The development of a process mapping methodology for The Process

Document Sample
The development of a process mapping methodology for The Process Powered By Docstoc
					The development of a process mapping methodology for The Process
Protocol Level 2
A. Fleming
Institute for Social Research, University of Salford, UK
A. Lee
Institute for Social Research, University of Salford, UK
Professor R. Cooper
Institute for Social Research, University of Salford, UK
Professor G. Aouad
School of Construction and Property Management, University of Salford, UK

ABSTRACT: The Generic Design and Construction Process Protocol (GDCPP) was created by the Univer-
sity of Salford in 1998. It is a high-level process map that aims to provide a framework to help companies
achieve an improved design and construction process. Furthermore, industry interest and acceptance of the
framework provided the impetus for further funding to continue the research for an additional three years. The
first project concentrated on the high level protocol, and the second aims to develop the sub processes of the
original high level map. This paper describes the methodology used to develop the sub processes and explains
why a bespoke modeling methodology was developed rather than using the standard process modeling tech-
niques. The methodology enables all of the information relating to the sub processes to be represented as a se-
ries of process maps and when viewed holistically, presents an integrated generic decomposition of the proc-
esses on the high level map.


   1 INTRODUCTION                                          drive the process rather than the function as in a se-
                                                           quential approach. Luck and Newcombe (1996) ar-
    The British Property Federation Survey (British        gue that traditional roles and responsibilities change
Property Federation, 1997) identified that one third       from project to project, often resulting in ambiguity
of major UK clients are dissatisfied with contractor       and confusion; the use of zones potentially reduces
and consultant performance. Similarly, The Egan
                                                           this confusion and enhances communication and co-
Report, Rethinking Construction (Egan, 1998),
stated that the industry also suffers from low and un-     ordination (Cooper et al, 1998). The zones consist of
reliable profitability, insufficient research & devel-     Development Management, Project Management,
opment, and a lack of customer focus. Moreover,            Resource Management, Design Management, Pro-
these problems typically relate to the industry's ad-      duction Management, Facilities Management, Health
versarial nature, and a profound co-ordination and         and Safety, Statutory and Legal Management, and
communication system between the parties is much           Process Management, and are located down the left-
needed.                                                    hand column of the protocol (see Figure 1). The Ac-
   The Generic Design and Construction Process             tivity Zones contain high-level processes spanning
Protocol (GDCPP) was created by the University of          the duration of a project from inception, through de-
Salford in 1998 in an attempt to improve the pre-          sign and construction, and including operation and
vailing situation (http://www.processprotocol.com).        maintenance. The responsibility for completing the
It is a high-level process map that aims to provide a      processes may lie with one Activity Zone or be
framework to help companies achieve an improved            shared.
design and construction process. The map draws                Furthermore, industry interest and acceptance
from principles developed within the manufacturing         provided the impetus for further funding to continue
industry that include stakeholder involvement,             the research under the moniker Process Protocol
teamwork and feedback, and reconstructs the design         Level 2. One of the primary deliverables of the Proc-
and construction team in terms of Activity Zones           ess Protocol Level 2 is to create sub process maps of
rather than in disciplines to create a cross-functional    the eight Activity Zones that exist within the original
team. These Activity Zones are multi-functional and        Generic Design and Construction Process Protocol
                                                           model (Kagioglou et al, 1998).
may consist of a network of disciplines to enact
                                                              The maps should provide an increased level of
specific task of the project, allowing the ‘product’ to    detail and description than the existing GDCPP
                                 Activity Zone                                  Phase                   Phase Review




              Figure 1 Generic Design and Construction Process Protocol

Map. Moreover, it still should remain generic and                                                     The methodology stated that ten persons were to
adhere to the principles of the GDCPP. The extra                                                  be interviewed for each Activity Zone. Key persons
level of detail may require the inclusion of sub de-                                              were identified and contacted to gain co-operation.
liverables as well as sub processes.                                                              The primary purpose of the interviews was to extract
                                                                                                  the working method/process of the interviewed
                                                                                                  companies. This information would then be used to
2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY                                                                            identify innovative and effective practice whilst also
                                                                                                  monitoring processes and practices that were not ef-
The methodology for the Level 2 project (Figure 2.)                                               fective.
commenced with literature searches of key authors,                                                    Development of the sub processes for the activity
texts and relevant research projects. A written lit-                                              zones was based on the GDCPP guide (Kagioglou, et
erature review was prepared and disseminated                                                      al, 1998). The GDCPP map was examined horizon-
amongst the project participants. The literature re-                                              tally across the activity zones. This was performed
                                                                                                  process by process in a horizontal fashion. At all
view provided the foundation of knowledge required
                                                                                                  times the context of the phase was considered. This
by the researchers to familiarise themselves with the                                             formed a skeletal structure that helped extricate the
subject matter and to interview key persons effec-                                                relevant information from the research material that
tively.                                                                                           had been collected. Once the information had been
                                                                                                  collected, analysed, structured and presented in a
                                             Verified           Validated                         logical format, the next task would be design a sub
   Drafting             Issue for             Model              Model              Final
    Phase                Review               Phase              Review            Version        process map template that that would effectively
Consulted:           Review internally   External review;      Industrial         Final Review:
                                                                                                  present the information.
Process Protocol I   among project team: cross activity zone   workshops (2):     Submit for
Interviews           Amend               interface check:      Present            Publishing
Literature           Approve             Amend                 Review
Existing processes                       Approve               Amend
                                                               Approve                            3 SUB PROCESS MAP DEFINITION

                                                                                                  A key requirement of the process maps was that
Figure 2 Sub Process Map Development Methodology                                                  prior understanding of process modelling techniques
                                                                                                  should not be a pre-requisite to understanding the
                                                                                                  maps. Process modelling tools such as the IDEF
                                                                                                  family were considered but felt to be too complex
                                                                                                  for certain members of the targeted user group. The
                                                                                                  key was in the representation (Cheung, 1998) of the
process and it was felt that none of the tools avail-     fore in order to simplify the content of the maps and
able met the project’s requirements. Therefore it was     to avoid repetition activities were grouped together
necessary to develop an original process map tem-         logically. Depending on whether these processes oc-
plate.                                                    curred at the beginning of a phase, during a phase or
   After investigation of Visio a diagramming tool it     at the end of a phase would determine the standard
was decided to use it to design and create the sub        group in which they would reside.
process maps. Visio had the ability to attribute in-          A further workshop was held which was notable
formation to objects within its diagrams and store        for two main outcomes. The first introduced the
this information within its own database. This led to     principle of process ownership. All of the processes
the possibility of exporting data to other applications   would have an activity zone having overall owner-
thus increasing the usefulness of the maps. The           ship of a process to ease the co-ordination of a proc-
number of maps in a series is dependant on the level      ess. The second was the introduction of a new proc-
of detail attributed to a process and the number of       ess symbol that illustrated which activity zones were
processes in the Activity Zone.                           participants to the process/sub process. This solved
   A map was created that represented all of the in-      the problem of how to show intra-activity zone proc-
formation that the project required and was formally      esses. A single glance would now indicate the origin
presented to an industrial workshop and condition-        and ownership of a process and what activity zones
ally approved. Feedback about the maps format was         participated in the process thus validating Activity
received. Internal development workshops were held        Zone interfaces. It was agreed to incorporate the new
to refine the map. Issues arose from the workshop         symbol onto the developing process map template
regarding the modelling of the sub process maps.          together with the activity groups.
There was a lack of information relating to the dif-          An industrial workshop was held to gain indus-
ferent levels of process modeling. For instance, what     trial validation of the sub process maps. This work-
criteria is used to distinguish between a level two or    shop considered the modeling rules and conventions
three process. It was decided that the distinction is a   used to define and model the high level processes
subtle one that relies on the experience and judge-       into sub processes. A total decomposition modeling
ment of the process modeler.                              technique was adopted to illustrate the decomposi-
   The map produced was discussed and the consen-         tion of a process and its sub processes. Logical de-
sus was that it needed to be simplified. The content      pendency is represented between processes when
of the maps was becoming complex and methods to           they exist.
reduce this complexity were considered whilst still
showing all the detail required. A decision was made
to only show level 1 deliverables.                        4 Modelling Rules
   Processes that were common to all or some of the
activity zones were beginning to be identified and        The aim of the modelling work is to provide a visual
considered as generic process components. An issue        representation of the sub processes of the activity
that remained unsolved at this stage was how to il-       zones of the Process Protocol map. This is achieved
lustrate the interaction of these intra activity zone     by illustrating 'what' are the sub-processes of the
components. Process inputs and outputs were indi-         high level processes identified in the Process Proto-
cated at this stage by an arrow headed line and la-       col map and 'how' these sub-processes interact. As a
beled. This was considered to be a temporary meas-        result it will be possible to provide models for indi-
ure and would be improved.                                vidual phases.

3.1 Information structure on the maps                     4.1 Modelling conventions
                                                          This section describes the main convention types
   A further workshop was held and the debate fo-         used for the modelling of the sub-processes of the
cused on the distribution of the content of the maps      Process Protocol map. The main elements of the
with respect to the validity of the content and           template include:
whether it appeared at the correct phase and in the        • Phase start up activities
correct sequence. The detail of the level two and          • Map title including phase number, phase title,
three processes was considered as was the level in            and Activity Zone name
which the process should belong. Should the process        • The generic top level processes, the two levels of
be moved up to level two or down to level three or            its decomposition and their respective processes
excluded completely. This allowed the team to fa-          • Ongoing activities
miliarise themselves with the content of the maps.         • End of phase activities
   This workshop saw the introduction of phase             • Lexicon
grouping. Previously it had been noted that activities
were often repeated through several phases. There-
• Map title block including author, version, phase                            For clarity, inputs to a process are only shown
  number and title, etc.                                                   where they form a logical dependency from another
                                                                           process at that level on the same diagram. All other
   The phase start-up, ongoing and end of phase ac-                        inputs from different phases or Activity Zones are
tivities are illustrated on separate process maps.                         not shown, but are traceable through the modelling
They represent activities common to many Activity                          database.
Zones and represent activities undertaken for most
phases.
                                                                           4.2.2 Outputs and deliverables

4.2 Process representation                                                 All processes by definition have an output. Some of
                                                                           these can be called ‘deliverables’, where the infor-
The processes and sub-processes are denoted by us-                         mation is in a form (or document) that should be
ing the symbol shown in figure 3, which includes:                          named for easy reference and use in other processes.
• Process owner(s)                                                         The outputs to be named as deliverables may be de-
• Process name (potentially including some de-                             fined later in the Process Protocol II Project.
    scription for clarification where required)
• An indication of likely/potential participation                          The maps only illustrate the level 1 deliverables for
    from other activity zones in the process                               simplicity and space purposes. The outputs from all
                                                                           level 2 & 3 processes will be included in the model-
                                                                           ling database, which will eventually lead in its inclu-
                                       Activity Zone(s)
                                                                           sion in the process toolkit.
                                       which own the process,
                                       irrespective of level
                                                                           4.3 Process levels

                           P r o c e s s O w n e r (s )
                                                                           The maps contain three levels that are independent,
                                                                           in that there are no interactions between them.
                             P rocess N am e                               These are defined as follows figure 7 for an illustra-
                                                                           tion:
                   D ev        P roj        R es          D es
                  P ro d       FM          H&S            P roc            •   Level 1 contains the high level processes and
                                                                               their deliverables as identified in the Process
                                                                               Protocol Map
             Participation from other AZs                                  •   Level II contains the sub-processes of the main
                                                                               process at level I (i.e. what the Level I process
  Figure 3 Process Symbol                                                      consists of) and how those sub-processes interact
                                                                               with each other (i.e. how is the Level I process
                                                                               undertaken)
   Furthermore, inputs and outputs from a process                          •    Level III contains the sub-processes of the proc-
can be shown as illustrated in figure 6.                                       esses at level II (what the Level II process con-
                                                                               sists of) and how those sub-processes interact
                                                                               with each other (how is the Level II process un-
                                                                               dertaken)
                                 Process
                                 Owner(s)
      Input                   Process Name                        Output      Other attributes related to the process levels in-
                                                                           clude:
                                                                           • The three levels are separated by a black line
                                                                           • A single line connects a process at one level with
                 Dev          Proj         Res            Des
                 Prod         FM           H&S            Proc
                                                                               its group of sub-processes at the level below to
  Figure 4 Inputs and Outputs to the Process                                   denote decomposition as shown in figure 7.
                                                                           • Processes can have a logical dependency within
                                                                               a level and this is shown by an arrow as illus-
  Figure 4 Inputs and Outputs to the Process                                   trated in figure 8.
                                                                           • The participation in a process is shown in the ta-
                                                                               ble at the bottom of the process symbol and
4.2.1 Inputs                                                                   where such participation does not occur the re-
                                                                               spective table cell will be knocked back i.e.
                                                                               faded in relation to the other cells.
          LEVEL 1
                                                                                               P r o c e s s O w n e r (s )


                                                                                                 P r oc es s N am e                                                        D e live ra b le

                                                                                      D ev         P r oj       R es           D es
                                                                                     P ro d         FM          H&S            P r oc
          LEVEL 2




                                         P r o c e s s O w n e r (s )                        P r o c e s s O w n e r (s )                        P r o c e s s O w n e r (s )


                                           P rocess N am e                                     P rocess N am e                                     P rocess N am e


                                 D ev        P roj        R es           D es       D ev         P roj        R es            D es      D ev         P roj        R es            D es
                             P ro d          FM          H&S             P roc      P ro d       FM          H&S            P roc       P ro d       FM          H&S            P roc
          LEVEL 3




                                          P r o c e s s O w n e r (s )                         P r o c e s s O w n e r (s )                        P r o c e s s O w n e r (s )


                                             P r oc es s N am e                                  P r oc es s N am e                                  P r oc es s N am e


                                  D ev         P r oj       R es          D es        D ev         P r oj       R es           D es       D ev         P r oj       R es           D es
                                 P ro d        FM          H&S            P r oc     P ro d         FM          H&S            P r oc    P ro d         FM         H&S             P r oc




                                         Figure 5 Three Levels of Process Decomposition


                                                                                                                       6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
                                                  Logical dependency                                                   This research is funded by the EPSRC through the
                                                                                                                       Innovative Manufacturing Initiative. Much of the re-
                                                                                                                       search underpinned this paper has been conducted by
         Process                                                              Process                                  the Process Protocol research team.
         Owner(s)                                                             Owner(s)
        Process                                                             Process
        Name                                                                Name

 Dev    Proj        Res   Des                               Dev             Proj   Res         Des
 Prod   FM          H&    Proc                              Prod            FM     H&          Proc
                                                                                                                       REFERENCES
                    S                                                              S
                                                                                                                       Ball, M. (1988) “Rebuilding Construction: Economic Change
                                                                                                                          in the British Construction Industry”. T. J. Press, Padstow.
                                                                                                                       Banwell, H. (1964) “Report of the Committee on the Placing
  Figure 6 Illustrating Logical Dependency                                                                                and Management of Contracts for Building and Civil Engi-
                                                                                                                          neering Works”. H. M. S. O.
5 CONCLUSION                                                                                                           British Property Federation. (1983) “Manual of the BPF Sys-
                                                                                                                          tem for Building Design and Construction”. British Prop-
    As mentioned earlier in this paper, the develop-                                                                      erty Federation, London.
                                                                                                                       Champy, J. (1995) “Reengineering Management: The Mandate
ment of sub process maps for the Process Protocol                                                                         for New Leadership”. Harper Collins, London.
activity zones was a primary deliverable of the Proc-                                                                  Cooper, R. G. (1990) “Stage-Gate System: A new Tool for
ess Protocol Level 2 project. The aim was to produce                                                                      Managing New Products”. Business Horizons, May-June,
sub process maps that would convey detailed design                                                                        pp. 44 – 54.
and construction process information to all the par-                                                                   Cooper, R, Kagioglou, M, ,Aouad, G, Hinks, J, Sheath, D
                                                                                                                          (1998), "The development of a generic design and con-
ticipants in the process. Once the research had de-
                                                                                                                          struction process”. European Conference, Product Data
fined the content of the maps it was then necessary                                                                       Technology (PDT) Days 1998, Building Research Estab-
to develop an infrastructure to support the content.                                                                      lishment, March 1998, Watford, UK.
Therefore a process map template and set of model-                                                                     Davenport, T. (1993) “Process Innovation: Re-engineering
ling rules were developed to effectively support the                                                                      Work through Information Technology”. Harvard Business
presentation of the processes. The eight activity                                                                         School Press, Boston, MA.
                                                                                                                       Egan, J. (1998) “Rethinking Construction”. Report form the
zones thus have an effective medium of representa-                                                                        Construction Task Force, Department of the Environment,
tion either holistically or separately.                                                                                   Transport and Regions, UK.
                                                                                                                       Hammer, M. & Champy, J. (1997) 5th edition. “Reengineering
                                                                                                                          the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution”.
                                                                                                                          Nicholas Brealey, London.
Kagioglou, M. (1999) “Adapting Manufacturing Project Proc-
   esses into Construction: A Methodology”. Unpublished
   PhD thesis, University of Salford.
Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R., Aouad, G., Hinks, J., Sexton, M. &
   Sheath, D. (1998) “Final Report: Generic Design and Con-
   struction Process Protocol”. The University of Salford,
   Salford.
Kagioglou, M. Cooper, R. Aouad, G. Hinks, J. Sexton, M. and
   Sheath D (1998), “A Generic Guide to the Design and
   Construction Process Protocol”, University of Salford
Latham, M. (1994). “Constructing the Team”. H.M.S.O.
Luck R. & Newcombe R. (1996). “The case for the integration
   of the project participants’ activities within a construction
   project environment”. The Organization and Management
   of Cosntruction: Shaping theory and practice (Vol 2);
   Langford, D. A. & Retik, A.(eds); E.&F.N. Spon.
RIBA (1991), “Architect’s Handbook of Practice Manage-
   ment”. 4th edition. RIBA.
RIBA. (1997), “RIBA Plan of Work for the Design Team Op-
   eration”. (4th edition). RIBA Publications, London.
Sheath, D. M, Woolley, H, Cooper, R, Hinks, J. & Aouad, G.
   (1996), “A Process for Change – the Development of a Ge-
   neric Design and Construction Process Protocol for the UK
   Construction Industry”. Proceedings of InCIT ’96, Austra-
   lia.
Yen Cheung (1998), “Process analysis techniques and tools
   for business improvements”, Business Process Management
   Vol. 4 No.4. 1998, pp.274-290

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:267
posted:3/8/2010
language:English
pages:6
Description: The development of a process mapping methodology for The Process