The Process Map: All of a Company’s Workflows on One Page

Why do so many companies lack an overview of their own workflows?

In a growing company, workflows emerge bit by bit. Sales has its path to the quote, the workshop its path to production, accounting its path to the monthly close. Some of them are described, most are not. What is missing is the picture on which all of them stand side by side. Without this picture, nobody knows how many workflows there are at all, which of them matter to the customer, and where one ends and the next begins.

This becomes a problem at the latest when a company wants to digitalize, reorganize responsibilities, or convince a key account of its quality. This leads to the guiding question of this article: How does a small company create a process map that shows all workflows on one page and serves as a tool in daily work?

To answer it, we first clarify what a process map is and what it is not. Then we present the thinking model of the value chain and look at how research organizes processes. This is followed by two perspectives on structure, a 90-minute guide, an example, and a step for this week.

Whoever knows only individual workflows improves islands. Whoever has the map sees the missing bridges.

What is a process map?

A process map is a representation of all of a company’s essential workflows on a single page. It shows which workflows exist, how they are connected, and who is responsible for them. It does not show the steps within a workflow. In research, such an order is called a process architecture: the framework by which an organization’s individual workflows are structured and delimited from one another.

An analogy clarifies the difference from other representations. The process map is a city’s transit network map: it shows all lines and transfers, but no street and no house number. The individual process pages are the district maps. Whoever has only district maps finds their way around the neighborhood, but not around the city.

How a process page with eight fixed fields is structured is described in the guide to the one-page method. How a single workflow, such as the sales process, is drawn with stages and handovers is shown in the article on how to visualize your sales process. The map sits above both and refers to them.

The thinking model: the value chain and three kinds of processes

In 1985, Michael Porter introduced the value chain, a model that still shapes most process maps today. He distinguished two kinds of activities. Primary activities create value directly for the customer, from inbound logistics through production to sales and service. Support activities such as human resources, procurement, or technology create no direct customer value but make the primary ones possible in the first place. A company’s margin results from how these activities work together.

For process maps, a division into three kinds of workflows has become established from this.

A second idea belongs here. Geary Rummler and Alan Brache (1995) pointed out that an organization chart shows the departments but not how work flows from one to another. In their observation, most problems arise precisely there, in the white space between the boxes of the organization chart. A process map that draws core processes across departments makes this white space visible. Why information gets lost at such transitions is described in the article on interfaces between departments.

What research shows about organizing processes

Dijkman, Vanderfeesten, and Reijers (2016) systematically examined how to design a process architecture. In the literature, they found 48 approaches that fall into five groups. Goal-based approaches derive workflows from the company’s goals. Action-based approaches start from agreements between parties. Object-based approaches organize by the things being processed, such as order, invoice, or complaint. Reference model-based approaches adopt an existing industry model. Function-based approaches structure by the company’s functions, such as sales, production, finance. The authors cite Porter’s distinction between primary and support processes as an example of a higher-level structure.

To see what is used in practice, the authors surveyed 39 practitioners and analyzed four process architectures from companies. Both routes led to the same result: preferred were approaches based on reference models, functions, or processed objects. And practitioners combined several approaches rather than choosing one. The study comes from the context of larger organizations and process modeling, and the number of respondents is small. For a small company, the message is still a relief. There is no single correct structure. A usable map may be pragmatic.

By department or by the customer’s path? Two perspectives

There are two obvious ways to structure a map. The first follows the departments: sales, workshop, administration, each with its workflows. It is drawn quickly, everyone recognizes themselves, and the owners almost emerge by themselves. Its disadvantage is that it repeats the organization chart and makes the transitions between departments disappear.

The second follows the customer’s path: the core processes run as a chain from left to right, from the first inquiry to payment and aftercare, across departments. It shows the white space described by Rummler and Brache but requires more coordination, because one workflow touches several departments and still needs exactly one owner.

For most small companies, I consider a combination right, which matches the finding of Dijkman and colleagues. The core processes are drawn along the customer’s path because that is where the handovers that cost money lie. Management and support processes are structured by function because they usually stay within one department. This way the map shows both: the flow to the customer and the responsibilities in-house.

How to create a process map in 90 minutes

The map is best created in a group of three to five people who know the company from different areas. You need a wall or a digital whiteboard and cards for the workflows.

1. Collect workflows (20 minutes)

   Each person writes down all workflows they know, one per card, named with a noun and a verb, such as “prepare quote” or “run payroll.”

2. Consolidate (15 minutes)

   Merge duplicate cards and bundle cards that are too small into one workflow. The target is 12 to 20 workflows. Something one person does alone in a few minutes is usually a step, not a workflow.

3. Arrange core processes (20 minutes)

   Lay out the workflows that create value directly for the customer as a chain from left to right, from inquiry to aftercare following delivery.

4. Assign management and support (15 minutes)

   Place management processes in a row above, support processes in a row below.

5. Enter owners and status (20 minutes)

   Name an owner for each workflow and mark it: described, not described, often faulty.

A common mistake is too much precision. The map needs no arrows between all workflows and no standard symbols. It only has to answer two questions: which workflows exist, and who is responsible?

Example: the process map of a trade business

The following example shows the map of a trade business with 18 employees. The workflows and owners are freely chosen and must be adapted to your own company.

The map immediately shows where work begins. The workflow from order to work preparation is not described and is considered error-prone. It also lies exactly at a transition between sales and execution. According to the rule from the one-page method, what is described first is what occurs frequently, often goes wrong, or depends on a single person. The second applies here. What belongs in this handover is described in the guide to optimizing order processing.

With the number of runs, the map can be turned into a calculation. Whoever knows how often a workflow occurs and how long it takes can roughly estimate its costs, as the guide on how to calculate process costs shows.

Conclusion: what a process map achieves

We began by asking
a small company creates a process map that shows all workflows on one page and serves as a tool in daily work. The answer begins with the thinking model: Porter’s value chain separates the workflows that create value directly for the customer from those that manage and support. Drawn along the customer’s path, the core processes show the transitions where, according to Rummler and Brache, most problems arise.

As shown, there is no single correct structure, and practitioners combine approaches. For a small company, 12 to 20 workflows, one owner each, and a marking of which workflows are to be described first are enough. The map is thus not a chart for the audit but the work list for the next improvements. The sober observation is: a process map is finished when every workflow has a name and an owner, not when it looks good.

What you can do this week

1. Invite three to five people from different areas to a 90-minute session.
2. Collect all workflows on cards and bundle them into 12 to 20.
3. Lay out the core processes as a chain from first contact to aftercare, management above, support below.
4. Name an owner for each workflow and mark its status.
5. Choose the one workflow that is frequent and often goes wrong, and describe it next on a process page.