The Process Map
Doug Sanders, Bill Ross, and Jim Coleman
Key Words: Process Map, Flowchart, Cause and Effect Diagram, Fishbone Diagram,
Ishikawa Diagram, Process Improvement, process investigation, Statistical Process
Control (SPC), Design of Experiments (DOE), Components of Variation.
Abstract
This paper describes a modification of Process Flowcharts and Cause and Effect
Diagrams that are used in conjunction with other tools and techniques to facilitate
and document process investigation and improvement.
Published Quality Engineering 1999 11(4) Sanders 865.448.3002
© 2000 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. Ross (303) 494-8521
The Process Map
Six Sigma Associates
Introduction
The pressure to continuously improve an organization’s products and services requires
management behavior and engineering decisions that reflect a knowledge of process and
product performance as never before. Understanding and managing the causal relationship
between process variables and product performance is not only desirable; it is a competitive
necessity.
Process study might then be defined as the acquisition of knowledge about process
parameters in order to be able to manipulate process outputs in a predictable fashion with
minimum variation (1 - The Analytic Examination Of Time Dependent Variance
Components). This work will necessarily include investigation of potential sources of
variation which may be present in a process in order to understand their impact on process
outputs or product performance. Statistical Process Control (SPC) and Design of Experiments
(DOE) are powerful techniques to assist in rapidly acquiring this knowledge. Of course,
process and engineering knowledge provide the basis for these tools.
Tools used in process study include Cause and Effect (C/E) Diagrams and Flowcharts.
The C/E Diagram provides assistance in the identification and prioritization of potential
sources of variation for investigation (possibly with Control Charts using various rational
subgrouping plans and DOEs). The Flowchart is a graphical tool used to help suppliers,
process owners, operators, engineers and customers understand how the steps in a process
function together to deliver a product or service. Once created, a flowchart is an invaluable
tool for communicating, training, assisting in the identification of value-added and nonvalue-
added steps, and analyzing of product flow issues. The Team Handbook discusses four
commonly used flowcharts and the C/E Diagram (2 - The Team Handbook, Peter R. Scholtes,
Joiner Associates).
Flowcharts facilitate process investigation, but typically do not provide insight into the
mechanisms driving process levels and variability. On the other hand, the potential causal
structure captured in the C/E Diagram is not tied to location in the process, nor is the current
state of process knowledge depicted. Seldom is the full potential of the combination of
2 of 11
Doug Sanders (865) 448 3007
Bill Ross (303) 494-8521
Six Sigma Associates
Process Flowcharts and C/E Diagrams realized. Neither of these two tools indicate whether
the potential sources of variation are currently being managed or if they can be managed at
all. A further drawback lies in the fact that they typically do not become living documents,
updated as new knowledge is acquired concerning the causal structure of the process. The
shortcomings of the C/E Diagram and process flowchart potentially inhibit the investigation
and management of the causal structure.
The Process Map is a tool that displays current process knowledge and is a supplement to
many of the traditional process investigation tools. It enhances the usual flowcharts with the
type of knowledge captured in C/E Diagrams. The apriori construction of the Process Map
can dramatically increase the effectiveness of statistical techniques by facilitating the critical
thinking required to gain and utilize an understanding of the relationship between process
variables and product characteristics. As a working document, the Process Map is used to
continually capture the existing state of process knowledge and the means of management of
that knowledge.
Terminology
The intent of process study is to develop a deeper understanding o f the transformation o f
process inputs and variables (x’s) into end-product characteristics (Y’s), or in matrix notation,
Y = f(x).
At each step in the process, the transformation of the process parameters (x’s) to end-
product characteristics may be monitored by in-process outputs (y’s). When the choice is
made to monitor in-process outputs, it is usually to make sure that any problems with the
product are detected and corrected before substantial time and money have been invested. In
reality, these in-process outputs are a function of the process parameters. In other words, y = f
(x) and Y = g (y) = f (x).
Further insight into these functions can be gained by classifying each of the x’s into one
of two categories: controllable parameters and noise parameters. If a process parameter is set
at a certain value and maintained within a particular range it is considered controllable.
Examples of controllable process parameters include the following: feed and speed for a
3 of 11
The Process Map
Six Sigma Associates
machining process, oven temperature and cure time in a gluing operation, gas pressure and
purity in a plasma cleaning operation, the number of tellers working per shift at a bank, or the
time a burger is allowed to remain under a heat lamp at a restaurant before disposal. In each
instance, the process parameter can be set and maintained around a desired value. A
parameter that cannot be, or is preferably not, set and maintained around a desired value due
to cost, physical, or other constraints is considered noise. Examples of noise parameters
include the following: ambient temperature for a machining process, relative humidity in a
gluing operation, the number and complexity of transactions per customer at a bank, or the
time between purchase and consumption of a burger at a restaurant. In each instance, the
parameter is difficult or costly to control.
It should be noted that a particular factor may be treated differently across processes. For
instance, ambient temperature and humidity might initially be considered noise parameters in
a gluing operation, while these same x’s are controllable parameters for the production of
semiconductors in a clean room environment. Of course, the decision to control a parameter
for a particular process might be reevaluated and could change as knowledge concerning the
impact of variation in that parameter on end-product characteristics is gained.
The classification of a process parameter as either controllable or noise does not
necessarily imply anything about the parameter’s impact on end-product characteristics (Y’s).
Typical variation in noise parameters can have a substantial impact on the product’s
performance. Likewise, variability in a controllable process parameter across certain levels
may have little or no impact on the product’s performance. Insight into the relationship
between process parameters and product performance; Y = f(x), can not be gained by simply
categorizing the x’s as controllable or noise. This relationship can only be understood through
experimentation or prolonged observation using SPC. This categorization, however, does help
to illustrate the current state of process management and can be used to enhance the design
and analysis of studies utilizing DOE and SPC.
If process investigation reveals that variation in a controllable parameter or a noise
parameter has a significant impact on product performance, that parameter is considered a
critical x. Only through a combination of engineering and process knowledge, supplemented
by process investigation can these critical x’s be discovered and confirmed.
4 of 11
Doug Sanders (865) 448 3007
Bill Ross (303) 494-8521
Six Sigma Associates
y = Part stability on stand y = Hole diameter
y = Part position on stand Part flatness on stand Hole concentricity
Hole taper
Align Clamp
Part on Part to Drill
Drill Hole
Drill
Stand Stand
(C) Feed rate
(N) Part cleanliness *(C) Speed
(N) Stand cleanliness *(C) Clamp force
(C) Coolant type
(C) Age of locating pins (N) Clamp location
(N) Tool design
*(N) Cleanliness of locating pins (C) Tool age
(N) Material hardness
Part stability on stand
Legend Part flatness on stand
(C) = Controllable
(N) = Noise
* = Critical
Figure 1: Drilling Process Map
Once a critical x is identified, steps must be taken to ensure that it is managed to the point
that it will not cause undue variation in the product’s performance. Such steps are often called
Standard Operations. Until the product design or manufacturing process can be made robust
to variation in these critical x’s, Standard Operations are used to manage the x’s within a
certain range so that end-product variability is minimized.
To reiterate and expand, the intent of process study is to develop a deeper understanding
of the transformation of process inputs and variables (x’s) to end-product characteristics (y’s).
These inputs and variables (process parameters) may or may not be currently managed. If they
are being managed they are considered controllable (C), if they are not managed (due to cost
or other constraints) they are noise (N). When the impact of variation in process parameters is
empirically validated as influential in terms of variation in end-product characteristics
(possibly through a series of DOEs), the process parameter is labeled critical. A simple
example for a manual drilling process is shown in Figure 1.
5 of 11
The Process Map
Six Sigma Associates
Inputs Cylinder Outputs
Cleaning & Milling
Machine operating guide Cylinder Head Flatness
Operator instructions (OI)
Cylinder head hardness
Cylinder head cleanliness
Cleaning fluid
Cutting tool
Figure 2 - Input/Output Diagram for a simple machining operation
Construction of the Process Map
To construct a meaningful Process Map, careful consideration must be given to the scope
of the process. What are the process boundaries and expected outcomes (Y’s)? What are the
target values for product characteristics, and what is the penalty for deviation from these
target values? How will management know if the process is performing in a manner that
enhances the organization’s competitive stance? Which Y’s are truly important to the
customer? While the answers to these questions are process dependent, consideration is
required before beginning process investigation. The scope of the Process Map depends on
these answers.
Process Maps are hierarchical in nature. A macro Process Map describes the major
activities (e.g. assembly of sub-assemblies) needed to complete and deliver a product or
service to the external customer. It is possible and often necessary to divide a high-level map
into detailed sub maps (e.g. assembly of components into a sub-component assembly).
Detailed sub-maps may require further sub-division into specific operations or require
expansion upstream in the product flow (e.g. work on the sub-component assembly process
might lead to the component fabrication process). Frequently Process Maps cross various
functional areas in an organization.
After determining the scope and the level of the Process Map, the input parameters to the
process are determined. These input parameters are typically those things that initiate the
process. Examples include raw material and raw material characteristics, a partially completed
product (sub-assemblies and components), a work order or customer request, safety and
6 of 11
Doug Sanders (865) 448 3007
Bill Ross (303) 494-8521
Six Sigma Associates
government regulations, and tools. This information is captured and displayed in a simple
graphical manner, as illustrated in Figure 2.
A flowchart depicting all the process steps, including inspection and rework, is
constructed next. It is extremely important that the process be mapped in the as-is condition.
This requires interrogation of the process over various sampling intervals, including multiple
operators, multiple shifts, and changing noise conditions. Each formal or informal inspection
yields in-process outputs (y’s) by which the process may be monitored. Keep in mind, data on
these parameters is often not recorded or even measured. Frequently y’s must be identified
with engineering knowledge rather than processing experience.
The Process Flowchart - illustrating all of the steps in the process, the end-product
characteristics (Y’s), and the in-process outputs (y’s) - is now prepared for the addition of
process parameters (x’s). All potential process parameters should be identified and
categorized as controllable (C), or as noise (N).
Categorizing the x’s as controllable or noise helps us to understand how the parameters
are currently being managed. This illustrates the current state of process belief; that is, how
variation in the process parameters translates into variation in the process outputs. Early
versions of the Process Map will typically be based on scientific theory, engineering
knowledge, and operator experience. Through process investigation and statistical techniques
including DOE and SPC, this list of all process parameters can be filtered so that critical
process parameters are identified. The variation in these critical parameters has a significant
impact on end-product characteristics, Y’s, or on in-process outputs, y’s, that in turn effect the
end-product. For example, the number of tellers working during a shift at a bank, x, may have
a significant impact on the time a customer is required to wait in line prior to service, y, which
in turn may have a dramatic impact on the customer’s satisfaction with the banks service, Y.
An Illustrative Example
Through process investigation, a manufacturer of compressors has learned that the
flatness of the cylinder head is critical to product performance. An experiment was designed
to determine which process parameters, or x’s, have a critical effect on flatness. The
7 of 11
The Process Map
Six Sigma Associates
y = Head cleanliness y = Head stibility in fixture
Head orientation in Y = Head flatness
fixture
Clean Place Cylinder Mill Cylinder
Cylinder Head in Fixture Head Surface
Head
( C ) Cleaning time ( C ) Fixture pressure (C) Mill feed rate
( C ) Cleaning fluid ( N ) Fixture design (C) Depth of cut
( N ) Cleaning method (C) Mill tool design
Head cleanliness
(N) Mill tool wear
(N) Material hardness
Legend
(C) Controllable Head stability
(N) Noise Head orientation
* Critical
Figure 3: Compressor Cylinder Head Initial Process Map (Before Experimentation)
experimenter, focusing on the milling operation, generated a design to examine the effect of
mill feed rate, depth of cut and tool design on flatness. By constructing the initial Process
Map shown in Figure 3, the experimenter learned several important things prior to running the
design. First, the experimenter learned that each piece is rigorously cleaned prior to milling.
The criticality of this cleaning operation was unknown. Additionally, the experimenter
learned that each of the three operators had developed his/her own fixture for holding the part
during milling. While the design of the fixture may have a critical impact on the flatness of
the part, nothing was in place to control which fixture was used. For this reason, fixture
design was considered a noise parameter. Lastly, the experimenter learned of two other noise
parameters that may impact flatness. The allowable amount of tool wear and the hardness of
the cylinder head were not currently being controlled.
Information from the Process Map led to an experiment designed to investigate the
following factors: Cleaning Time, Cleaning Fluid, Fixture Pressure, Mill Feed Rate, Depth of
Cut, and Tool Design. While the hardness of the material, the amount of tool wear, and the
design of the clamping fixture were not normally controlled, the experimenter could control
these factors for the duration of the study and decided to include them in the design. The
results for the 16 run design are easily interpreted using the effect chart illustrated in Figure 4.
8 of 11
Doug Sanders (865) 448 3007
Bill Ross (303) 494-8521
Six Sigma Associates
Fixture Fixture
Pressure Design
30 (-) Tool
Tool
Flatness (microns)
(-) Tool
Age
* Age Age
25 *
Cleaning Mill Feed (-) Mill Feed *
Depth Rate Cleaning Depth
20 Time Rate
of Cut Fluid of Cut
(-) (+) (-) (-) (+) (-) (-) (+) (-)
15 (+) (+) (+)
(+) (-) (-) (+) (-) (+) (+) (-) (+) (-)
10 (+) (-)
Cleaning Tool Tool
Fluid Tool Tool Tool
5 Design Age
Age (+) Age Age
* * *
(+)
Material Fixture
0 Cleaning Tool
Hardness Design
(+) Time Design
Figure 4 - Experimental Results from machining DOE
On the effect chart in Figure 4, the magnitude of each factor and interaction relative to the
average flatness in the experiment is shown. Note that only 6 of the two-way interactions are
illustrated on the chart because of the resulting confounding for this particular design. For
example, the interaction between tool age and depth of cut (Tool Age * Depth of Cut) is
confounded with the interaction between Material Harness and Fixture Design (Material
Hardness * Fixture Design). Because the effect of these two interactions will be identical,
only one of the two is illustrated. As with all fractional factorial experimental designs, the
confounding must be carefully considered prior to selecting the design and when interpreting
experimental results.
For this particular experiment, the average flatness was 14.8 microns. The magnitude and
direction of the effect for any given factor or interaction can be calculated by examining the
difference between the average flatness at the high level of the factor and the average flatness
at the low level of the factor. For example, consider the effect of fixture pressure. In this
experiment, the two levels of fixture pressure were 100 PSI (-) and 200 PSI (+). The average
flatness when the fixture pressure was held at the (+) level was 4.6 microns. When the fixture
pressure was held at the (-) level, however, the average flatness was 25.0 microns. Hence,
changing fixture pressure from 100 PSI to 200 PSI reduced the average cylinder head flatness
9 of 11
The Process Map
Six Sigma Associates
y = Head stibility in fixture
Head orientation in fixture Y = Head flatness
Place Cylinder Mill Cylinder
Head in Fixture Head Surface
* ( C )Fixture design ( C ) Mill feed rate
* ( C )Fixture pressure ( C ) Depth of cut
( C ) Mill tool design
( N ) Mill tool wear
Legend * ( N ) Material hardness
(C) Controllable
(N) Noise Head stability
* Critical Head orietation
Figure 5: Compressor Cylinder Head Process Map (After Experimentation)
by 20.4 microns (4.6 – 25.0 = -20.4). Because the cylinder head is responsible for sealing off
the chamber it is desirable to set up the process so flatness is minimized. Thus for right now,
fixture pressure should be set to 200 PSI, and further experimentation should be performed on
this and other important factors to determine optimal settings. The other factors and
interactions can be analyzed in a similar manner. The effect chart can also be used to compare
the relative importance of the factors in the experiment. Note that the difference between the
average flatness at each level of a given factor or interaction is represented by the length of
the vertical line drawn between the two levels.
As can be seen from Figure 4, the experimenter learned several valuable things that would
not have shown up in the initial design. Cleaning time and cleaning fluid seem to have little
impact on the flatness of the part, as illustrated by the relatively short lines. Further
experimentation revealed that the parts did not have to be cleaned at all. This step in the
process was eliminated, reducing the cycle time and labor required to fabricate the part. The
results also indicated that the factors that were included in the initial design, across typical
levels, have little to do with the flatness of the part. The important factors were those that
were added to the experiment after constructing the Process Map. As can be seen from Figure
4, critical process parameters included the design of the holding fixture, the fixture pressure
and the hardness of the incoming cylinder heads. Through further experimentation, the
10 of 11
Doug Sanders (865) 448 3007
Bill Ross (303) 494-8521
Six Sigma Associates
optimal fixture design and pressure were determined and are currently being controlled.
However, the process owner is uncertain how to control the hardness of the incoming cylinder
heads. While this process parameter is critical, it is still considered a noise parameter because
it is not currently being controlled. Note that the Process Map has been updated to reflect the
new level of process understanding (see Fig. 5). Critical process parameters have been
identified, and the current state of parameter control is shown.
Conclusion
Graphically combining the knowledge typically depicted on a flowchart with that from a
Cause and Effect Diagram, the Process Map overcomes the weaknesses of the two tools used
independently. Additionally, the Process Map provides a clear understanding of the current
state of process management by classifying each parameter as controllable or noise. As
knowledge is gained through prolonged observation using SPC or through a series of
experiments, the Process Map is updated to highlight critical process parameters. Through this
living document, the current state of process knowledge is readily available to all interested
parties, greatly enhancing classical process improvement techniques including SPC and DOE.
By using this tool to understand and manage the causal relationship between process
parameters and product performance, any process can be continuously improved to ensure
success in today’s competitive environment.
References
Sanders, R., Leitnaker, M., and Sanders, D. (1994-1995). “The Analytic Examination of
Time-Dependent Variance Components”. Quality Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 315-336.
Scholtes, P. R. (1988). The Team Handbook. Joiner Associates. Madison, WI.
11 of 11
