Tips for process documentation: Documenting different types of processes differently?

Who is right?

First of all, it should be noted that processes in companies are different. “Not all processes are created equal” — and that's a good thing. Processes fulfill different purposes, they are implemented at different rates, carried out by different people, have different requirements and pursue different development goals.

If you follow Prof. Dr. Jan vom Brocke, you can differentiate between processes in terms of their frequency and variability. Frequency describes the frequency with which a process is carried out: Some processes are carried out several times an hour, others at irregular monthly intervals. Variability describes the degree to which a process is or should be adaptable. Some processes are carried out in very the same way from time to time, and some are practiced differently each time. This is also often referred to as process variance.

If you look at the two characteristics of frequency and variability as axes of a 2x2 matrix, the result is four quadrants, each of which can be assigned a specific type of process.

Prof. Dr. Jan vom Brocke names and characterizes the quadrants/process types as follows:

>> Reliability: Processes that take place rarely (= low frequency) and are implemented in a very similar way (= low variability).

Example: The preparation of annual financial statements only takes place once a year and requires very reliable, standardized processing. The procedure for preparing the annual financial statements of one year differs little or no from the procedure for preparing the annual financial statements for the following year.

>> Performance: Processes that take place very frequently (= high frequency) and are implemented in a very similar/same way (= low variability).

Example: The series production steps of automobiles take place hundreds of times a day and require the exact same processing of all individual cases.

>>Innovation: Processes that rarely take place (= low frequency) and are implemented in very different ways (= high variability).

Example: Research processes rarely take place. In individual cases, however, they require very precise, variable processing.

>> Agility: Processes that take place very frequently (= high frequency) and are implemented in very different ways (= high variability).

Example: Service requests are processed very frequently and often requires individual treatment from case to case, as inquiries are received through different channels and a wide variety of solutions are required.

Should all processes still be documented in the same way?

Against the background of the four different process types, the question is how to document different processes. Should they be documented immediately, despite the differences in their frequency and variability, if you are striving for an interactive management system?

Our answer is yes. It is advisable to make human-centred process documentation — i.e. process documentation from and for people — available in the same place and in basically the same format. The consistency in process documentation helps consumers find their way around quickly. You can find the information you are looking for more quickly, consume it without recurring hurdles and simply process it further. Fundamental consistency also reduces the fear of creating process documentation or enriching it with your own knowledge, because it is easier to systematically contribute your knowledge through a uniform target image for process documentation. You don't have to worry about the right type of documentation and the content comes to the fore. Uniformly documented processes provide users with easy orientation, enable efficient work and thus mostly indirectly increase the interactivity of the management system.

How can process documentation still meet the requirements of the various process types?

In addition to the basic consistency of process documentation, for example through tabular notation, the differentiation of the four process types can help to decide what type of information is to be documented and how detailed the process description should look.

Due to their low frequency, reliability processes pose an increased risk of losing expert knowledge from process execution to process execution, for example due to employee turnover. Therefore, care should be taken intensively to ensure that the existence and location of the process documentation is known to the process participants. In practice, it is advisable to supplement the process documentation with the experience of the last three to five implementations, for example through micro-process audits — this ensures that important (experience) knowledge is not lost and process reliability is achieved.

performance processes are characterized by a (hopefully) high level of automation. Because of the high frequency, one should aim for a particularly low degree of waste of the process. This means that process changes and process roles in particular should be clearly defined and thought through and documented as precisely as possible. Otherwise, you risk a large number of faulty process executions. Typically, it is also worthwhile to use data-based analysis techniques such as process mining for performance processes that are not yet fully automated. This makes it possible to identify further standardization potential.

Innovation processes are rarely performed and are highly variable. It is therefore important to give them a basic structure as part of the process documentation without restricting process execution in advance. Basic standards should therefore be defined in process documentation. In practice, innovation processes can often be divided into several phases, at the end of which a specific decision or a specific result must be achieved. The process description should therefore clearly state whether a process step is mandatory or optional. All details of process steps are sometimes difficult to define in advance for innovation processes. Innovation processes are often easy to digitize as checklists in which standardized process steps are suggested. This benefits both from experience from past process implementation and continues to enable the flexible implementation of the process steps necessary in this case.

About Agility processes is often cursed because they occur frequently and each time differently. The first, often justified impulse is to develop them into performance processes through standardization. Since this standardization cannot always be implemented effectively, it is important that process participants are quickly empowered to make concrete and effective decisions. The process documentation should therefore clearly state the minimum requirements of the process. The variability of the process can be made manageable by showing options for action. This is in contrast to documentation of reliability processes, which always includes clear process guidelines.

conclusion

Processes should be documented as uniformly as possible, but at the same time as individually and beneficially: The process documentation must serve the process type. The differentiation between the four process types of reliability, performance, innovation and agility processes helps to create process documentation suitable for the process. This can significantly increase the added value of the management system for process participants.

‍