in integrated care pathway (ICP) projects. (Fig.  4 ).

Context in which PM is used, compliance of application of PM to the conceptual framework criteria and benefits of using PM to address complexity of improvement work. (* including 2 cases saying training was not needed as team members already had experience of PM [ 47 , 48 ])

Compliance of application of PM to the conceptual framework criteria

We assessed all empirical studies against the conceptual framework quality criteria for each phase of PM. The key findings are displayed in Fig. 2 .

No study reached overall compliance for all 10 the criteria. Only 7 studies (7%) adhered to either 9/10 (2%) criteria or 8/10 criteria (5%). For five of these seven studies the criteria about involvement of those who would be using the processes (e.g. patient involvement) was not met. Most studies adhered to 7/10 (15%), 6/10 (32%) and 5/10 (35%) of the criteria. The remaining 10% of studies were compliant to 4/10 criteria.

Phase 1: Most projects clearly identified a service family and the patient/service user group (91%), but patient representative involvement was only reported in a small number of projects (15%). Team member training in the technique prior the PM exercise was reported in only 15% of projects. This was usually delivered throughout meetings and by using examples [ 44 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 ], while in some cases this included intensive QI training [ 71 , 72 ].

Phase 2: 85% of the studies stated that data and information had been gathered to inform the PM exercise as a substitute for (55%), or in addition to (30%), the group knowledge generated in the facilitated process mapping sessions. This included evidence-based best practice recommendations [ 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 ], interviews [ 64 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 154 , 156 , 158 , 160 ], and more detailed approaches such as observations, operational data collection, time-and-motion studies, and video footage [ 48 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 141 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 150 , 159 , 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 , 169 ].

Phase 3: 81% of studies included perspectives from diverse stakeholders. In less than half of the studies (45%), the maps were generated by multiple stakeholder groups; in the remaining studies, maps were generated by researchers. Most projects using industrial engineering approaches created maps in multi-stakeholder meetings (69%).

Phase 4: All 105 studies reported that the process map was analysed. How and at what point the analysis was carried out varied significantly, depending on the type of project being reported. Most studies (91%) reported that the map was created to represent current state practice. Four projects [ 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 ] reported both current state and ideal or future state maps, while 5 describe the ideal or future state process [ 65 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 ]. For example, in TDABC projects the analysis is focused on process costs and is mainly completed after the current state process map is created [ 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 ]. In projects implementing evidence-based recommendations, a process analysis was completed before the creation of the ideal or future state process map [ 89 ]. Most studies (78%) reported that additional information gathered during the PM exercise - such as delays, safety problems, or flow of information, resources and activity - is represented on the final map. Only 19% of studies reported the use of charting software to draw the process map or to make a tidy version of the paper-based map, and only 48% of studies specified that the PM exercise had been reviewed for accuracy and confirmed by key stakeholders or external experts.

Phase 5: 42% of studies reported on the implementation of actions following the PM exercise. The remainder identified process or system issues that needed improvement but did not report taking action.

Benefits of using PM in improvement work

We identified the benefits of using PM in improvement initiatives described in the reviewed empirical literature and grouped them into three areas: (i) understanding local systems , (ii) inform scope, design, development and evaluation of interventions and (iii) co-production and knowledge exchange . (Fig. 4 ).

Understanding local systems

Studies reported that QI teams gained a more realistic understanding of current practice because PM allowed them to gather knowledge from people directly involved in the process under analysis and provided a visual representation of current or enhanced processes [ 65 , 83 , 96 , 142 ]. The studies show that PM is a tool to break-down the complexity characterizing healthcare, by providing improvement teams with a structured picture of complex processes, using information from process stakeholders holding different roles and perspectives [ 34 , 88 , 90 , 96 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 140 ]. Diverse views elicited during PM help improvement teams gain a shared understanding of local practices and underlying systemic issues. For example, PM has been found particularly useful to disaggregate care process and identify costs for each process step [ 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 ] as well as to understand interactions between different parts of healthcare systems. For example, in ICP projects the use of PM to understand systems helped to improve coordination of care across different settings and networks [ 86 , 87 , 101 ], while in FMEA projects it helped to identify potential systems failures [ 48 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 100 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 ].

Inform scope, design, development and evaluation of interventions.

The identification of actual constraints and opportunities within local systems helped assessment of problem areas and development of improvement solutions grounded in research evidence and local knowledge [ 65 , 76 , 79 , 81 , 92 , 96 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 149 , 151 ]. The use of PM before the implementation of Information Systems (IS) has been shown to support project members with diverse backgrounds achieve a shared understanding of the system and has been reported as crucial for solving design challenges [ 88 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 ]. Some studies describe how PM has also been used to assess actual care processes against recognised evidence-based standards [ 79 , 99 ]. Reviewed studies also show how if used throughout the entire project, PM can play a role in the success of improvement initiatives by supporting continuous improvement. In this respect, PM has been found to be particularly useful for clarifying the scope of projects, targeting the intervention and planning improvement actions [ 9 , 79 , 116 , 161 ].

Co-production and knowledge exchange.

PM was reported to be particularly useful to engage and motivate project stakeholders in designing and implementing change. Some studies report that PM supported the effective design of HIT by enhancing the involvement of process stakeholders [ 88 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 ]. Studies also describe how greater understanding of different perspectives provided by PM encouraged a culture of ownership and responsibility for improvement work [ 34 , 65 , 66 , 81 , 92 , 118 , 119 ]. For example, within ICP projects, PM allowed the clarification and reassessment of the roles and responsibilities within the team [ 86 , 87 , 101 ]. Other studies highlight how participation in PM helped to establish sense of urgency in clinicians regarding patient safety issues, thus enhancing their engagement [ 81 , 92 , 157 ]. Reviewed studies also show that the capacity of PM to facilitate the dialogue between diverse stakeholders helps to smooth barriers and tensions occurring during improvement projects or reach consensus on solutions [ 65 , 66 , 71 , 73 , 81 , 92 , 103 , 118 , 119 ]. For example, some studies reported how PM helped to promote the integration of health services across different settings by developing clinical evidence-based recommendations agreed among different healthcare professionals [ 74 , 86 , 87 , 89 ]. Finally, studies describe how PM can be a valuable tool for documenting a care process for further dissemination [ 170 ]. This is beneficial, for example, in helping to inform patients and carers about their expected journey [ 75 , 99 , 120 , 121 , 122 ] or to support training and education of healthcare professionals [ 81 , 101 , 152 , 153 , 162 ].

The use of PM within healthcare improvement projects helps to support understanding of complex healthcare systems and adaptation of improvement interventions to their local context. We reviewed methodological guidance on PM, peer-reviewed empirical literature, and developed a conceptual framework to guide effective implementation, assessment, and reporting of PM in healthcare. We assessed adherence of 105 empirical studies to quality criteria outlined in a newly created conceptual framework. Comparison of methodological guidelines and empirical literature helped to identify common features characterising the use of PM across the selected studies. We also identified reported context of use and benefits of using PM in improvement work.

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic literature review exploring the use of PM in healthcare improvement projects. The review demonstrates that PM is used in projects to improve quality and safety in a wide range of healthcare settings. These projects focus on different QI tools and approaches, and use PM either as a standalone methodology or as a support for other QI methods.

Using the conceptual framework, we found inconsistencies in reporting and in adherence to PM quality criteria. None of the studies adhered to all the criteria and only 7% studies adhered to 8/10 or 9/10 criteria. Assessment of adherence was, however, challenging due to variation in reporting of PM exercises across studies. This is attributable both to the diversity of the contexts for using PM and lack of standardised reporting requirements. Analysis of the reviewed studies suggests that poor adherence with quality criteria reflects not just problems in the reporting of PM, but also the conduct of the method.

Although for most reviewed studies, views of different stakeholders were gathered, only 15% reported the involvement of those who would be using the processes such as patients/ service users/ customers. Moreover, less than half (45%) clearly reported that process maps were generated through multi-professional meetings. This suggests that some benefits of PM may not have been realised in these studies, as failure to engage all stakeholders is unlikely to produce realistic process maps or support successful patient-centred QI initiatives. If PM is conducted without appropriate stakeholder participation, some of the benefits derived from the social interactions, such as empathy between professional groups and agreement for shared solutions, are inhibited [ 12 ]. Two of the studies identified in the systematic review reported that the limited involvement of clinical staff was related to the difficultly of relieving them from their daily job [ 102 , 117 ] but reasons for poor patient involvement should be further investigated [ 24 ].

Only 14 of the reviewed studies report training in PM techniques as part of the project. Limited training in PM techniques may explain the lack of discussion or consideration of the process modelling language used to draw the process map in the reviewed studies. This finding confirms previous research stating that most projects in healthcare only use flowchart diagrams, regardless the variety of process modelling techniques and tools available [ 123 ]. The choice of modelling language used is important in describing and understanding systems analysed with PM and overlooking these aspects can impact its effective use [ 124 ]. Furthermore, training project teams in QI is important not only to improve participants’ technical skills, but also to enhance their engagement in the project [ 69 , 103 ].

Some studies reported that they had to balance the rigorous use of the PM method with resource and time constraints they had to face in practice [ 48 , 93 , 103 , 113 , 117 , 125 ]. Despite reviewed studies demonstrating poor adherence to the identified PM quality criteria, they describe a number of benefits derived from its use in healthcare improvement projects. This demonstrates the key role played by PM in addressing the challenge of designing and implementing change in complex systems. Using PM in improvement work helps to achieve the strategic principles identified by the Successful Healthcare Improvement from Translating Evidence in Complex Systems (SHIFT-evidence) framework ( act scientifically and pragmatically, embrace complexity, engage and empower ) [ 54 ]. The capacity of PM to bring together diverse stakeholder perspectives and provide a visual representation of the system is key to address the complexity which characterizes healthcare processes. Within QI projects, PM helped to provide a shared understanding of the reality of complex systems and facilitated dialogue between team members. This increased engagement of project participants and eased their agreement on common solutions to problems, thus supporting two levers recognised as important for successful improvement in complex systems: knowledge co-production and the definition of shared goals across stakeholders [ 126 , 127 ].

The use of PM as a monitoring and evaluation tool [ 9 , 12 , 64 , 119 , 128 , 129 , 130 ] appeared to be out of scope of application by many QI teams. Most of the articles we reviewed focus on use of PM to better understand systems only at the early stages of an improvement initiative or to visualise and disseminate process maps as the “output” of the project. Only 42% of the reviewed studies describe actions undertaken following the PM exercise, suggesting there is still more to know on how PM influences action and impact in overall improvement efforts.

Findings from this literature review show there is still much room for improvement in the use and reporting of PM as a QI method. Limited adherence to recommended practice for PM is a finding consistent with the assessment of fidelity reported for other QI methods [ 46 , 131 ].

Implications for practitioners and academics

We unpacked the black box of PM as a QI method and outlined quality criteria to guide its systematic use and reporting. Improving the quality of reporting of PM exercises would enhance transparency, encourage appropriate use of PM in practice, and support the definition of a common language to describe the process of PM [ 24 ]. We encourage practitioners and researchers to use and test the validity of our conceptual framework when implementing or reporting PM. We also suggest further development of reporting guidance for PM exercises and their use as a starting point in the design of prospective studies exploring the effectiveness of the method. Our findings show that improvements in reporting are required not only to systematically describe the “process” of PM but also for representation of the process map, as we found that many articles report only a partial or sample representation of the process map developed. Online versions of published articles or online supplements [ 48 , 66 , 68 , 69 , 90 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 ] could provide more detailed process maps as these are often difficult to display in printed versions of journals. Improvements in the way process maps are represented and reported might increase the effectiveness of PM as a key QI method. For example, annotating the process map with operational (e.g. waiting times, activity durations, waste/ value), cost (e.g. resources required to perform each activity), patient experience or other project data (e.g. areas targeted or changed by various plan-do-study-act cycles), can be helpful to visually identify gaps in the systems and document the process analysis throughout the project. Previous studies also demonstrated that successful implementation of QI initiatives depends not only on the conformance to methodological guidelines, but is greatly influenced by contextual factors (leadership, organisational culture, etc.) [ 16 , 137 , 138 , 139 ]. Our study has not taken into account the influence of context on PM exercises, because these factors cannot be assessed by analysis of the literature. While the main contribution of this study is in identifying quality criteria to support a more rigorous use and reporting of PM, we encourage practitioners and researchers to consider the influence of contextual factors on the effective use of QI approaches.

Further research

There is a need for further empirical research to explore the impact of improvement initiative context on practical implementation of PM. We partially explored how PM is used in practice by improvement teams in the NHS in a previous empirical study investigating benefits and success factors of PM in a sample of QI projects [ 12 ]. However, most of the projects included in this study [ 12 ] used the same methodological approach to PM, (multi-stakeholder meetings to generate the process maps). Further empirical research is needed to test whether our findings hold in QI projects developed by teams using different approaches to conduct the PM exercise, as identified in this literature review (e.g. when PM is used within Six Sigma or Lean approaches). Further literature and empirical research could also explore the representation of process maps in more detail. This would provide a wider perspective on how process activities can be represented and annotated with a variety of information (e.g. value/waste, bottlenecks, constraints, patient experience) and how this can influence the effective use of PM within improvement initiatives.

Limitations

There are some limitations due to the search process. The database search could have included other search terms such as “process model*”, “process design*” or “system design*”, but the authors agreed that the effort required to screen the resulting records was not justified by the purpose and boundaries of the present study.

A key limitation is due to the fact that the systematic review is based on PM exercises as described in the selected empirical literature and not on the analysis of actual practice. This implies that results might be affected by reporting bias and selection of studies, as well as publication bias. The content of publications heavily depends on what journals accept for publication and on the limited space allowed. Therefore, projects using specific approaches (e.g. TDABC, Lean or IS development) are less likely to present a detailed description of the PM process, compared to other process improvement projects. Successful projects are more likely to be published than studies reporting less successful interventions, which may be equally useful for knowledge generation. Bias could also arise because we only searched English-language papers. However, our objective was not to perform an exhaustive review of all the studies applying PM techniques in healthcare, nor to assess the effectiveness of PM, but to provide a representative overview of the use of PM as reported in empirical literature.

Another limitation is due to the fact that PM exercises were usually reported as a part of a wider project. Clearly distinguishing the component attributable to PM from that associated with the whole project was therefore not always straightforward. We addressed this limitation in the development of the data item sheet and the conceptual framework, as well as in the data collection and analysis phase. For example, we decided not to quantitatively assess the different roles involved in the PM exercise, because it was not always clear if and how all team members were involved in the PM exercise. Furthermore, we evaluated the actual implementation of the recommendations derived by the PM exercise, considering the improvement actions reported in respect of the whole project.

Finally, within the included studies we found three papers [ 120 , 121 , 122 ] which seemed to derive from the same project. We addressed this bias in the analysis and summary phase by discounting the patterns emerging from common characteristics of these three studies.

Conclusions

PM is at the heart of a range of different improvement projects in healthcare. Its effective use is often a fundamental component of successful QI initiatives. If appropriately used, PM brings together perspectives of diverse stakeholders to harness tacit knowledge and understand complex processes, as well as to find common solutions and enhance team engagement. However, variance in reporting and lack of compliance with guiding principles underpinning its effective use may inhibit its full potential in healthcare improvement initiatives, and in sharing learning between initiatives. Greater scientific rigor in the application and reporting of PM is required to increase its effectiveness as a method for improvement and advance the field of improvement science.

The conceptual framework proposed in this paper provides generalisable quality criteria to help “unpack the black box” of PM across a variety of settings and problems in healthcare. We encourage the use and further development of these criteria to guide future adoption of PM and for reporting and evaluating its efficacy. A better understanding of the circumstances surrounding decisions about deployment of mechanisms supporting QI methods, such as PM, is needed in order to increase their effectiveness. Greater recognition of the benefits of PM, as well as training in this method for healthcare professionals and improvement leaders would also contribute to its more extensive and appropriate use in practice.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Abbreviations

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme

Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care

Failure Mode Effects Analysis

Failure Mode, Effects, Criticality Analysis

Health Information Technologies

Integrated Care Pathway

National Institute of Health Research

Process Mapping

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Quality Improvement

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing

Chassin MR, Becher EC. The wrong patient. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:826. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-136-11-200206040-00012 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gaba DM, Singer SJ, Sinaiko AD, Bowen JD, Ciavarelli AP. Differences in safety climate between hospital personnel and naval aviators. Hum Factors. 2003;45(2):173–85. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.45.2.175.27238 .

Klein JG. Five pitfalls in decisions about diagnosis and prescribing. BMJ. 2005;330:781–3. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.330.7494.781 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Reason J. Human error. 1 edition. Cambridge England. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1991.

Google Scholar  

Kruskal JB, Reedy A, Pascal L, Rosen MP, Boiselle PM. Quality initiatives: lean approach to improving performance and efficiency in a radiology department. RadioGraphics. 2012;32(2):573–87. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.322115128 .

Colligan L, Anderson JE, Potts HW, et al. Does the process map influence the outcome of quality improvement work?A comparison of a sequential flow diagram and a hierarchical task analysis diagram. BMC Health Services Res. 2010;10(1):7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-7 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Niemeijer GC, Trip A, de Jong LJ, et al. Impact of 5 Years of Lean Six Sigma in a University Medical Center: Quality Management in Health Care. 2012;21:262, 8. https://doi.org/10.1097/QMH.0b013e31826e74b7 .

Robbins J, Garman AN, Song PH, McAlearney AS. How high-performance work systems drive health care value: an examination of leading process improvement strategies. Quality Management in Healthcare. 2012;21(3):188–202. https://doi.org/10.1097/QMH.0b013e31825e88f6 .

Barach P, Johnson JK. Understanding the complexity of redesigning care around the clinical microsystem. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2006;15(suppl 1):i10–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2005.015859 .

Poulymenopoulou M, Malamateniou F, Vassilacopoulos G. Specifying workflow process requirements for an emergency medical service. J Med Syst. 2003;27:325–35. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023701219563 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lenz R, Reichert M. IT support for healthcare processes – premises, challenges, perspectives. Data Knowl Eng. 2007;61:39–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2006.04.007 .

Antonacci G, Reed JE, Lennox L, Barlow J. The use of process mapping in healthcare quality improvement projects. Health Serv Manag Res. 2018;0951484818770411(2):74–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951484818770411 .

Rebuge Á, Ferreira DR. Business process analysis in healthcare environments: a methodology based on process mining. Inf Syst. 2012;37(2):99–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2011.01.003 .

Bartz M. Patientenpfade: Ein Instrument zur Prozessoptimierung im Krankenhaus. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller; 2006.

von Reinersdorff AB. Strategische Krankenhausführung. Vom lean management zum balanced hospital management. Bern: Huber; 2007.

Kaplan HC, Provost LP, Froehle CM, et al. The Model for Understanding Success in Quality (MUSIQ): building a theory of context in healthcare quality improvement. BMJ Qual Safety. 2011;bmjqs-2011-000010. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000010 .

McCormack B, Kitson A, Harvey G, et al. Getting evidence into practice: the meaning of `context. J Adv Nurs. 2002;38:94–104. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02150.x .

Pfadenhauer LM, Gerhardus A, Mozygemba K, Lysdahl KB, Booth A, Hofmann B, Wahlster P, Polus S, Burns J, Brereton L, Rehfuess E. Making sense of complexity in context and implementation: the context and implementation of complex interventions (CICI) framework. Implementation Sci. 2017;12(1):21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0552-5 .

Plsek PE, Greenhalgh T. The challenge of complexity in health care. BMJ. 2001;323:625–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7313.625 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, et al. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly. 2004;82(4):581–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x .

Vos L, Chalmers SE, Dückers ML, et al. Towards an organisation-wide process-oriented organisation of care: a literature review. Implement Sci. 2011;6:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-8 .

Jones D, Mitchell A. Lean thinking for the NHS. London: NHS confederation; 2006.

Panella M, Marchisio S, Di Stanislao F. Reducing clinical variations with clinical pathways: do pathways work? Int J Qual Health Care. 2003;15:509–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzg057 .

Ocloo J, Matthews R. From tokenism to empowerment: progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25:626–32. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004839 .

Hughes RG. Tools and Strategies for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety. In: Hughes RG, ed. Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses. Rockville (MD): : Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US) 2008. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2682/ . Accessed 3 Feb 2018.

Taylor AJ, Randall C. Process mapping: enhancing the implementation of the Liverpool Care Pathway. Int J Palliat Nurs. 2007;13:163–7. https://doi.org/10.12968/ijpn.2007.13.4.23489 .

Ben-Tovim DI, Dougherty ML, O’Connell TJ, McGrath KM. Patient journeys: the process of clinical redesign. Med J Aust. 2008;188(S6):S14–7. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2008.tb01668.x .

King DL, Ben-Tovim DI, Bassham J. Redesigning emergency department patient flows: application of lean thinking to health care. EMA Emerg Med Australas. 2006;18:391–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-6723.2006.00872.x .

NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement. Improvement Leaders’ Guide. Process Mapping, analysis and redesign. General improvement skills. 2005. https://www.england.nhs.uk/improvement-hub/wp-content/uploads/sites/44/2017/11/ILG-1.2-Process-Mapping-Analysis-and-Redesign.pdf . Accessed 9 Jul 2020.

Jacka JM, Keller PJ. Business process mapping: improving customer satisfaction. Hoboken: Wiley; 2009.

Jackson TL. Mapping clinical value streams. 1st ed. Boca Raton: Routledge; 2013.

Jamso TTM, Mavkupt Hydes T. Process mapping the patient journey : an introduction. BMJ. 2010;341(aug13 1):394–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c4078 .

Wooldridge AR, Carayon P, Hundt AS, et al. SEIPS-based process modeling in primary care. Appl Ergon. 2017;60:240–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.11.010 .

Bonzo SM, McLain D, Avnet MS. Process modeling in the operating room: a socio-technical systems perspective. Syst Eng. 2016;19:267–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21343 .

Kuljis J, Paul RJ, Stergioulas LK. Can health care benefit from modeling and simulation methods in the same way as business and manufacturing has? In: 2007 Winter Simulation Conference; 2007. p. 1449–53. https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2007.4419755 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

De Regge M, Gemmel P, Verhaeghe R, et al. Aligning service processes to the nature of care in hospitals: an exploratory study of the impact of variation. Oper Manag Res. 2015;8(1-2):32–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-015-0098-0 .

Edwards N. Can quality improvement be used to change the wider healthcare system? BMJ Quality & Safety. 2005;14(2):75. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2005.013748 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Clarkson PJ, Buckle P, Coleman R, Stubbs D, Ward J, Jarrett J, Lane R, Bound J. Design for patient safety: a review of the effectiveness of design in the UK health service. J Eng Des. 2004;15(2):123–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820310001617711 .

Santana S, Redondo P. Process mapping: a tool to foster intra- and inter-organizational coordination in primary care. Family Medicine and Primary Care Review. 2018;20:41–6. https://doi.org/10.5114/fmpcr.2017.72150 .

Shojania KG, Grimshaw JM. Evidence-based quality improvement: the state of the science. Health Aff. 2005;24(1):138–50. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.24.1.138 .

Auerbach AD, Landefeld CS, Shojania KG. The tension between needing to improve care and knowing how to do it. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:608–13. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsb070738 .

Grol R, Baker R, Moss F. Quality improvement research: understanding the science of change in health care. BMJ Quality & Safety 2002;11:110–1. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.11.2.110 , 2, 111.

Walshe K. Pseudoinnovation: the development and spread of healthcare quality improvement methodologies. Int J Qual Health Care. 2009;21(3):153–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzp012 .

McLaughlin N, Rodstein J, Burke MA, et al. Demystifying process mapping: a key step in neurosurgical quality improvement initiatives. Neurosurgery. 2014;75:99–109. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000000360 .

Jun GT, Ward J, Morris Z, et al. Health care process modelling: which method when? Int J Qual Health Care. 2009;21:214–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzp016 .

Taylor MJ, McNicholas C, Nicolay C, et al. Systematic review of the application of the plan–do–study–act method to improve quality in healthcare. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;:bmjqs-2013-001862. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-001862 .

Prairie BA, Foster T. Improving prenatal HIV screening with tailored educational interventions: an approach to guideline implementation. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19:e52. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2008.031922 .

Prabhakaran S, Khorzad R, Brown A, Nannicelli AP, Khare R, Holl JL. Academic-community hospital comparison of vulnerabilities in door-to-needle process for acute ischemic stroke. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015;8(6 suppl 3):S148–54. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.115.002085 .

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700 .

Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8(1):45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 .

Bergs J, Lambrechts F, Simons P, Vlayen A, Marneffe W, Hellings J, Cleemput I, Vandijck D. Barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of surgical safety checklists: a systematic review of the qualitative evidence. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24(12):776–86. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004021 .

Creswell JW, Poth CN. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2016.

Caldwell SE, Mays N. Studying policy implementation using a macro, meso and micro frame analysis: the case of the collaboration for leadership in Applied Health Research & Care (CLAHRC) programme nationally and in north West London. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2012;10:32. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-10-32 .

Reed JE, Howe C, Doyle C, Bell D. Simple rules for evidence translation in complex systems: a qualitative study. BMC Med. 2018;16(1):92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1076-9 .

Evans S, Scarbrough H. Supporting knowledge translation through collaborative translational research initiatives: “bridging” versus “blurring” boundary-spanning approaches in the UK CLAHRC initiative. Soc Sci Med. 2014;106:119–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.01.025 .

CLAHRC Northwest London. http://clahrc-northwestlondon.nihr.ac.uk/ . Accessed 9 Jul 2020.

About | CLAHRC Partnership Programme. https://clahrcprojects.co.uk/about . Accessed 9 Jul 2020.

CASP-Qualitative-Checklist-2018.pdf. https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CASP-Qualitative-Checklist-2018.pdf . Accessed 9 Jul 2020.

Hannes K. Chapter 4: Critical appraisal of qualitative research. In: Noyes J, Booth A, Hannes K, Harden A, Harris J, Lewin S, Lockwood C. eds. Supplementary Guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 1 (updated August 2011). 2011. http://cqrmg.cochrane.org/supplemental-handbook-guidance . Accessed 9 Jul 2020.

Taylor N, Clay-Williams R, Hogden E, Braithwaite J, Groene O. High performing hospitals: a qualitative systematic review of associated factors and practical strategies for improvement. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15(1):244. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-0879-z .

Vaughn VM, Saint S, Krein SL, et al. Characteristics of healthcare organisations struggling to improve quality: results from a systematic review of qualitative studies. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28:74–84. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007573 .

Dixon-Woods M, Bonas S, Booth A, et al. How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qual Res. 2006;6:27–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058867 .

Daly J, Willis K, Small R, et al. A hierarchy of evidence for assessing qualitative health research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:43–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.014 .

Weingart BSN, Spencer J, Buia S, et al. Medication safety of five oral chemotherapies: a proactive risk assessment. J Oncol Pract. 2011;7:2–6. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2010.000064 .

de Bucourt M, Busse R, Guttler F, et al. Process mapping of PTA and stent placement in a university hospital interventional radiology department. Insights imaging. 2012;3(4):329–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-012-0147-2 .

Walsh KE, Mazor KM, Roblin D, Biggins C, Wagner JL, Houlahan K, Li JW, Keuker C, Wasilewski-Masker K, Donovan J, Kanaan A, Weingart SN. Multisite parent-centered risk assessment to reduce pediatric oral chemotherapy errors. J Oncol Pract. 2013;9(1):e1–7. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2012.000601 .

Schuller BW, Burns A, Ceilley EA, et al. Failure mode and effects analysis: a community practice perspective. J appl clin med phys. 2017;18:258–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12190 .

Mattsson TO, Lipczak H, Pottegård A. Patient involvement in evaluation of safety in Oral antineoplastic treatment: a failure mode and effects analysis in patients and health care professionals. Qual Manag Health Care. 2019;28(1):33–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/QMH.0000000000000199 .

McDermott AM, Kidd P, Gately M, et al. Restructuring of the diabetes day Centre: a pilot lean project in a tertiary referral Centre in the west of Ireland. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22:681–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001676 .

Brown L. Improving histopathology turnaround time: a process management approach. Curr Diagn Pathol. 2004;10:444–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cdip.2004.07.008 .

Holleran L, Baker S, Cheng C, Wilson J, Mickelson R, Kazana I, Messinger-Rapport B, Shahin J, Cully J, Naik AD, Godwin KM. Using multisite process mapping to aid care improvement: an examination of inpatient suicide-screening procedures. J Healthc Qual. 2019;41(2):110–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/JHQ.0000000000000182 .

Ogunwole SM, Phillips J, Gossett A, Downs JR. Putting veterans with heart failure FIRST improves follow-up and reduces readmissions. BMJ Open Qual. 2019;8(1):e000386. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2018-000386 .

Alexander L, Moore S, Salter N, et al. Lean management in a liaison psychiatry department: implementation, benefits and pitfalls. BJPsych Bulletin. 2020;44:18–25. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjb.2019.64 .

Jester B, Schwerzmann J, Mustaquim D, Aden T, Brammer L, Humes R, Shult P, Shahangian S, Gubareva L, Xu X, Miller J. Mapping of the US domestic influenza virologic surveillance landscape. Emerg Infect Dis. 2018 Jul;24(7):1300–6. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2407.180028 .

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Alkandari M, Ryan K, Hollywood A. The experiences of people living with peripheral neuropathy in Kuwait-a process map of the patient journey. Pharmacy (Basel). 2019;7. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy7030127 .

Keen A, Thoele K, Newhouse R. Variation in SBIRT delivery among acute care facilities. Nurs Outlook. 2020;68:162–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2019.09.001 .

Jallon R, Imbeau D, de Marcellis-Warin N. A process mapping model for calculating indirect costs of workplace accidents. J Saf Res. 2011;42(5):333–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2011.06.008 .

Bhavsar NA, Bloom K, Nicolla J, et al. Delivery of community-based palliative care: findings from a time and motion study. J Palliat Med. 2017;20:1120–6. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2016.0433 .

Forrester JA, Koritsanszky LA, Amenu D, et al. Developing Process Maps as a Tool for a Surgical Infection Prevention Quality Improvement Initiative in Resource-Constrained Settings. J Am Coll Surgeons. 2018;226:1103–16.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2018.03.020 .

Vogelsmeier AA, Halbesleben JRB, Scott-Cawiezell JR. Technology implementation and workarounds in the nursing home. J Am Med Informatics Assoc. 2008;15:114–9. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M2378 .

Welch A. Process mapping occupational therapy activity within a medical admissions unit. Br J Occup Ther. 2002;65:158–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/030802260206500402 .

Yazici C, Abdelmalak H, Gupta S, Shmagel A, Albaddawi E, Tsang V, Potts S, Arora VM. Sustainability and effectiveness of a quality improvement project to improve handoffs to night float residents in an internal medicine residency program. J Grad Med Educ. 2013;5(2):303–8. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-12-00175.1 .

Black M, Singh V, Belostotsky V, Roy M, Yamamura D, Gambarotto K, Lau K, Kam AJ. Process mapping in a pediatric emergency department to minimize missed urinary tract infections. Int J Pediatr. 2016;2016:2625870–4. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/2625870 .

Hutchison A-M, Laing H, Williams P, Bodger O, Topliss C. The effects of a new Tendo-Achilles pathway (TAP) on an orthopaedic department- a quality improvement study. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2019;39:67–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msksp.2018.11.002 .

Steckowych K, Smith M. Primary care workflow process mapping of medication-related activities performed by non-provider staff: a pilot project’s approach. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2019;15(9):1107–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.09.014 .

Simkiss DE. Integrated care pathway to promote the health of looked after children. J Integr Care Pathways. 2005;9(3):123–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/147322970500900307 .

Aung S. A bronchiolitis integrated care pathway for children. International Journal of Care Pathways. 2013;16(1):3–8. https://doi.org/10.1258/jicp.2012.011023 .

Ashley L. Integrating cancer survivors’ experiences into UK cancer registries: design and development of the ePOCS system (electronic patient-reported outcomes from Cancer survivors). Br J Cancer. 2011;105. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2011.424 .

Oetgen ME, Martin BD, Gordish-Dressman H, et al. Effectiveness and sustainability of a standardized care pathway developed with use of lean process mapping for the treatment of patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100:1864–70. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.18.00079 .

Tseng P, Kaplan RS, Richman BD, et al. Administrative costs associated with physician billing and insurance-related activities at an academic health care system. JAMA. 2018;319:691–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.19148 .

Laviana AA, Ilg AM, Veruttipong D, et al. Utilizing time-driven activity-based costing to understand the short- and long-term costs of treating localized, low-risk prostate cancer. Cancer. 2016;122:447–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29743 .

McLaughlin N, Burke MA, Setlur NP, Niedzwiecki DR, Kaplan AL, Saigal C, Mahajan A, Martin NA, Kaplan RS. Time-driven activity-based costing: a driver for provider engagement in costing activities and redesign initiatives. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;37(5):E3. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.8.FOCUS14381 .

Akhavan S, Ward L, Bozic K, et al. Time-driven Activity-based Costing More Accurately Reflects Costs in Arthroplasty Surgery. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Res. 2016;474:8–15 8p. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4214-0 .

Erhun F, Mistry B, Platchek T, et al. Time-driven activity-based costing of multivessel coronary artery bypass grafting across national boundaries to identify improvement opportunities: study protocol. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e008765. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008765 .

Inverso G, Lappi MD, Flath-Sporn SJ, Heald R, Kim DC, Meara JG. Increasing value in plagiocephaly care: a time-driven activity-based costing pilot study. Ann Plast Surg. 2015;74(6):672–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000000002 .

Johnson JK, Farnan JM, Barach P, Hesselink G, Wollersheim H, Pijnenborg L, Kalkman C, Arora VM, on behalf of the HANDOVER Research Collaborative. Searching for the missing pieces between the hospital and primary care: mapping the patient process during care transitions. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21(Suppl 1):i97–105. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001215 .

Vandborg MP, Edwards K, Kragstrup J, Vedsted P, Hansen DG, Mogensen O. A new method for analyzing diagnostic delay in gynecological cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2012;22(5):712–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0b013e31824c6d0e .

O’Mara MS, Ramaniuk A, Graymire V, Rozzell M, Martin S. Lean methodology for performance improvement in the trauma discharge process. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014;77(1):137–42. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000000261 .

Oliver S, Bosworth A. Exploring the healthcare journey of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a mapping project - implications for practice. Musculoskeletal Care. 2008;6(4):247–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/msc.139 .

Kricke GS, Carson MB, Lee YJ, et al. Leveraging electronic health record documentation for Failure Mode and Effects Analysis team identification. J Am Med Informatics Assoc. 2016;23:N.PAG. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocw083 .

Jones DEJ, Sutcliffe K, Pairman J, Wilton K, Newton JL. An integrated care pathway improves quality of life in primary biliary cirrhosis. QJM. 2008;101(7):535–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcn043 .

Teixeira FC, de Almeida CE, Saiful HM. Failure mode and effects analysis based risk profile assessment for stereotactic radiosurgery programs at three cancer centers in Brazil. Med Phys. 2016;43(1):171–8. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4938065 .

Sorrentino P. Use of failure mode and effects analysis to improve emergency department handoff processes. Clin Nurse Spec. 2016;30(1):28–37. https://doi.org/10.1097/NUR.0000000000000169 .

Ibanez-Rosello B, Bautista JA, Bonaque J, et al. Failure modes and effects analysis of total skin electron irradiation technique. Clin Transl Oncol. 2018;20:330–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-017-1721-3 .

Manger RP, Paxton AB, Pawlicki T, et al. Failure mode and effects analysis and fault tree analysis of surface image guided cranial radiosurgery. Med Phys. 2015;42:2449–61. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4918319 .

Howard I, Castle N, Al Shaikh LA. Application of a healthcare failure modes and effects analysis to identify and mitigate potential risks in the implementation of a National Prehospital Pediatric Rapid Sequence Intubation Program. J Patient Saf Published Online First. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000000454 .

Howard I, Castle N, Al Shaikh L, et al. Understanding system-focused barriers to the identification and reporting of medication errors and adverse drug events in emergency medical services. Drugs Ther Perspect. 2019;35(6):285–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40267-019-00628-6 .

Egan S, Murphy PG, Fennell JP, et al. Using Six Sigma to improve once daily gentamicin dosing and therapeutic drug monitoring performance. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2012;21:1042–51 10p. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000824 .

Sujan M, Chessum P, Rudd M. Managing competing organizational priorities in clinical handover across organizational boundaries. J Health Services Rese Policy. 2015;20:17–25.

Arafeh M, Barghash MA, Haddad N, Musharbash N, Nashawati D, al-Bashir A, Assaf F. Using six sigma DMAIC methodology and discrete event simulation to reduce patient discharge time in King Hussein Cancer center. J Healthcare Engineering. 2018;2018:e3832151. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3832151 1, 18.

Patterson ES, Lowry SZ, Ramaiah M, et al. Improving Clinical Workflow in Ambulatory Care: Implemented Recommendations in an Innovation Prototype for the Veteran’s Health Administration. EGEMS (Wash DC). 2015;3:1149. https://doi.org/10.13063/2327-9214.1149 .

Tyler A, Boyer A, Martin S, Neiman J, Bakel LA, Brittan M. Development of a discharge readiness report within the electronic health record-a discharge planning tool. J Hosp Med. 2014;9(8):533–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.2212 .

Jenkings KN. Implementation, change management and benefit realization: investigating the utility of ethnographically enriched process maps. Health Inform J. 2007;13:57–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458207073646 .

Staccini P, Joubert M, Quaranta J-F, et al. Mapping care processes within a hospital: from theory to a web-based proposal merging enterprise modelling and ISO normative principles. Int J Med Inform. 2005;74:335–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.07.003 .

McDonald SA, Velasco E, Ilasi NT. Business process flow diagrams in tissue bank informatics system design, and identification and communication of best practices: the pharmaceutical industry experience. Biopreservation and Biobanking. 2010;8(4):203–9. https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2010.0020 .

Aaronson E, Mort E, Soghoian S. Mapping the process of emergency care at a teaching hospital in Ghana. Healthcare. 2017;5:214–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hjdsi.2016.12.001 .

McCreight MS, Gilmartin HM, Leonard CA, et al. Practical use of process mapping to guide implementation of a care coordination program for rural veterans. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34:67–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-04968-x .

Shayesteh SG, Kliewer G, Morrin L. The integration of quality management into chronic disease health services. Qual Manag Health Care. 2010;19(2):156–63. https://doi.org/10.1097/QMH.0b013e3181dafde7 .

Stans SE, Stevens JA, Beurskens AJ. Interprofessional practice in primary care: development of a tailored process model. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2013;6:139–47. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S42594 .

Manchaiah VKC, Stephens D, Lunner T. Communication partners’ journey through their Partner’s hearing impairment. Int J Otolaryngol. 2013;2013:707910–1. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/707910 .

Manchaiah VKC, Stephens D, Meredith R. The patient journey of adults with hearing impairment: the patients’ views. Clin Otolaryngol. 2011;36(3):227–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-4486.2011.02320.x .

Manchaiah VKC, Stephens D. The “patient journey” of adults with sudden-onset acquired hearing impairment: a pilot study. J Laryngol Otol. 2012;126:475–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215111003197 .

Aguilar-Savén RS. Business process modelling: review and framework. Int J Prod Econ. 2004;90(2):129–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(03)00102-6 .

Biazzo S. Process mapping techniques and organisational analysis: lessons from sociotechnical system theory. Bus Process Manag J. 2002;8(1):42–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150210418629 .

Dean JE. Using a multi-method, user centred, prospective hazard analysis to assess care quality and patient safety in a care pathway. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-7-89 .

Holmes B, Best A, Davies H, et al. Mobilising knowledge in complex health systems : a call to action. Evidence and policy. 2016;13(3):539–60. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426416X14712553750311 .

Batalden P. Getting more health from healthcare: quality improvement must acknowledge patient coproduction—an essay by Paul Batalden. BMJ. 2018;362:k3617. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3617 .

Chandra C, He J, Liu Z, Ruohonen T. Some promising areas for IS research in the hospital industry: implications from a case study of operating room scheduling. Health Technol. 2013;3(1):65–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-013-0042-y .

Persoon TJ, Zaleski MS, Cohen MB. Improving pap test turnaround time using external benchmark data and engineering process improvement tools. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;118(4):527–33. https://doi.org/10.1309/20NX-VJUK-VADH-51T8 .

Simon RW, Canacari EG. A practical guide to applying lean tools and management principles to health care improvement projects. AORN J. 2012;95(1):85–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2011.05.021 .

Walshe K. Understanding what works—and why—in quality improvement: the need for theory-driven evaluation. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19:57–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm004 .

Calder LA, Forster AJ, Stiell IG, et al. Mapping out the emergency department disposition decision for high-acuity patients. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;60:567–576.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.04.013 .

Dilts DM, Sandler AB, Baker M, Cheng SK, George SL, Karas KS, McGuire S, Menon GS, Reusch J, Sawyer D, Scoggins M, Wu A, Zhou K, Schilsky RL, Case of Cancer and Leukemia Group B. Processes to activate phase III clinical trials in a cooperative oncology group: the case of cancer and leukemia group B. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(28):4553–7. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.06.7819 .

Goodwin-Wilson C, Watkins M, Gardner-Elahi C. Developing evidence-based process maps for spinal cord injury rehabilitation. Spinal Cord. 2010;48(2):122–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2009.94 .

Lyhne S, Georgiou A, Marks A, et al. Towards an understanding of the information dynamics of the handover process in aged care settings-a prerequisite for the safe and effective use of ICT. Int J Med Inf. 2012;81:452–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2012.01.013 .

Lin SY, Gavney D, Ishman SL, Cady-Reh J. Use of lean sigma principles in a tertiary care otolaryngology clinic to improve efficiency. Laryngoscope. 2013;123(11):2643–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.24110 .

Croskerry P. Context is everything or how could I have been that stupid? Healthc Q. 2009;12 Spec No Patient:e171–6. https://doi.org/10.12927/hcq.2009.20945 .

Øvretveit J. Understanding the conditions for improvement: research to discover which context influences affect improvement success. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20(Suppl 1):i18–23. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs.2010.045955 .

Dy SM, Taylor SL, Carr LH, et al. A framework for classifying patient safety practices: results from an expert consensus process. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20:618–24. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs.2010.049296 .

Almassi N, Glass KE, Lonzer JL, Urbanek DS, Grivas P, Rini B, Garcia J, Stephenson AJ, Klein EA, Krishnamurthi V. Identifying institutional causes of delay to radical cystectomy among patients with high risk bladder cancer treated at a tertiary referral center using process map analysis. Urol Pract. 2018 Sep;5(5):383–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urpr.2017.08.003 .

Bibi Y, Cohen AD, Goldfarb D, Rubinshtein E, Vardy DA. Intervention program to reduce waiting time of a dermatological visit: managed overbooking and service centralization as effective management tools. Int J Dermatol. 2007;46(8):830–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-4632.2007.03078.x .

Britton MC, Petersen-Pickett J, Hodshon B, et al. Mapping the care transition from hospital to skilled nursing facility. J Eval Clin Pract. 2019;26(3):786–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13238 .

Cadwell K, Brimdyr K, Phillips R. Mapping, measuring, and analyzing the process of skin-to-skin contact and early breastfeeding in the first hour after birth. Breastfeed Med. 2018;13:485–92. https://doi.org/10.1089/bfm.2018.0048 .

Campling N, Cummings A, Myall M, Lund S, May CR, Pearce NW, Richardson A. Escalation-related decision making in acute deterioration: a retrospective case note review. BMJ Open. 2018;8(8):e022021. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022021 .

Chand S. Improving patient flow at an outpatient clinic : study of sources of variability and improvement factors. Health Care Management Science. 2009;12:325–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-008-9094-3 .

DeGirolamo K, D’souza K, Hall W, Joos E, Garraway N, Sing CK, McLaughlin P, Hameed M. Process mapping as a framework for performance improvement in emergency general surgery. Can J Surg. 2018 Feb;61(1):13–8. https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.004417 .

Drew B, Angeli F, Dave K, et al. Impact of patients’ healthcare payment methods on hospital discharge process: evidence from India. Int J Health Plann Manag. 2016;31:e158–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.2310 .

Halbesleben JR, Savage GT, Wakefield DS, Wakefield BJ. Rework and workarounds in nurse medication administration process: implications for work processes and patient safety. Health Care Manag Rev. 2010;35(2):124–33. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0b013e3181d116c2 .

Halvorson S, Wheeler B, Willis M, et al. A multidisciplinary initiative to standardize intensive care to acute care transitions. Int J Qual Health Care. 2016;28:615–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzw076 .

Holbrook A, Bowen JM, Patel H, et al. Process mapping evaluation of medication reconciliation in academic teaching hospitals: a critical step in quality improvement. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e013663. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013663 .

Hummel J, Evans PC, Lee H. Medication reconciliation in the emergency department: opportunities for workflow redesign. BMJ Qual Saf. 2010;19(6):531–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2009.035121 .

Jensen JL, Croskerry P, Travers AH. Consensus on paramedic clinical decisions during high-acuity emergency calls: results of a Canadian Delphi study. CJEM, Can j emerg med care. 2011;13:310–8. https://doi.org/10.2310/8000.2011.110405 .

Juanola Roura X, Collantes Estevez E, Leon Vazquez F, et al. Reccomendations for the detection, study and referral of inflammatory low-back pain in primary care. Reumatol clin. 2015;11(2):90–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reumae.2014.04.006 .

Kim B, McCullough MB, Simmons MM, Bolton RE, Hyde J, Drainoni ML, Fincke BG, McInnes DK. A novel application of process mapping in a criminal justice setting to examine implementation of peer support for veterans leaving incarceration. Health justice. 2019;7(1):1–1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-019-0085-x .

Klaiman T, O’Connell K, Stoto MA. Learning from successful school-based vaccination clinics during 2009 pH1N1. J Sch Health. 2014;84:63–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12119 .

Lima Guimarães MF, Ramos Freire EM, Martins da Silva D, et al. PROCESS MAPPING: VIDEO-ASSISTED SURGERY INSTRUMENT FLOW. J Nurs UFPE / Revista de Enfermagem UFPE. 2016;10:1162–9.

Lubliner M, Cole-Sinclair M, Kenneally A, Street A, van de Vreede M, Walsh MK. Minimising medication mishap: introducing a warfarin safety strategy. J Pharm Res. 2005;35(4):266–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2055-2335.2005.tb00360.x .

Ngwenya N, Ambler J, Archary M. Qualitative situational analysis of palliative care for adolescents with cancer and HIV in South Africa: healthcare worker perceptions. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e023225. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023225 .

Peebles E, Subbe CP, Hughes P, Gemmell L. Timing and teamwork-an observational pilot study of patients referred to a rapid response team with the aim of identifying factors amenable to re-design of a rapid response system. Resuscitation. 2012;83(6):782–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.12.019 .

Robertson SK, Manson K, Fioratou E. IMCI and ETAT integration at a primary healthcare facility in Malawi: a human factors approach. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:1014. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3803-5 .

Schubert L, Liu A, Gan G, Amini A, Hutchison R, Ernest J, Thornton D, Stoehr S, Hinman B, Stuhr K, Westerly D, Schefter T, Fisher C. Practical implementation of quality improvement for high-dose-rate brachytherapy. Pract Radiation Oncol. 2016;6(1):34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prro.2015.09.003 .

Shahan C, DeJesus C, McCall M, Hampton F, Herring T, Davis J, Patel A, Gomillion S, Maltby B. Reduction of Failed Whole Blood Donor Testing Runs on the Roche Cobas s 201 System. In2017 AABB Annual Meeting 2017. AABB.

Sharma HR, Rozen WM, Mathur B, Ramakrishnan V. 100 steps of a DIEP flap-a prospective comparative cohort series demonstrating the successful implementation of process mapping in microsurgery. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019;7(1):e2016. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002016 .

Shelton SR, Nelson CD, McLees AW, et al. Building performance-based accountability with limited empirical evidence: performance measurement for public health preparedness. Disaster med public health prep. 2013;7(4):373–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2013.20 .

Smiley K, Ofori L, Spangler C, Acquaah-Arhin R, Deh D, Enos J, Manortey S, Baiden F, Finlayson S, Price R, McCrum M. Safety culture and perioperative quality at the Volta River Authority Hospital in Akosombo, Ghana. World J Surg. 2019;43(1):16–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-018-4763-y .

Tariq A, Georgiou A, Raban M, Baysari MT, Westbrook J. Underlying risk factors for prescribing errors in long-term aged care: a qualitative study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(9):704–15. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004589 .

Toouli G, Georgiou A, Westbrook J. Changes, disruption and innovation: an investigation of the introduction of new health information technology in a microbiology laboratory. J Pathol Inform. 2012;3:16. https://doi.org/10.4103/2153-3539.95128 .

Turner S, Vasilakis C, Utley M, Foster P, Kotecha A, Fulop NJ. Analysing barriers to service improvement using a multi-level theory of innovation: the case of glaucoma outpatient clinics. Sociol Health Illness. 2018;40(4):654–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12670 .

Tyson SF, Woodward-Nutt K, Plant S. How are balance and mobility problems after stroke treated in England? An observational study of the content, dose and context of physiotherapy. Clin Rehabil. 2018;32(8):1145–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215518777789 .

Weir NM, Newham R, Corcoran ED, Al-Gethami AA, Abd Alridha AM, Bowie P, Watson A, Bennie M. Application of process mapping to understand integration of high risk medicine care bundles within community pharmacy practice. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2018;14(10):944–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2017.11.009 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) Northwest London team for contributing to shape the scope of this systematic review and for supporting the development and validation of the conceptual framework.

This research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Northwest London (CLAHRC NWL), now recommissioned as NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Northwest London (ARC NWL). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) Northwest London, London, UK

Grazia Antonacci & Laura Lennox

Business School, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Innovation (CHEPI), Imperial College London, London, UK

Grazia Antonacci & James Barlow

Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) Northwest London, London, UK

Liz Evans & Julie Reed

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

GA identified methodological guidance on Process Mapping and performed the search and extraction of articles references and abstracts for the systematic review. GA and LL defined the selection criteria, independently screened and selected the articles, designed the data extraction form and independently extracted data from included studies. GA and JB assessed quality of each study and risk of bias by rating articles included in the systematic review independently using the CASP checklist. JR and LE contributed to the development of themes for the analysis of benefits of Process Mapping. All authors read and approved the final manuscript and contributed to: the development of the research questions, the development and validation of the conceptual framework, the validation of the data extraction sheet, resolve discrepancies between reviewers occurring during the analysis phase.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Grazia Antonacci .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: supplemental_material_1..

Online supplementary appendix 1, Methodological studies selected in the snowballing search. Description of data: details on the methodological studies used to develop the conceptual framework.

Additional file 2: Supplemental_Material_2.

Online supplementary appendix 2, Systematic literature review - Analysis process. Description of data: description of the data analysis process.

Additional file 3: Supplemental_Material_3.

Online supplementary appendix 3 – Analysis codes and data extraction details. Description of data: description of the analysis codes and data extraction sheet with the details of data extracted for each article included in the systematic review.

Additional file 4: Supplemental_Material_4.

Online supplementary appendix 4, Quality assessment using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist. Description of data: rating of each article included in the systematic review according to the CASP checklist’s items.

Additional file 5: Supplemental_Material_5.

Online supplementary appendix 5, Characteristics of empirical studies. Description of data: general characteristics of the studies included in the systematic review.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Antonacci, G., Lennox, L., Barlow, J. et al. Process mapping in healthcare: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 21 , 342 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06254-1

Download citation

Received : 19 September 2020

Accepted : 08 March 2021

Published : 14 April 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06254-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Health care
• Improvement
• Systematic review

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Process Mapping as a Tool for Integrating Human Factors into Work System Design

• Master of Science
• Mechanical and Industrial Engineering

Granting Institution

Lac thesis type, thesis advisor, usage metrics.

• Human factor engineering, n.e.c.

Guide: Process Mapping

Author: Daniel Croft

Daniel Croft is an experienced continuous improvement manager with a Lean Six Sigma Black Belt and a Bachelor's degree in Business Management. With more than ten years of experience applying his skills across various industries, Daniel specializes in optimizing processes and improving efficiency. His approach combines practical experience with a deep understanding of business fundamentals to drive meaningful change.

Process Mapping, a key lean tool in continuous improvement. Regardless of the industry you’re in having a clear understanding of your processes is important for efficiency and effectiveness. Process Mapping is a visualization of your operations, allowing you to see how tasks flow, who is responsible for what, and where bottlenecks or inefficiencies may exist.

Through simple symbols and lines, this tool highlights the sequence of actions from start to finish, making it easier for teams to communicate and collaborate.

What is Process Mapping?

A visual guide to your operations.

At its core, Process Mapping is like a visual guide for your business processes. It visually represents each step, action, or operation involved in a process from start to finish. Utilizing various symbols, shapes, and arrows, it paints a clear picture of how tasks flow through the system. This visualization makes it easier to understand complex workflows, especially for those who are not directly involved in the process.

Detailed sub process map

Key Elements of Process Mapping

Activities : These are the tasks or operations that are part of the process. An activity could be as simple as ‘Approve Request’ or as complex as ‘Conduct Quality Assurance Testing’.

Inputs/Outputs : Every activity in a process typically has something that triggers it (input) and produces a result (output). For instance, an input could be a customer order, and the output could be the shipped product.

Decision Points : These are the junctures where a decision needs to be made, often represented by diamond shapes in the map. For example, a decision point might be “Is the inventory sufficient?”

Roles : This specifies who is responsible for each activity. Assigning roles removes ambiguity and ensures accountability.

Why is Process Mapping Important?

More than just a diagram.

While it may seem like an exercise in drawing, Process Mapping has profound implications for your operations. Here’s why:

• Identifies Bottlenecks : A well-designed process map can immediately show you where your process slows down. Maybe there’s a step that takes disproportionately long or a decision point where things often get stuck. Identifying these bottlenecks is the first step in solving them.

Improves Communication : A process map serves as a single point of truth. It provides a universal language that helps in reducing misunderstandings and streamlining communications among team members.

Enhances Efficiency : By visualizing the entire process, you can easily spot redundancies or unnecessary steps that can be removed or simplified, making the whole system more efficient.

Facilitates Training : For new hires or team members unfamiliar with the process, a process map can serve as an excellent training tool. It provides an at-a-glance understanding that might otherwise take weeks to grasp.

By integrating Process Mapping into your continuous improvement strategies, you’re well on your way to a more efficient, communicative, and streamlined operation.

Types of Process Maps

Process Mapping isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach. There are various types of maps that serve different needs, depending on the complexity of the process, the level of detail required, and the audience for the map. Here’s a deep dive into four common types:

1. Flowcharts

What are they.

Flowcharts are the most basic form of process maps. They are excellent for mapping out simple processes or tasks that don’t require much detail. They typically use basic shapes like ovals for start/end, rectangles for processes, and diamonds for decision points.

When to Use

• When the process is straightforward and involves few steps.
• When a quick, easy-to-understand representation is sufficient.

2. SIPOC Maps (Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs, Customers)

SIPOC Maps take a high-level view of a process and focus on identifying the Suppliers, Inputs, Processes, Outputs, and Customers. This type of map is particularly useful for understanding the broader ecosystem of a process.

• When you need to understand how a process interacts with external factors.
• During the initial stages of process improvement for scope definition.

3. Value Stream Maps

Value Stream Maps are commonly used in Lean methodologies. They not only map the process but also add data about time, cost, and resources to help identify value-added and non-value-added activities.

• When you’re applying Lean methodologies .
• When you want to understand and reduce waste in the process.

Value Stream Map (VSM)

4. Cross-Functional Flowcharts (Swimlane Diagrams)

Cross-Functional Flowcharts, also known as Swimlane Diagrams , show how a process moves between different teams or departments. Each ‘lane’ in the chart represents a different department or role.

• When the process involves multiple departments or teams.
• When you need to clarify roles and responsibilities across departments.

Swimlane / Cross functional process map

Steps to Create a Process Map

Creating a process map may seem like a daunting task, but breaking it down into structured steps can make it manageable and effective. Below is an in-depth guide on how to go about each stage of creating a process map.

1. Define Objectives

Before you even pick up a pen, you need to know what you aim to achieve with the process map. Are you trying to streamline operations, train new employees, or identify bottlenecks? Your objectives will guide the type of process map you choose and the level of detail it will require.

Key Points to Consider

• What problem are you trying to solve?
• Who is the target audience for the map?

2. Identify Stakeholders

Identifying stakeholders means listing all the parties who are involved in the process or will be affected by changes to it. This can include team members, managers, suppliers, and even customers.

• Who performs tasks in this process?
• Who oversees or manages this process?
• Who are the end-users or beneficiaries?

3. Gather Data

You need concrete information to build your map. This involves gathering data on activities, roles, and the sequence of steps. You may use interviews, observations, or review existing documentation to collect this data.

• What are the specific tasks or activities?
• What inputs and outputs are associated with each activity?
• Are there decision points? If so, what are the criteria?

4. Draft the Map

With all the preliminary work done, it’s time to put pen to paper—or cursor to screen. You can use specialized software or simply draw it out manually. Place the activities, decision points, and roles in their respective places and connect them with arrows to indicate flow.

• Use standard symbols for ease of understanding.
• Make sure the flow is logical and clear.

Once the initial draft is ready, share it with the identified stakeholders for review. They can provide insights you might have missed, suggest changes, or confirm that the map is accurate.

• Is the map easy to understand?
• Does it accurately represent the process?

Based on the feedback, make revisions as necessary. This might involve adding missing steps, clarifying roles, or even redefining the objectives if new insights have come to light.

• Are all stakeholder concerns addressed?
• Does the map align with the original objectives?

7. Finalize and Implement

Once the map has been reviewed and revised, it’s time to finalize it. The finished process map can then be used for training, documentation, and as a basis for continuous improvement efforts.

• Make the final version accessible to all relevant parties.
• Use it as a tool for training and operational excellence.

In summary, Process Mapping serves as a navigational tool for your business operations, offering a visual guide to understand, analyze, and improve complex processes. By breaking down the steps, identifying roles, and spotlighting decision points, this technique elevates your continuous improvement initiatives from a guessing game to a data-driven strategy.

Whether you opt for a basic Flowchart for simpler tasks or a more intricate Value Stream Map to scrutinize every detail, the importance of selecting the right type of process map cannot be overstated. The structured approach to creating a process map, which includes defining objectives, involving stakeholders, and iterative refinement, ensures that the final product is both accurate and actionable. As you embark on your journey toward operational excellence, keep this guide handy as a comprehensive resource for unlocking the immense potential of Process Mapping.

• Damelio, R., 2011.  The basics of process mapping . CRC press.
• Hunt, V.D., 1996.  Process mapping: how to reengineer your business processes . John Wiley & Sons.

Q: What software tools can I use for Process Mapping?

A : There are numerous software tools available for Process Mapping, ranging from specialized software like Visio and Lucidchart to general-purpose tools like PowerPoint and Google Slides. Your choice of tool may depend on the complexity of the process and the features you require, such as collaboration or data integration.

Q: How often should I update my Process Map?

A : The frequency of updates to your Process Map depends on how often the process itself changes. For dynamic processes that are subject to frequent alterations, quarterly reviews may be beneficial. For more stable processes, an annual review could suffice. Always update the map after any significant change to the process.

Q: Can I create a Process Map if I'm not an expert in the process?

A : While expertise in the process can be beneficial, it’s not strictly necessary. The key is to involve stakeholders who are experts or directly involved in the process. Their input can provide the detailed information needed to create an accurate map.

Q: What should I do if stakeholders disagree on the Process Map?

A : Disagreements among stakeholders can occur, especially for complex processes. In such cases, it may be helpful to return to the data gathering stage to collect more information, or even observe the process in action to resolve discrepancies. Consensus is crucial for the map to be effective.

Q: How detailed should my Process Map be?

A : The level of detail in your Process Map should align with its objectives. For a high-level overview, a less detailed map may suffice. However, if the goal is to identify bottlenecks or areas for improvement, a more detailed map that includes time, cost, and resource information could be more beneficial.

Daniel Croft

Hi im Daniel continuous improvement manager with a Black Belt in Lean Six Sigma and over 10 years of real-world experience across a range sectors, I have a passion for optimizing processes and creating a culture of efficiency. I wanted to create Learn Lean Siigma to be a platform dedicated to Lean Six Sigma and process improvement insights and provide all the guides, tools, techniques and templates I looked for in one place as someone new to the world of Lean Six Sigma and Continuous improvement.

Download Template

Free Lean Six Sigma Templates

Improve your Lean Six Sigma projects with our free templates. They're designed to make implementation and management easier, helping you achieve better results.

Was this helpful?

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, process mapping and high performance management in technical services.

Technical Services in the 21st Century

ISBN : 978-1-80043-829-3 , eISBN : 978-1-80043-828-6

Publication date: 8 January 2021

In this chapter, I argue, contrary to some current views, that workflow process mapping can be an important and relevant tool for assessing and improving the effectiveness and efficiency of library Technical Services departments. I also propose that linking workflow process mapping to the “High Performance” style of organizational management of W. Edwards Deming underlines both the value of process mapping and how the latter can obviate the need for hierarchical managerial control, by building a cohesive and efficient technical services team. First, I describe the “High Performance” management style of Deming, focusing in particular on what is generally called the “Deming Cycle.” Second, I describe the process of mapping workflows and emphasize its value for highlighting waste, improving existing processes, and maintaining sustainability. Third, I argue that linking workflow mapping to this larger understanding of management style results in several positive consequences for technical services departments, such as a team-based rather than hierarchical style of management, increased departmental and interdepartmental effectiveness and efficiency, and a better return on investment. I illustrate these points by looking directly at an example of an acquisitions department.

• Process mapping
• High performance management
• Workflow analysis

White, K. (2021), "Process Mapping and High Performance Management in Technical Services", Hines, S.S. (Ed.) Technical Services in the 21st Century ( Advances in Library Administration and Organization, Vol. 42 ), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 55-67. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0732-067120210000042006

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2021 Emerald Publishing Limited

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

A Process Mapping Procedure for Planning Building Information Modeling (BIM) Execution on a Building Construction Project

• Request paper in alternate format.

Process Mapping Guide: Definition, How-to and Best Practices

Planning a new strategy? Want to improve customer satisfaction? Want to know why some of your projects are failing?

Process mapping is the first step to find out how and why to these questions above.

In this process mapping guide we will show you;

What is a Process Map?

Process map symbols, types of process maps, how to create a process map, process mapping best practices.

• Benefits of Process Mapping

Process Map Templates

Process mapping symbols (continued).

A process map visually shows the steps of a work activity and the people who are involved in carrying out each step. They are commonly used in process improvement initiatives, such as Lean Six Sigma or business process reengineering, to help organizations streamline their processes by identifying inefficiencies, bottlenecks, and areas for improvement.

When mapping a process you simply draw a box for each step and connect them with arrows to show a flow.  You can use an online tool to easily create a Process Map . A basic process map would look like this;

Each step in a process is represented by a shape in a process map. These shapes are also called flowchart shapes.

There are nearly 30 standard shapes that you can use in process mapping. However, we think for most people, using a handful of the most common shapes will be easier to understand.

The full set of process map/flowchart shapes are at the bottom of this guide.

Now that you know what process mapping symbols are and what types of process maps are out there, are you ready to create a process map? Here are the steps you need to follow,

Step 1: Identify the Process You Need to Map

Decide where you want to start. Is it with the process that is underperforming? Is it with the process that is important to your new strategy? Or is it with the process that directly makes an impact on customer satisfaction?

And then give it a name.

Step 2: Bring Together the Right Team

The input of everyone involved in the process is necessary to make sure that you cover every aspect of the process when mapping it. The right team should include those who do and manage the process and provides the input .

Step 3: Gather All the Necessary Information

• Where does the process begin and end?
• What are the steps in between these two points?
• What are the inputs and the outputs of the process?
• Who does what? When, where and how?

Step 4: Organize the Steps in a Sequential Order

Get your team to arrange each step in a sequential order from the beginning to the end.

Step 5: Draw the Baseline Process Map

Draw a process map that shows the map as it is currently. Keep in mind the process mapping best practices.

Step 5: Analyze the Map to Find Areas for Improvement

Identify inefficiencies and bottlenecks within the processes. What are the steps that should be eliminated? Where can you make improvements?

Step 6: Implement Improvements and Monitor Them

Implement the improvements on a smaller scale at first. If they work better, you can apply it on a larger scale. Monitor the new and improved process to see how it is functioning and whether it needs further optimization.

Following are a few process map templates you can edit online with the Creately editor.

Click the template to edit it online

Want more free editable? process map templates

Following is a list of different types of process maps along with a brief description and when you can use each. Choose the type of process map that is most suitable for your goal.

Basic Flowchart

A basic flowchart is a simple map visualizing the steps of a process including its inputs and outputs.

When to use:  

• to plan new projects
• to model and document a process
• to solve problems
• to help teams communicate ideas better
• To analyze and manage workflows

How to draw:

Here’s the ultimate flowchart guide you need to learn how to draw them.

High-level Process Map

This is also known as a value chain map or a top-down map.  It shows the core activities of a process.  It doesn’t go into much detail about decision points, rework loop, roles involved etc.

When to use:

• to design and define business processes
• to identify the key steps and key details of a process
• list the most basic steps in  the process (no more than 5-6 steps)
• organize them in order, horizontally
• list each sub-step (again, no more than 5-6 steps) under the main steps

Detailed Process Map

A flowchart that shows a drill-down version of a process. This means all the details of the sub-processes are contained in this type of map.

• to give all details (inputs and outputs) related to a process step
• to document the decision points within a process
• define process boundaries
• what’s triggers the process? Use a SIPOC to identify process inputs
• identify what immediately happens after each input (repeatedly ask ‘what happens next?’ until you get to the output)

Cross-Functional Flowchart

A flowchart that shows the relationships between process steps and the functional units (teams/ departments) responsible for them with swimlanes . It’s also known as a deployment flowchart.

When  to use:

• to identify the key roles responsible for the process and how they relate to each other
• to highlight how a process flows across company boundaries
• to identify potential process failure, redundancies, delays, rework, excessive inspection etc.
• Gather a competent and relevant cross-functional team
• Identify stakeholders
• list the process stakeholders (based on how close they are to the process customer) starting with the process customer
• add swim lanes to separate the columns between each stakeholder
• add steps performed by each stakeholder in their respective swim lane
• connect the steps with arrows to indicate the flow

SIPOC shows the key elements of a process such as Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs, and Customers.

• to identify the key elements of a process before doing a detailed map
• to define the scope of complex processes
• can be used in the Measure phase of the DMAIC methodology
• Draw a table of 5 columns for Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs, and Customers
• Start with mapping the process in 5-6 high-level steps
• Identify the outputs
• Identify the customers
• Identify the inputs of the process
• Identify the suppliers of each of the inputs
• Verify the SIPOC diagram with project head and other stakeholders

Value Stream Map

Value stream maps visualize the flow of material and information that is needed to bring your product to the customer.

• to record measurements of the inputs and outputs of process steps
• to identify waste within and between processes
• to document, analyze and improve the flow of information and material
• to gain insight into decision-making and process flow
• to identify where to focus future projects or subprojects

Here’s a comprehensive value stream mapping guide to master how to draw them. Note that Value stream maps have a different set of shapes, but the principles of process mapping remain the same.

• Before identifying the process steps, start with identifying the start and end points of the process. This helps with setting limits
• Make your process maps as easy and simple as possible to read and understand by anyone in your company
• Keep only the necessary details on your map. Not less or more than needed to identify areas for improvements
• Make sure you use the correct process map symbols when drawing to avoid confusion
• Include all the key stakeholders when mapping the process to avoid missing out on important information or steps
• Use a business process mapping software  that allows you to quickly draw as well as collaborate with your team in real-time for efficiency

More process mapping best practices. ?

Benefits of Process mapping

As you are already reading about process mapping, we’d  guess you know at least a few benefits of doing it. However read this section carefully as it will help you convince others!

• Makes understanding and communicating the process much easier among teams, stakeholders or customers
• Serves as a useful tool for scenario testing and what-if assessments
• Can be used as a marketing tool to prove to your investors or industrial customers that your business processes are reliable
• Is a requirement of many types of standards and certification like ISO 9000
• Makes process documentation more reader-friendly
• Spread awareness of the roles and responsibilities of those who are involved
• Helps identify flaws in  the process and where improvements should be made
• Aids teams brainstorm ideas for improvement or new changes that will help tackle challenges like retaining employees, declining revenue etc.
• Helps reduce costs associated with development of products and services
• Improve team performance and employee satisfaction
• Can be used as a learning material to train new employees
• Helps measure the efficiency of work processes

In addition to the basic symbols we discussed earlier, process mapping makes use of the following symbols as well.

Process/ Operations Symbols

Branching and Control of Flow Symbols

Input and Output Symbols

File and Information Storage Symbols

Data Processing Symbols

What Are Your Thoughts on the Process Mapping Guide?

Process maps are not only a vital part of process documentation but are also a popular business process improvement methodology .

Follow the guide to create efficient business process maps and share with us any concern you may have, even if it is another process mapping technique that you personally use.

In our next guide, we’ll be discussing diagrams that can be used to make HR management more efficient.

FAQ about Procee Mapping Guide

How to choose the right process map template.

Choosing the right process mapping diagram template depends on the specific needs and requirements of the project or process being mapped. Here are some factors to consider when choosing the right process mapping diagram:

Purpose of the Map: Consider the purpose of the map, whether it is to understand a process, identify bottlenecks, or improve the process. Different types of process mapping diagrams are suitable for different purposes. You can find different types of process mapping diagram in Creately.

Level of Detail: Determine the level of detail required for the map. Some diagrams, such as flowcharts or swimlane diagrams, provide a high-level overview of the process, while others, such as value stream maps or process flow diagrams, offer a more detailed view of the process.

Complexity of the Process: Consider the complexity of the process being mapped. Some diagrams, such as flowcharts, are suitable for simple processes, while others, such as value stream maps or process flow diagrams, are better for more complex processes.

Audience: Consider the audience who will be using the process map. Some diagrams, such as flowcharts, are easier to understand for non-technical audiences, while others, such as BPMN diagrams, are more suitable for technical audiences.

Available Tools: Select a tool that helps simplify the process of drawing a process map. Creately is one of the most used process mapping tools and it offers easy-to-use drag and drop tools, formatting options, premade templates and powerful collaboration capabilities to create suitable process mapping diagrams effortlessly.

What are the common mistakes to avoid when creating process mapping diagrams?

Not defining the scope: One of the most common mistakes is not defining the scope of the process being mapped. Failing to define the boundaries of the process can lead to confusion and inaccurate mapping.

Including too much detail: Another mistake is including too much detail in the process map, making it difficult to read and understand. It’s important to keep the map concise and focused on the key steps and decision points in the process.

Lack of consistency: Inconsistent symbols and formatting in the process map can cause confusion and make it harder to understand. It’s important to establish a consistent approach to formatting and symbols, and ensure that they are followed consistently throughout the map.

Ignoring input from stakeholders: Failing to involve key stakeholders in the process mapping exercise can lead to a lack of buy-in and inaccuracies in the map. It’s important to involve stakeholders in the process and gather their input and feedback to ensure that the map accurately reflects the process.

Using incorrect symbols or terminology: Using the wrong symbols or terminology can lead to confusion and inaccuracies in the process map. It’s important to use commonly accepted symbols and terminology to ensure that the map is clear and accurate.

Join over thousands of organizations that use Creately to brainstorm, plan, analyze, and execute their projects successfully.

More Related Articles

Amanda Athuraliya is the communication specialist/content writer at Creately, online diagramming and collaboration tool. She is an avid reader, a budding writer and a passionate researcher who loves to write about all kinds of topics.

• Product overview
• All features
• Latest feature release
• App integrations

CAPABILITIES

• project icon Project management
• Project views
• Custom fields
• Status updates
• goal icon Goals and reporting
• Reporting dashboards
• workflow icon Workflows and automation
• portfolio icon Resource management
• Capacity planning
• Time tracking
• my-task icon Admin and security
• Admin console
• asana-intelligence icon Asana AI
• list icon Personal
• premium icon Starter
• briefcase icon Advanced
• Goal management
• Organizational planning
• Campaign management
• Creative production
• Content calendars
• Marketing strategic planning
• Resource planning
• Project intake
• Product launches
• Employee onboarding
• View all uses arrow-right icon
• Project plans
• Team goals & objectives
• Team continuity
• Meeting agenda
• View all templates arrow-right icon
• Work management resources Discover best practices, watch webinars, get insights
• Customer stories See how the world's best organizations drive work innovation with Asana
• Help Center Get lots of tips, tricks, and advice to get the most from Asana
• Asana Academy Sign up for interactive courses and webinars to learn Asana
• Developers Learn more about building apps on the Asana platform
• Community programs Connect with and learn from Asana customers around the world
• Events Find out about upcoming events near you
• Partners Learn more about our partner programs
• Asana for nonprofits Get more information on our nonprofit discount program, and apply.

Featured Reads

• Project planning |
• Guide to process mapping: Definition, h ...

Guide to process mapping: Definition, how-to, and tips

Do you ever come up with a great idea, but you’re not sure where to begin? To see your ideas come to fruition, you first need to organize them and come up with a plan. 

Process mapping can be an advantage when you’re doing team brainstorms, making decisions, or planning projects. Process maps also come in handy for process documentation , new hire training, and process improvement .

To make project planning and communication more efficient for your team, find out how process mapping works (with examples), the benefits of process mapping, and how to create a process map.   

What is process mapping?

Process mapping is a technique used to visually map out workflows and processes. It involves creating a process map, also referred to as a flowchart, process flowchart, or workflow diagram . 

The purpose of process mapping is to communicate how a process works in a concise and straightforward way. It allows any team member to be able to easily understand how to complete a given process without lengthy verbal explanations. By mapping out a process from start to finish, you can have a better understanding of how the entire process works and identify inefficiencies or make improvements.

You can use process mapping to visualize any type of process, but it’s common to use them for process analysis, training, integration, or process improvement. They’re useful when you need to communicate a complex process, address a recurring problem within a given process, or coordinate the responsibilities of multiple team members.

How to create a process map

Creating a process map is simple and can be done on paper or using workflow management software and templates. The steps below explain how to create a process map from scratch. 

Step 1: Identify a problem or process to map

First, determine the process you’d like to map out. Is there an inefficient process that needs improvement? A new process you’d like to concisely communicate to your team? A complex process that employees often have questions about? Identify what you want to map and name it. 

Step 2: List the activities involved

Document all the tasks required to complete the process. At this stage, the order doesn’t matter. Make a list of all the activities involved, as well as who is responsible for each. 

It’s a good idea to collaborate with teammates and other stakeholders who will participate in the process so you can accurately account for all of the steps required and determine what level of detail is needed. Also, make sure you establish where the process begins and ends so you know which tasks should be included to produce the desired result.

Step 3: Write out the sequence of steps

Now that you’ve compiled a list of all the activities, the next step is to arrange these activities in the proper sequence, until the full process is represented from beginning to end. This is a good place to check if there are any gaps you may have missed in the previous step.

Step 4: Draw a flowchart using process mapping symbols

Select the appropriate process mapping format and draw out the process, representing the steps with process mapping symbols. There are around 30 standard symbols you can use to represent different elements of a process, but we’ll cover the most common ones in more detail later on in this article.

Step 5: Finalize and share the process map

Once you’ve finished drawing your process map, review it with other stakeholders involved in the process to make sure everyone understands it and agrees with how the process is mapped. Make sure no steps have been left out and there are no redundancies or ambiguities. 

Step 6: Analyze the map to find areas of improvement

After you establish that the process map accurately describes the process workflow, your completed process map now serves as a tool you can analyze to discover ways of improving the process. 

With the help of feedback from your team, identify where there are bottlenecks and inefficiencies in the process. What steps can be eliminated? Which tasks can be completed more efficiently? Once you’ve identified these areas of improvement, take action to fix them and rework the process map to reflect the improvements. 

Why use a process map?

Process mapping allows you to solidify ideas and streamline processes by visually communicating the steps needed to execute an idea. 

Here are some ways that process mapping can be useful for you and your team:

Identify inefficiencies : Helps you identify bottlenecks, gaps, and other issues in a process flow .

Simplify ideas: Breaks down complex ideas into smaller steps.

Increase comprehension: Promotes thorough understanding of a process.

Plan for contingencies : Allows for contingencies and provides problem-solving guidance.

Delegate responsibilities: Coordinates responsibilities between various individuals or entities. 

Create documentation: Provides documentation of the process.

Communicate clearly: Simplifies communication through a user-friendly, visual format. 

Make decisions faster: Enables faster decision making due to faster communication.

Assist employees: Improves employee performance and job satisfaction.

Meet standards: Helps businesses comply with ISO 9000 and ISO 9001 standards.

Types of process maps

Process maps come in all shapes and sizes. They all serve the same purpose, but certain types of process maps may be better suited for particular projects. Here are some of the most common types of process maps. 

The simplest form of a process map is a basic flowchart. The basic flowchart uses process mapping symbols to illustrate the inputs and outputs of a process and the steps included in completing the process. 

Basic flowcharts can be used to plan new projects, improve communication between team members, model and document processes, solve problems in a current process, and analyze and manage workflows. 

Best for: Showing how a process is done from start to finish, typically in sequential order.

High-level process map

A high-level process map, also known as a top-down map or value chain map, provides a high-level overview of a process. Steps are limited to the essentials of the process and the map includes minimal detail. 

High-level process maps can be used to define business processes and identify the key steps involved. These process maps are also useful for discussing processes with superiors or third parties who don’t need to know the specifics of the operation. 

Best for: Communicating the essential steps of a process.

Detailed process map

In contrast with the high-level process map, a detailed process map provides all the details of each step and includes subprocesses. It documents decision points and the inputs and outputs of each step. This process map provides the most thorough understanding of the mapped process and is most effective in pinpointing areas of inefficiency due to its high level of detail. 

Best for: Providing a comprehensive understanding of a process, including all details and contingencies.

Swimlane map

A swimlane map, also known as a cross-functional or deployment flowchart, delegates process activities into “swimlanes” to designate who is responsible for each task. The map is divided into channels for each stakeholder in the process and lists each activity in the channel of the appropriate stakeholder. This type of process map highlights the different roles involved in the process and the interaction between stakeholders. 

Swimlane maps are ideal for training employees on their roles in a process and increasing accountability. They are also useful for identifying inefficiencies in the process such as delays, redundancies, and potential process failure. 

Best for: Clarifying the roles of multiple stakeholders in a process.

Value stream map

A value stream map is a lean management tool that visualizes the process of bringing a product or service to the customer. Value stream maps tend to be complex and use a unique system of symbols to illustrate the flow of information and materials necessary to the process. 

By documenting data such as cycle time and the number of people involved in each step, value stream mapping is useful for identifying areas where waste can be reduced and revealing opportunities for focusing future projects. 

Best for: Describing the process of bringing a product to a customer and documenting quantitative data about the process.

SIPOC diagram

The acronym SIPOC stands for Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs, Customers. A SIPOC diagram is not so much a process map as a chart identifying the key elements of the process, which may be created as a precursory step to crafting a detailed process map. 

As the acronym suggests, the SIPOC chart should feature five columns which include the basic steps in the process, the outputs of the process, the customers, the inputs of the process, and the suppliers of each input. In addition to preparing for a more detailed process map, a SIPOC diagram is also useful for defining the scope of complex processes. 

Best for: Identifying the key elements and stakeholders in a process.

Process mapping symbols

Process mapping uses symbols from the Unified Modeling Language (UML) to represent key elements on a process map, such as steps, decision points, inputs and outputs, and participating team members. 

Here are the most common process mapping symbols and their usage:

Terminator: Ovals denote the beginning and end of the process.

Process step: A rectangle represents an activity or task in the process.

Flow: Arrows connect steps in the process and show directional flow.

Decision: A diamond illustrates a point where a decision needs to be made, usually with “yes” or “no” options branching from this point.

Delay: A D-shaped symbol indicates a delay in the process.

Document: A rectangle with a wavy bottom line represents a document or information that people can read. Multiple documents are indicated by a symbol resembling multiple stacked wavy rectangles.

Data: A parallelogram represents data that is an input or output of a process step.

Manual input: A rectangle with a slanted top line indicates a step in which data must be manually entered.

Subprocess: A rectangle with double vertical lines indicates a subprocess which is predefined elsewhere. 

There are a number of other symbols you can also incorporate into your process map, but these common symbols will be the most helpful, especially as you get started. 

Process mapping example

You can create a process map for any type of process, but you may still be wondering how to apply this tool to your team. 

To help you get a better idea of what a process map might look like, here is an example:

Process mapping techniques

You can customize process maps to match your needs and preferences, but there are also general tips to keep in mind when process mapping to maximize effectiveness. Here are a few process mapping best practices to apply as you get started:

Planning your process map: 

Establish the boundaries of the process so that only necessary information is included.

Set clear objectives for the process.

Only map processes that have a defined, objective output.

Drafting your process map:

Work backward from output to input.

Keep subprocesses simple.

Include all necessary details, no more and no less.

Use standardized notation so everyone is on the same page.

Reviewing your process map: 

Get feedback from everyone involved in the process.

Detail alternative routes to meeting a preferred condition where applicable.

Map the process in its current state, not necessarily a perfect or idealized state, and make improvements from there. 

Apply these tips in each stage of your process mapping so you can produce the most effective process maps.

Steer projects in the right direction with a process map

Process mapping is an effective tool for documenting and improving your processes. Combine the information above with these seven simple steps to creating a workflow . Using the right tools, you can begin mapping and managing processes to achieve clear communication and improved efficiency.

Related resources

New site openings: How to reduce costs and delays

Provider onboarding software: Simplify your hiring process

15 creative elevator pitch examples for every scenario

Timesheet templates: How to track team progress

Process Mapping: Definition and Benefits Report

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Definition and benefits.

Process mapping is an activity that assists in planning and organising processes. Mapping is particularly valuable when it comes to the processes that have a complex structure and involve many steps and stages. In organisations, many processes also may have a flexible and changeable nature that would make them have complicated cycles and operations within.

Since each process may potentially involve many participants faced with a variety of different situations and scenarios, it is important to create process maps that would serve as the essential guidance for the process participants to see how to react in versatile environments and based on various circumstances. Moreover, process maps have graphic nature that ensures easier comprehension of its structure by the observers and allows them to follow the map clearly regardless of the situations.

For a process to be applicable to various scenarios, it needs to involve basic behaviour lines and take into consideration various situation scenarios and outcomes. A process map may look complicated and have multiple sections and parts; however, a user would be able to select their particular situation development path at every step and follow the process guidance provided via the map. In other words, process mapping is important because it carries out a number of essential functions such as the clarification of objectives, breaking down of the operations, guidance provision, consultation, prevention of errors and malpractice in the workplace. Practically, process mapping increases the efficiency of the processes, ensures their security, and creates a framework for safe and organised work.

Process mapping is applied in a variety of organisations and professional spheres for a purpose of planning processes step by step and thus, structuring the work in a clearer and more organised fashion. Bringing clarity to the workplace and organising the operations in order to optimise the performance of the company is one of the primary objectives of any organisation that attempts to reduce costs and increase efficiency (Biazzo 2002). Moreover, process mapping is a diverse activity with a multitude of applications.

For instance, some organisations employ process mapping with their enterprise resource planning (ERP) initiatives; and the others use it for the planning, preparation, and implementation of change (Okrent & Vokurka 2004). In addition, process mapping is a helpful technique for the organisations attempting to change their process design or reorganise their operations in a radical manner (Aldowaisan & Gaafar 1999). In the situations where the change is implemented to ensure a dramatic reengineering and improvement, the new process design is likely to be complicated and alien to the employees.

In such cases, mapping is an extremely helpful technique that allows the managers to control and measure the implementation of the process designs and the employees – to follow the steps properly without making mistakes. Overall, process mapping is a universal tool that is suitable for all types of processes from basic ones (such as giving a bath to a pet) to very complex ones (such as addressing extreme workplace situations that require fast reactions and involve a lot of responsibility). Mapping the potential working processes, an organisation ensures efficiency of operations, errorless working process, and measureable performance (Rath 2008).

Process mapping is a technique that allows presenting a working process in a graphic manner and examining it for a purpose of the identification of existing and potential problems. That way an improvement and redesign of a process become possible. Process maps represent graphs or flowcharts that illustrate various tasks, roles, and choices within a process.

A process can be defined as a sequence of activities that is employed for a purpose to translate efforts into outputs. Any sequence of actions can be called a process. For instance, making breakfast is a process that includes selecting the suitable ingredients and products (that can be referred to as efforts and inputs) and performing a series of manipulations such as making a toast, putting butter on top, making tea, adding milk (these are activities and tasks within a process), in order to obtain a final result – hot and fresh breakfast (also recognised as output).

The processes that exist within an organisation are structured in the same way and thus, can be visually presented in a form of a flowchart or a diagram that can be used to see all the decisions that need to be made by the participants during the process implementation. A process may be mapped in a variety of ways – using graphs, charts, outlines, and schemes of different designs. Basically, the visual appearance of a map depends on the preference of the designer. The graphs usually are comprised of rectangular and diamond-shaped boxes connected by arrows to demonstrate the sequence of tasks. The activities may provide general descriptions or be very detailed involving the participants and the attributes of each task.

The most significant advantages of process mapping involve the opportunity to see a bigger picture and also the ability to identify smaller issues within a process and pinpoint them. Besides, maps increase the efficiency of problem-solving activities and help detect steps that are unnecessary. Finally, maps serve as perfect and easy to follow visual guidance for the employees in training and identify the best practices (Sempangi et al. 2005).

Aldowaisan, T & Gaafar, L 1999, ‘Business process reengineering: an approach for process mapping’, Omega , vol. 27, no. 50, pp. 515-524.

Biazzo, S 2002, ‘Process mapping techniques and organisational analysis: Lessons from sociotechnical system theory’, Business Process Management Journal , vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 42 – 52.

Okrent, MD & Vokurka, RJ 2004, ‘Process mapping in successful ERP implementations’, Industrial Management & Data Systems , vol. 104, no. 8, pp. 637 – 643.

Rath, F 2008, ‘Tools for Developing a Quality Management Program: Proactive Tools (Process Mapping, Value Stream Mapping, Fault Tree Analysis, and Failure Mode and Effects Analysis)’, International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics , vol. 71, no. 1, pp. S187-S190.

Sempangi, H, Cracknell, D, Moulick, M & Messan, H 2005, ‘Process Mapping in Practice’, MicroSave – Market-led solutions for financial services , pp. 1-21.

• Open Plan Office: Change Management
• Organisational and Environmental Change Pressures
• Mapping the Innovation Process: Air New Zealand
• Product Mapping in the Car Industry
• Strategy Mapping: Learning and Growth Perspective
• The Z Centre for Educational Research
• Organizational Diagnosis Approaches Comparison
• Organizational Interventions Planning
• Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up Change Approaches
• Action Learning and Appreciative Inquiry
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, August 9). Process Mapping: Definition and Benefits. https://ivypanda.com/essays/process-mapping-definition-and-benefits/

"Process Mapping: Definition and Benefits." IvyPanda , 9 Aug. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/process-mapping-definition-and-benefits/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Process Mapping: Definition and Benefits'. 9 August.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Process Mapping: Definition and Benefits." August 9, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/process-mapping-definition-and-benefits/.

1. IvyPanda . "Process Mapping: Definition and Benefits." August 9, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/process-mapping-definition-and-benefits/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Process Mapping: Definition and Benefits." August 9, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/process-mapping-definition-and-benefits/.

• Staff Directory
• Library Policies
• Hege Research Award
• Quaker Archives
• Art Gallery
• Student Support
• Teaching & Learning
• Reserving spaces
• Technology Lending
• Interlibrary Loan
• Course Reserves
• Copyright & Fair Use
• Poster Printing
• Virtual Reference
• Research Guides
• Off-campus access
• Digital Scholarship
• Guilford Sources
• Open Educational Resources
• Quaker Collections
• Digital Collections
• College Archives
• Underground Railroad
• Universities Studying Slavery
• Images & Exhibitions

Service Alert

Hege Library & Learning Technologies

Guide for Thesis Research

• Introduction to the Thesis Process
• Project Planning
• Literature Review
• Theoretical Frameworks
• Research Methodology
• GC Honors Program Theses
• Thesis Submission Instructions This link opens in a new window
• Accessing Guilford Theses from 1898 to 2020 This link opens in a new window

Web Resources

• Developing a Thesis - Harvard College Writing Center
• How to Write Your Thesis - Columbia University
• Navigating the Dissertation - University of Southern California

Mapping Out Your Thesis Project

Good project planning will help you make the most out of your thesis experience. Here are some pointers:

• What are the specific requirements for theses in your department?
• What type of sources will you need?
• How much information will you need?
• What kind of data will you need to collect?
• Start your thesis project with enough time.
• Establish a working schedule.
• Establish benchmarks.
• ​Anticipate difficulties in the research process.
• Give yourself leeway to refine or alter your topic as needed.
• Be willing to try different strategies as you conduct your research.
• Databases you have consulted
• Search queries you have used
• Relevant sources you have located
• Have you found sufficient quality information?
• Have you answered your research questions?
• Can you develop and support a coherent argument with the sources that you have?
• Do you have enough to fulfill your thesis requirements?
• Give yourself time to analyze your sources. Consider how they tie together and help support the points you wish to make.
• Give yourself time to craft your written product. Make sure it effectively communicates the research you have done and the ideas you wish to express.
• Show drafts of your written product to others. Ask for their honest feedback, and take it into account.
• Be very clear about what you wish to say and how you will support it.
• Anticipate possible questions you might get.
• Rehearse as much as possible.
• Enjoy the experience!  
• << Previous: Introduction to the Thesis Process
• Next: Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Jul 22, 2024 10:48 AM
• URL: https://library.guilford.edu/thesis-guide

PhD tool: Map out your PhD

We know that steady everyday progress is a crucial factor in finishing a PhD. In previous posts, we have seen productivity techniques to support us in taking more of these daily steps. Yet, a lot of walking does not necessarily get us anywhere. We need to know that we are actually getting past key reference points, closer to our final destination. In this post, I propose a diagramming exercise to map out key obstacles, milestones and the “everyday fuel” that propels us past them in our journey towards PhD completion.

The idea for this exercise comes from the doctoral and supervisor workshops about progress that we have been doing since 2019, both in Estonia and in Spain. Despite the big distance (geographic and cultural) between these two countries, we noticed a common pattern. Doctoral supervisors that seemed to be “on top of things” in supporting their students to progress towards completing the PhD, mentioned in passing that they had a clear plan, a “ map of the PhD” that they discussed with their students and helped them know how far they were from the destination. This got me thinking: is there a way we can help PhD students make sense and track their progress at a higher level , a sort of “10,000-meter view” of the doctorate?

In a previous post, I have talked about a diagram that helped me (and many other students –now doctors– around my old lab in Spain) to conceptualize, define and refine the main concepts and contributions of the thesis (the CQOCE diagram ). Yet, that diagram provides no idea about the process until those contributions come to fruition. And it says absolutely nothing about the biggest risks and pitfalls to watch out for.

Enter the map of the PhD…

Mapping out the PhD… step by step

The map of the PhD will guide us in the long journey through uncertain terrain that is research. Think of it more like a medieval map, rather than a nice, modern map of roads and cities.

Not the kind of map I'm talking about

A map of this kind has three types of elements: milestones (reference points), obstacles (places to avoid), and fuel stations (inns and villages where we get the energy and nourishment needed to go from one milestone to the next). Below, I illustrate these elements with examples drawn from the workshops, but keep in mind that:

• We need to come up with our own elements, for our own field, research topic and our own personal strengths and weaknesses.
• Even if we brainstorm at the beginning many elements of each kind, it is useful to prioritize and simplify the map so that it contains only the 4-8 most important elements of each kind: the ones we need to focus on the most.

The Milestones

Brainstorm and select what are the most important reference points in the PhD process. These are events or actions that will happen only once or rarely during the doctorate, which are crucial to know that our thesis is going somewhere. Examples could include:

• to write and present the thesis project,
• to complete the literature review of the thesis (including a synthesis of the main gaps detected in it),
• to perform a research/lab process reproducibly,
• presenting our results at a conference,
• designing a study that is considered feasible by the supervisors,
• having your first journal article published,
• having the CQOCE diagram of the thesis be considered final/stable by the supervisors,
• completing a draft of the analytical overview (sometimes called kappa ) of an article-based thesis,
• doing a research stay abroad

… or anything else relevant for our particular thesis. The order of these milestones may or may not be important. The milestones should probably have scientific or learning relevance (rather than being bureaucratic in nature, like the yearly attestation process happening in some doctoral programs, where the contributions/content is not really discussed). Also, try to come up with milestones of different kinds (i.e., do not just put “write article 1”, “write article 2”, … etc.).

Here be Dragons (aka The Obstacles)

Again, we can brainstorm and select the most important, concrete obstacles and challenges that might prevent us from finishing the PhD. These can be internal (i.e., related to our particular personality, tendencies, or the nature of our thesis project) or external (i.e., economic or social factors, or unpredictable but probable events that may influence our progress). A nice way of brainstorming these challenges is to do (alone or with a group of fellow students) a " premortem 1 of our thesis " . Our initial brainstorm can be pared down to the 4-8 challenges that we deem most likely to happen, catastrophic, or difficult for us to overcome. Example obstacles could include:

• Procrastination (internal)
• Too much stress or anxiety (internal)
• Vague or non-existent thesis project (internal)
• Overwork and burnout (internal)
• Poor post-PhD outlook demoralizing us (internal)
• An experiment provides bad results (external)
• Technical problems in running an experiment (external)
• Getting too little (or too much?) guidance/supervision (external)
• Toxic department/laboratory atmosphere (external)
• A global pandemic cancels our research stay (external)

So far, we have been talking about clearly meaningful but infrequent events that either give us a big push forward… or send us down a cliff. Yet, between these milestones months apart, there is the everyday . The PhD is a long-distance race, and such distances are covered one step at a time, day after day, getting up and doing more of the right things and less of the not-so-good stuff.

Following the medieval journey metaphor, I see these everyday actions as the inns at the end of a day’s march, providing a bed and a dinner, which enable us to recover and continue walking the next day. These are much more frequent, often smaller, actions or habits we take on and do every day… or things we put in our “not-to-do list” . Be it through doing or not doing them, they help us avoid the obstacles and make sure we hit the milestones. I’ll say it again, these can be very personal.

People often focus this “fuel” part too much on events that they cannot control . That sort of fuel is a sure recipe for getting stranded in the middle of nowhere. An example could be “get a paper accepted”, as opposed to “submit a paper we are happy with” – the latter being much more under our control. While there can be a certain element of chaos or randomness in getting to milestones, and in the obstacles that pop up on the way, our fuel should be as much as possible under our control (e.g., focusing on our own behavior, rather than other people’s actions or judgements).

Also, make sure that fuel is frequent enough: daily is best for developing habits, but weekly could also work. If we decide to leave a less-frequent fuel piece in the map, we can think of it as a sort of “occasional turbo boost ”… we still need most of our fuel to come from more conventional, frequently-available sources.

Example fuel items may include:

• (Feedback during) Regular thesis-oriented meetings with supervisors,
• Discussing our work with external researchers,
• Writing results reports after each study,
• Reading research in our area regularly and writing syntheses/reflections about them,
• Writing new concepts regularly in our lab notebook,
• Solving particular technical problems,
• Learning new lab techniques,
• Writing regularly,
• Teaching others a method we know,
• Taking time off with family/friends regularly,
• Any habits related to exercise, good sleep or nutrition

A few additional notes on the mapping process

That’s it! Now we have all we need to start mapping out our PhD. Do it using pen and paper, or copy this Google Drawings template I created.

Example map of the PhD template

Update (23.06.2022): We have now added a “map of the thesis” template you can copy to our PhD Toolkit (under the “Conceptualizing your dissertation” section).

A few more ideas about how I would go about doing it:

• We can do this exercise alone, but it would be even better to do it together with other PhD students in our area/lab/department (that’s what we do in the workshops I mentioned at the outset).
• Every research area (and sub-area, and sub-community) is different. Also, every person is different: we all have different strengths and weaknesses that may play out during the PhD. Hence, even if we do a map together with others, we may want to tweak it for our own particular case later on.
• No matter how good our initial map of the PhD is, it will probably benefit from suggestions and feedback from colleagues and supervisors (especially, more experienced researchers that have seen many doctoral processes in our area). We could show them the whole map, or just ask a few questions about its elements: what is the most common reason you have seen PhD students fail? what habits helped get you through your PhD? what would you say are the most important milestones in a PhD in our field? Etc.
• The map is just another tool to help us reflect about the PhD. I would use it sparingly, maybe just at the beginning of the PhD (or in the first meetings with a new PhD student, if you are a supervisor), or in less-frequent reviews and self-reflections (e.g., once a semester). If we focus on this goal-oriented view too much or too frequently, it runs the risk of making us excessively obsessed with the destination… while the PhD is also a process to enjoy in its own right!

We could take the map metaphor further (what would be the equivalent of alternative routes? or scenic spots? or …), but this is the simplest exercise I could come up with that still provides a complete idea of the dissertation process.

Just do it. See if it helps you decide what to focus on for the next stretch of the way.

Did you try out this exercise? Did you do it alone or with fellow students? Let us know how it went (you can even share links to your resulting maps), in the comments area below!

Header image by Wikimedia Commons

Klein, G. (2007). Performing a project premortem. Harvard Business Review , 85 (9), 18–19. ↩︎

Luis P. Prieto

Luis P. is a Ramón y Cajal research fellow at the University of Valladolid (Spain), investigating learning technologies, especially learning analytics. He is also an avid learner about doctoral education and supervision, and he's the main author at the A Happy PhD blog.

Google Scholar profile