Improving Human-Service Organizations through Process Mapping: A Tutorial for Practitioners

Abstract

Developing and improving organizational processes is an important element for staff satisfaction, effective communication, and ultimately the success of an organization (Rummler & Brache, 2013). Human-service organizations are no exception and, in fact, could greatly benefit from process improvement. This article provides guided steps for using process maps as a means for improving processes in human-service organizations.

Human-service organizations, including those providing applied behavior analysis (ABA) services to children and adults with disabilities, are typically mission-driven organizations that focus on improving the lives of the people they serve. There has been unprecedented growth in the demand for ABA services (Silbaugh & El Fattal, 2022) and there is an increasing need for improved quality of ABA services (Silbaugh & El Fattal, 2022) as well as staff support in human-service organizations (Plantiveau et al., 2018) to ensure the missions of these organizations and clients' needs are being fulfilled.

A powerful, yet perhaps lesser known, area of organizational behavior management within applied behavior analysis is behavioral systems analysis (BSA; Diener et al., 2009; Hyten, 2009). BSA is an approach derived from concepts in behavior analysis and general systems theory for analyzing and making improvements in organizations (Brethower, 1997; Brethower & Dams, 1999; McGee & Crowley-Koch, 2019). The goal of BSA is to create high performing systems and employee performance that is directed toward the organization’s goals (Brethower, 1997).

One common approach to BSA is via the three levels of performance: organizational, process, and performer (Rummler & Brache, 2013). Readers are encouraged to review McGee and Crowley-Koch (2019) for a more comprehensive description of BSA within human-service organizations, but, in brief, the organizational level is focused on the organization’s role and the environment outside the organization (e.g., customers, competitors). This typically includes evaluating the significant functions, goals, and mission of the organization (Rummler & Brache, 2013). For example, this might involve refining the organization’s mission, developing strategic goals for the organization, or evaluating how the organization differs or compares to competitors (McGee & Crowley-Koch, 2019).

The process level of analysis focuses on the cross-functional processes that produce the organization’s outputs (Rummler & Brache, 2013). In other words, the process level describes how the work in an organization is completed, regardless of the organization’s structure (Diener et al., 2009; Rummler & Brache, 2013). The process results in a product or service that a customer might experience directly (e.g., transitioning a client out of services) or a process that is not visible to a customer, but indirectly relates to meeting the organization’s goals (e.g., staff onboarding; McGee, 2018; Rummler & Brache, 2013). See Table 1 for further examples of common processes in human-service organizations. This level of analysis might involve developing a process map to show when a step is completed and by whom in a process.

Table 1 Examples of common processes in human-service organizations

Finally, the third level of analysis is the performer level. This level involves evaluating the individual employee’s performance (i.e., performance management; Rummler & Brache, 2013). For instance, this might include observing an employee perform a task and then arranging environmental antecedents or consequences to promote the desired performance. This level of analysis—performance management—is perhaps the most common subarea of organizational behavior management.

Each level is valuable and necessary for consideration and evaluation, but, as stated by Rummler and Brache (2013), “an organization is only as effective as its processes” (p. 43). Process improvement is valuable for several reasons. First, the process connects employees’ activities and performance to the organization’s goals, outcomes, and outputs (Brethower & Dams, 1999; Diener et al., 2009; Rummler & Brache, 2013). Ineffective processes or processes that are not connected to the mission can result in employees doing work that is not meaningful for the organization or decreased job satisfaction if employees do not know how their activities contribute to a bigger organizational goal (Gilbert, 1978; Malott, 2003). For example, if the organization’s mission is focused on providing meaningful, individualized client outcomes, but the process for program development is not designed with client input included throughout services, then it is unlikely that the organization’s activities will be aligned with the mission.

Second, a well-designed process can support consistency across employee performance and allow for measurements to be put in place throughout the process to ensure the process is meeting the goals of the organization (Diener et al., 2009). For instance, if the preferred process has not been defined, then how a specific employee completes their steps in the process (e.g., how to assess problem behavior or transition a case) may be dependent on their unique background, skills, and preferences. This can result in variability in how the steps are completed within an organization that, in turn, might not be the optimal approach for generating effective client outcomes. For instance, if a standardized process is in place for transitioning a client’s case, then every client should have a similar, optimized experience and management could put checks in place to ensure that all staff are following that optimized approach (e.g., checks for completed documentation, client satisfaction, deadlines met).

Finally, it can make performance management and job-level performance improvement interventions more effective and allow employees to focus on the areas that matter (Rummler & Brache, 2013). When there are problems, a common first step is to provide feedback to the employee on their performance issues, but if the process is ineffective then that feedback could be misdirected. In fact, it could be argued that performer-level interventions are unlikely to be maintained or be successful without the necessary process improvements in place (Rummler & Brache, 2013). For example, if a client intake process is convoluted with unclear expectations about who is responsible for the initial interview, collecting insurance information, or scheduling intake procedures then it does not matter how well an individual completes one part of the process (e.g., intake interview) if there are delays or errors in the process resulting in customer frustration and delays to services provided. In addition, if performance supports are integrated into an intake process (e.g., checklists, meeting agenda, reminders), practitioners can focus on conducting the intake and evaluating the client’s needs instead of the routine administrative aspects such as scheduling or figuring out who to inform and when.

A common way to analyze a process is by using a process map. When used regularly, it can be a powerful tool to improve processes that are usually too complex for other tools, such as a task analysis, because there are several people involved, different steps that could be taken in specific situations (conditionalities), and inputs/outputs that need to be identified before the next step in a process can be completed. Process maps provide a visual representation of tasks and the people responsible for them (Nuclino, n.d.) as well as potential disconnects between steps, areas of redundancy, missing steps, waste, and decision points that have not been articulated (Diener et al., 2009; Malott, 2003; Ramias, 2013). A process map can provide a means for improved communication and a way to solve problems as a team. When a process map is well articulated and complete, everyone can see the whole process, who is responsible for each step, decision points that lead to different actions, and what is produced at each step.

All organizations can benefit from process improvement, and human-service organizations are no exception. Given the recent growth in ABA services (Silbaugh & El Fattal, 2022), it could be argued that process evaluation and improvement is essential for high-quality ABA services and possibly improved staff satisfaction and retention. The goal of the current article is to condense the existing literature to provide an easy-to-use tutorial for leaders in human-service organizations to start using process maps in their organization. The steps below and corresponding Process Mapping Task Aid (Fig. 1) are based on the BSA literature, notably Rummler and Brache (2013), to provide a guide for making meaningful process improvements in organizations.

Fig. 1

A process mapping task aid to guide leaders through the process mapping steps

Steps to Complete a Process Map

• 1. Identify a Process. Identify a process that should or could be mapped. Just as client data are used to make data-based treatment decisions, data should be an essential driver in deciding whether to improve a process. For example, you might consider feedback from staff or clients, trends in the market, outcome data, or other data sets. Using these data, determine if there are:

  • Updates needed to an existing process (e.g., new technology, new regulatory requirements);

  • Performance issues (e.g., missed deadlines, communication issues);

  • Inefficiencies, such as redundancies (e.g., several people overlapping in completing the task) or waste (e.g., time, financial resources); and

  • Aspects of the process that need to be completed in a standardized way.

  Consider the following hypothetical example: In an ABA service organization, staff identify several missing and incomplete client documents. As a result, people (e.g., supervisors, caregivers, third-party payers, billing administrators) are following up to get the relevant documents and information. They are also finding inconsistencies in how the documentation was completed and stored. Clinical Director A sends a survey to everyone who is involved in developing, using, and storing client documentation (i.e., practitioners, technicians, administrators) to get more information about how and when documentation was completed and with whom it was shared. They also ask other clinical directors in the organization if they are experiencing the same issue and, if not, find out what they are doing to ensure accurate and complete documentation. After reviewing the data and information, Clinical Director A determines that their team needs a consistent process for auditing client documentation (e.g., service agreement, treatment plan, session notes, client graphs) to ensure it is up to date, signed, stored in the appropriate place, and shared with relevant parties.

• 2. Identify the Team Members and Schedule the Kick-Off Meeting. Once you have identified a process that could benefit from process mapping, assign the following roles:

  • Project lead. The project lead should be someone familiar with all aspects of the process.

  • Decision Maker or Sponsor. A decision maker who can authorize any changes made should be involved. If they do not have time to be in the meeting(s), they should be a “sponsor” (Rummler & Brache, 2013). The sponsor confirms the project’s goals and approves the recommended changes, including financial and human resources expenditures. During implementation, the sponsor helps remove barriers to implementation and provides recognition for progress.

  • Facilitator. The facilitator should have good listening skills, ask probing questions, clarify when there are questions and, ideally, have some experience with process mapping. This person should be a neutral party who is not be involved in the process. This might be an external consultant, but most likely will be someone from another department or team within the organization.

  • Team members. The rest of the team members should be those who are familiar with aspects of the process. In most cases, this includes staff involved at various points in the process, but it might also include internal and, possibly, external customers (McGee, 2018; Rummler & Brache, 2013).

  Once the team has been identified, schedule and prepare for the kick-off meeting (see LeBlanc & Nosik [2019] for guidance on effective meeting management). Consider where and when the meeting should occur to allow for a shared visual display. For instance, if it is happening in person, ensure that there is a whiteboard, blank wall, or projector to show a screen that allows for mapping the process. If the meeting is online, ensure access to software that allows quick and easy editing, such as Microsoft Visio® or LucidChart®.

  Let us return to our example. Clinical Director A notifies their supervisor, the Chief Clinical Officer, of their plan to improve the process for auditing client documentation and receives their support for a company-wide audit process. The Chief Clinical Officer will be involved as the sponsor and Clinical Director A will be the project lead. The team includes the other clinical director who is responsible for another program at the organization, two practitioners who are responsible for developing and maintaining the documentation, a behavior technician who regularly completes session notes, and the office manager who interacts with some of the documentation. Meetings are scheduled biweekly for the start of the project. Clinical Director A is responsible for creating and sending the agenda and the virtual meeting link 3 days before the meeting.

• 3. Articulate the Process Goal(s) and Metric(s). As with any important meeting, the meeting should start with an overview of the project (LeBlanc & Nosik, 2019). For instance, start the meeting by discussing who is on the team, their roles related to the process, and the project expectations. The team should identify the scope of the process that will be discussed (McGee & Crowley-Koch, 2019). For instance, if the process was employee onboarding, then the start of the process might be when the employee is approved for hire (i.e., input), and the end of the process is when they are approved to work with a client (i.e., output).

  The team will also need to agree upon the goal of the process and identify what metrics could be used to evaluate progress toward the goal(s). For instance, timeliness, staff time, quality, quantity, costs, staff satisfaction, or client satisfaction are all types of metrics that could be considered. This might include looking at historical data, samples, or even industry standards. The process mapping team should also check for and ensure that process goals or results contribute to and are aligned with the broader business goals to document the importance of the process under consideration. That is, the process may not only be sped up and involve updating or correcting documentation, but should also contribute to organizational goals, such as client outcomes, compliance with funder requirements, and financial outcomes, all of which could be negatively affected by a broken process (see McGee [2018] for additional guidance on process metrics and goals).

  During the first project meeting, Clinical Director A asks each team member to introduce themselves and describe their role. Clinical Director A informs the team that the Chief Clinical Officer will function as the sponsor for the project. The team determines that the start of the process is an audit of documentation, and the end of the process is a completed audit and all missing/incomplete documents are corrected. They also identify the project's goal—to develop a process to ensure accurate documentation is submitted on time and stored in the correct location. They decide that the metrics used to evaluate the process will be the number of missing, late, incomplete, and inaccurate documents. These metrics will be collected through treatment integrity check scores conducted by supervisors on a third of cases for each practitioner each quarter. The team decides to collect baseline data by reviewing a selection of client records to determine who was responsible for the records as well as whether they were accurate, complete, and submitted on time. They also identified records that were missing. Using these data, they calculated a compliance baseline score.

• 4. Map the “IS” (current) Process. If the group is new to process mapping or has not done it for a while, provide a brief overview of process mapping (e.g., see LucidChart, n.d.; McGee, 2018; Nuclino, n.d.). The facilitator will walk the group through the process using the following guidelines:

  • Goal. The goal of the IS process map is to understand a process as it currently exists (e.g., who does what, how it gets done, when the steps happen; McGee & Crowley-Koch, 2019; Rummler & Brache, 2013). It is important that the facilitator keeps this goal in mind to keep the group discussion on task. For instance, if ideas for improving the process come up during the discussion, the facilitator could take note of these ideas on a separate list, but keep the group focused on discussing the current process.

  • Scope. The facilitator will walk the group through the current process from beginning to end using the start and end points from step 3.

  • Components. The group should identify each action (e.g., enter data, schedule a meeting) or decision point (e.g., “does the new staff member already hold a certification,” “is this a new client”) and the product of each step (e.g., completed document, feedback, answer). In other words, every step should produce something that will become the input of the next step (Binder, 2015, 2021). See Fig. 2 for common shapes and components. If disconnects in the process (e.g., missing steps) are identified while creating the IS map, you can note those on the map. In addition, if a process involves several people, teams, or departments, swim lanes are helpful because the step is placed in the swim lane for the role or team completing the step (e.g., there could be a client swim lane showing they completed the intake form and a swim lane for the intake coordinator who reviews the form).

  • Responsibilities. Identify who completes each step by role (e.g., intake coordinator, scheduling assistant, trainer).

  • Ask clarifying questions. During the discussion, the facilitator should ask clarifying questions to ensure steps are not missed and information is clear. It might be helpful to take the perspective of someone who is not familiar with the process (e.g., a new hire being trained) to help prompt discussion and ensure steps are not missed or taken for granted (e.g., discuss why a certain step is completed, whether there should be a step between two other steps).

  • Format. The format for developing the process map can be flexible. This may include drawing on paper, using flipcharts taped side-by-side, whiteboards, sticky notes, Microsoft Excel®, Microsoft PowerPoint®, or process mapping software (e.g., Microsoft Visio®, LucidChart®). Keep the goal of this process mapping session in mind (i.e., create an accurate visual representation of the current process) and do not worry too much about making the map visually perfect as long as the goal is achieved.

  Fig. 2

  

  A simplified example of process map components. Process maps typically include the start and end of the process, actions, decision points, results of each action, and who performs the task

  In our example, Clinical Director A provides a brief introduction to process mapping during the second meeting. Using the baseline data, information from the surveys, and input from the team, the process mapping team sketches out what the IS process looks like using LucidChart® software (see Fig. 3 for an example of what part of the current process might look like).

• 5. Identify Areas for Improvement on the “IS” Map. When the map of the IS process is completed, discuss the process using the following guidelines:

  • Review the IS map for issues. Review the map for issues that might be affecting the metrics and mark them on the map. For instance, the team might identify one or more of the following issues (McGee, 2018; Ramias, 2013):

    • Steps that are done simultaneously but should be done sequentially—If people are waiting until other steps are done to complete their steps even though they could be doing their work at the same time, this might be an area of inefficiency. On a process map, this issue might look like the submission of an intake form resulting in person A completing steps 1–3 followed by person B completing steps 4–6 when it is possible that the intake form could result in both roles completing their respective steps at the same time.

    • Unnecessary reviews and approvals—Every review or approval in the process should be examined to make sure it is necessary because those review steps might indicate that the process could be redesigned to eliminate the errors that are prompting the reviews. On a process map, this issue could look like one or more review or approval step(s) in the manager/supervisor swim lane.

    • Steps that are not adding value—If the purpose of a step in the process is unclear or vague, it is worth determining whether it is adding value. This problem would most likely be identified through discussion of the process steps.

    • Redundant activity—If the same activity is happening in multiple steps resulting in additional work, it is worth reviewing those steps to understand why the redundancy is happening (e.g., mistrust, different expectations). On a process map, this issue might look like activities that show up in several places, especially the same activity being completed by different roles.

    • Areas where people are doing things differently—Having variations in how a process occurs is not necessarily bad if it allows for customization under certain circumstances, but too many variations can also cause complexity and inefficiency. It is worth identifying where and when a more streamlined approach is necessary or would be beneficial based on the goals of the process. This issue might show up on a process map when there are a few versions of the process map or multiple decision points leading to different variations of the process.

    • Bottlenecks—Although bottlenecks in a process are not necessarily bad, they are worth identifying and discussing to determine if they can be improved or the process around the bottlenecks can be improved to make the bottleneck maximally efficient. This issue might be identified on a process map as multiple lines going into a step or through the discussions of the process steps.

    • Areas where work is needing to be redone—Process steps that are there for the purpose of fixing earlier steps can indicate that there is a problem earlier in the process that is prompting the rework cycles. On a process map, this issue might look like loops of steps that fix issues from previous steps or decision points that are there to identify whether errors occured. 

      The team might want to review Ramias (2013) for further examples of how these issues might appear on a process map. The team could also add notes to parts of the process that they do like and do not want to change and discuss why they feel that way.

  • Sources of feedback. Feedback could come from those on the team or others in the organization who are familiar with the process. Depending on the organization, what prompted the review of the process, and discussions during making the process map, the process feedback prompts might be “What parts of the process do you like or don’t like?” or “Where would you like to see the process done differently?”

  • Format. Issues or inconsistencies could be added with different colored post-it notes placed on a printed or whiteboard map, comment fields added to electronic maps, or additional maps (or swim lanes) if there are significant variations in how people are completing a process.

  Fig. 3

  

  Hypothetical example of a section of the clinical documentation audit IS process map prior to process improvement (Step 4) including issues identified (step 5)

  In our example, the group identifies several differences between what practitioners and clinical directors are doing which makes forming a cohesive process map difficult. For example, Clinical Director B shares that they conduct audits on cases after the client is discharged from services and before the documentation is shared with the relevant caregivers. Clinical Director A says that they rely on their practitioners to audit their documentation and only review it if they identify a missing document (e.g., if the caregiver requests a copy of the service agreement, and one is not found in their file). One of the practitioners indicates there are no standardized documentation requirements or clear expectations of who is responsible for fixing issues found in an audit.

• 6. Map the SHOULD Process and Agree to the Changes. As soon as the IS process is mapped, the trouble areas have been identified, and other members from the organization have provided their input, the group should discuss whether there are ways to improve the process to address the issues (Binder, 2015, 2021; Diener et al., 2009; Malott, 2003; McGee, 2018; McGee & Crowley-Koch, 2019; Rummler & Brache, 2013). The group should consider the following:

  • Identify ways to make improvements. The following questions could be helpful to guide the discussion:

    • Are there ways to make the process easier, simpler, or more efficient based on the issues identified in step 5?

    • Are there areas that could be changed to reduce problems or errors (see notes on the map about unnecessary reviews, redundant activity, and activities that are redone)?

    • Are there areas for improvement that will increase the likelihood of achieving the desired outcome and metrics (Binder, 2021)?

    • Should everyone be doing the process the same way (see notes on the map where there are areas staff are doing things differently)? If so, what would the process look like?

    • Should the order of the steps be changed (see notes on the map about steps that could be done simultaneously and redundant activity)?

    • Could some of the steps or decision points be better articulated to avoid confusion (see notes on the map about unnecessary manager reviews and steps that are not adding value) ?

    The answers to these questions should be captured. The team can then use them as checkpoints for the SHOULD process map. They should be reviewed during the design and final review of the revised process to ensure critical issues will not be missed.

  • Create the SHOULD process map. Using the same process described in step 4, create a new process map for the SHOULD process based on this discussion and the previous map. Be careful to avoid the issues that plague the current process or introduce new issues or inefficiencies. When the new process is created, the facilitator could ask the group the following questions:

    • Is this simpler?

    • Will it be more efficient?

    • Will we have the resources to do it this way?

    • Does it meet the goal(s) of the process?

    As a note, the answer to one or more of these questions might not always be “yes.” For example, a process might not be as simple if there is a review step added earlier in the process, but it would be more efficient overall because it reduces the chance of rework later in the process. The goal is to check that the issues identified have been addressed without inadvertently adding new issues.

  • Regularly check in with everyone in the group. It is important to get feedback and input from each person when discussing ideas for improvement to ensure that the suggested improvements are feasible and effective.

  • Document the process. Finally, once the group agrees to the SHOULD process, ensure the process is documented in a more permanent location. For instance, if it was documented on a whiteboard or with post-it notes, you could take a picture and assign one person to document it. The process could be documented in software with this specific functionality (e.g., Microsoft Visio®, LucidChart®) or spreadsheets and/or presentation software (e.g., Microsoft Excel®, PowerPoint®).

  • Identify any final approvals needed. Determine if anyone else needs to approve the new process. For example, if the project sponsor is not in attendance, the project lead might schedule a time to walk through the process before final approval and implementation plans can be discussed.

  Let us return to our example. After reviewing the process map of the IS process, the team determines that the process could be more streamlined and consistent. They identify inconsistent steps across practitioners and clinical directors, and the tools that could be implemented to help streamline the process and support clinical directors and practitioners when completing the audit (e.g., checklists, timelines). They determine that they should start from the beginning and develop a process that can be used across all clinical directors and practitioners. They identify when audits should be conducted, audit expectations, who conducts them, what happens if missing or incomplete documents are identified, and what happens after an audit is concluded (see Fig. 4 for an example of part of the SHOULD process). The team reviews the new process and confirms that it would lead to more timely and accurate documentation as well as improved staff expectations. Team members also review the answers to the questions that were captured at the beginning of the SHOULD mapping session. The team shares their proposed process map with the Chief Clinical Officer for review and approval.

• 7. Discuss Implementation Logistics and Assign Action Items. As soon as the new process has been approved, the team should discuss what is needed before implementing the new process to make it successful (McGee, 2018; Rummler & Brache, 2013). For example, consider the following:

  • Is it helpful or feasible to pilot-test the new process with a few people before fully implementing it? For instance, this might be possible in a larger organization with separate locations or in situations where the impact of piloting a new process will not have an impact on other parts of the organization. If so, the group should discuss what would be involved (e.g., how long will it be in effect, what metrics will be used to evaluate success, who will be involved in the pilot). If the team decides to pilot the new process, then any training that might be required should occur first, at least for the team members who are participating in the pilot. The test run should be conducted in the office location in which most of the mapping team members work so that they can more easily communicate items that should be changed. The scope of the pilot should encompass the entire process and occur shortly after the SHOULD map was completed. A pilot may show that the process, perhaps with minor changes, can be adopted organization wide. If the pilot shows that there are substantial shortcomings with the process, then the team should meet, note the problems on the electronic version of the SHOULD map, and revise the process with solutions to the newly uncovered issues. If the team decides that a pilot is not possible due to organization needs or an inability to pilot to process without affecting the rest of the organization, they need to set up ongoing process meetings (e.g., every other week) to discuss how the new process is working. This ongoing meeting should and include reviews of relevant process data and allow time for discussions about what is going well, barriers, issues that have come up, and, if relevant, steps needed to address the issues.

  • Will the process change affect other processes (planned or not)? If so, discuss what other processes will be affected and develop a plan for those impacts (e.g., communication, review of other processes).

  • What initial communication will need to occur and with whom before implementing the new process (e.g., buy-in)?

  • For each person (role) in the process, will this process work and do they have what they need? Consider whether training, resources/materials, antecedents, and consequences should be considered and updated or added to increase the likelihood of accurate performance and adherence to the new process (e.g., see Binder, 2021; Gilbert, 1978; Rummler & Brache, 2013; Wilder et al., 2002).

  • Who will be the process owner once the new process is in place? This person is responsible for monitoring the new process, reviewing the relevant data, determining whether additional modifications will be needed, and updating the process map if changes are made.

  Fig. 4

  

  Hypothetical example of a section of a clinical documentation audit SHOULD process map after process improvement (step 6) addressing issues identified in step 5

  Using this information, create an action plan, identify an implementation lead, and assign tasks that are needed for implementation. One way this could be done is to look through each of the steps identified in the new map and assign people to either review the current materials (e.g., procedures, email templates) or create new materials to align with the new process map. Discuss deadlines for developing or updating the materials as well as when the new process will be launched. Consider the timing of the implementation so it does not conflict with other changes in the organization to make the change more successful.

  In our example, the team identifies that all clinical directors and practitioners need to be trained on the new process. They create a list of the information, resources, and procedures practitioners and clinical directors need to implement the new process. In addition, they discuss how the updated process will be communicated, when it will be communicated, when training will occur, and a start date for implementation. They assign the clinical director for each team to oversee monitoring the process and reporting the results. They set a goal of 90% weekly audit compliance. A pilot project is not possible, so they schedule a weekly process meeting with the team for the first month to discuss issues and review data. The team creates an action plan and timeline and shares it with all relevant parties. Based on their discussions, they decide to initiate the first audit at the end of the current quarter.

• 8. Implement the New Process and Ongoing Management of the Process. Once the new process is implemented, the process owner will be responsible for tracking performance, gathering feedback from those who are implementing it or are affected by it, and regularly evaluating the process using the identified metrics (McGee & Crowley-Koch, 2019; Rummler & Brache, 2013). Based on the data and feedback, the process owner might want to reconvene the group to reevaluate and tweak the process or discuss specific issues. The process owner should identify and implement a schedule to review the process going forward (e.g., review the process once a year).

  One last time, let us return to our example. The team reviews the new process during their weekly meeting. After 3 months of meetings, the audit compliance data are at least 90% for 3 weeks in a row, so they decide to end the weekly process meetings. They decide that going forward, the process owner will report monthly audit data to the clinical directors and Chief Clinical Officer. The process owner schedules another meeting one year out to revisit the process.

  After the first process map has been completed and revisions made, the group should debrief about the process mapping process to see if there are any areas for improvement. They could also discuss whether or how they want to scale up the use process mapping in the organization. This might include replicating these process mapping steps with a few other processes within the organization and/or developing a process mapping training for certain staff (i.e., those who might serve as facilitators) so further improvements could be made throughout the organization.

Conclusion

Using the Process Mapping Task Aid and the guidance above, we hope that this task aid provides a starting point for human-service organizations to introduce data-based process mapping into their organization. Those who are interested in learning more about process mapping and BSA are encouraged to read McGee (2018) for additional guidance on process analysis and improvement, read McGee and Crowley-Koch (2019) for a full account of BSA in human-service organizations, watch Binder (2021)’s video on optimizing human performance, read Rummler and Brache (2013)’s book for a description of improving performance through BSA, and/or join the OBM Network (https://www.obmnetwork.com/) to connect with experts in the area. Given the importance of processes within organizations, we encourage behavior analysts and leaders in human-service organizations to become more familiar with process improvement and BSA to ensure their activities are meeting their organization’s mission and goals.