Process Map Review: Turn a Recorded Process Sequence Into Ranked Improvement Decisions

Process Map Review sits in the Analyse phase of RDMAICS. By the time you reach it, you have already recognised a problem, defined its scope and measured something. You have a process map or a recorded sequence of steps. What you do not yet have is a clear answer to the question that matters: where does the time actually go, and which of that time earns its place.

The tool does four things with a recorded sequence. It shows the order of steps. It quantifies where delay accumulates. It separates value-added work from waste. It ties each issue to an improvement opportunity you can act on. That last part is what stops a process map from becoming wall decoration.

Use it when you have walked the process and written down real step times. Do not use it as a brainstorming canvas. The tool rewards observed data and punishes guesswork, because every number you enter flows straight into the totals and the delay ranking.

This article is built on one case throughout, using the sample data that ships with the tool. The case is fictional. It exists to show you how the tool behaves, not to describe any real organisation.

The process is accounts payable invoice handling. Six steps, from the moment an invoice arrives to the moment it is filed. An improvement team has walked the process, timed each step and recorded whether the step adds value from the customer point of view. They have also marked which steps they believe constrain flow.

Six steps is a sensible size for a first pass. It is large enough to show a pattern and small enough that every row can be defended with evidence. If your map runs to forty steps, consider reviewing a segment first.

The input table asks for six things per row: the step number, the step name, the cycle time in minutes, a value-add decision, a bottleneck decision and an improvement opportunity. Every column has a job. Leave one blank and the result loses a piece of its reasoning.

Here is the sample data as entered. Step 1, receive invoice by email or portal, 5 minutes, value-add, not a bottleneck, opportunity to auto-ingest via portal API. Step 2, manual data entry into the ERP, 25 minutes, not value-add, flagged as a bottleneck, opportunity to use OCR and auto-populate fields. Step 3, three-way match verification, 15 minutes, value-add, not a bottleneck, opportunity to apply automated matching rules.

Step 4, supervisor approval, 180 minutes, value-add, flagged as a bottleneck, opportunity to set a delegation threshold and enable mobile approval. Step 5, payment processing, 10 minutes, value-add, not a bottleneck, opportunity to schedule batch payments. Step 6, filing and archival, 8 minutes, not value-add, not a bottleneck, opportunity to auto-archive in a document management system.

Note the discipline in that table. Step 4 is marked value-add and a bottleneck at the same time. That combination is common and important. Approval is necessary work. The waiting attached to it is not the same thing as the work itself, and the tool lets you hold both facts together.

The result panel opens with four headline figures. Six process steps. 243 minutes total recorded cycle time. 14 per cent non-value-added time. Two bottlenecks flagged. Those four numbers are the whole process in one line.

Below that sits a readiness score. It reads 100 per cent, with a note that there are no obvious evidence gaps in the recorded rows. Readiness is not a quality judgement on your process. It checks that every step has a time, a value classification, a bottleneck decision and an improvement or retain decision. A score below 100 per cent tells you to go back and finish the table before you trust the totals.

Then comes the recorded process sequence, laid out as a chain of cards from step 1 through step 6. Each card shows the time, the classification and the opportunity. Reading it left to right, you can see the shape of the process rather than a list of rows.

The last block is delay concentration by step, ranked from longest to shortest. Supervisor approval at 180 minutes. Manual data entry at 25 minutes. Three-way match at 15 minutes. Payment processing at 10 minutes. Filing and archival at 8 minutes. Receive invoice at 5 minutes. The ranking is the single most useful view in the tool, because it settles arguments about priority with arithmetic. The tool also offers an AI review that explains the result in plain language.

The headline tension in this case is worth sitting with. Non-value-added time is 14 per cent of 243 minutes. The two non-value-added steps are manual data entry at 25 minutes and filing at 8 minutes. Meanwhile the single largest block of time, 180 minutes of supervisor approval, is classified as value-add.

That means a pure waste-elimination campaign would leave most of the clock untouched. The delay concentration ranking makes this visible immediately and points your first conversation at the approval step, where the recorded opportunity is a delegation threshold plus mobile approval.

Here is how the result translates into decisions you can take to a sponsor.

The first mistake is mixing touch time with elapsed time in the same column. If some rows record how long the work takes and other rows record how long the item waits, the 243 minute total means nothing and the ranking is unsafe. Pick one definition before you start and apply it to all six rows.

The second mistake is marking a step as non-value-add because it is tedious. Value classification is about whether the customer would pay for the step, not whether the person doing it enjoys it. In this case data entry is non-value-add because the information already exists elsewhere, not because it is dull.

The third mistake is flagging every slow step as a bottleneck. A bottleneck constrains the flow of the whole process. In the sample data only two of six steps carry the flag, and that restraint is what makes the flag useful.

The fourth mistake is leaving the improvement opportunity column vague or empty. The tool exists to connect each issue to an action. An entry like fix this later gives you nothing to plan against.

Process Map Review does not validate your data. It accepts the cycle times you type and does the arithmetic. If the 180 minute approval figure came from one person's recollection rather than observation, the tool will still report 243 minutes total and still rank approval first. Accuracy is your responsibility, not the tool's.

It does not decide what adds value. You make every value-add and bottleneck call yourself. The 14 per cent non-value-added figure is a restatement of your own judgements, not an independent assessment. Two teams reviewing the same process can produce two different percentages, and both will show as 100 per cent ready.

It does not estimate savings, cost or benefit. There is no dollar figure anywhere in the result, and there should not be. The tool also does not tell you whether a recorded opportunity will work. Mobile approval is written in the table as an idea, not as a tested solution. Testing belongs to the Improve phase.

It does not model variation, rework loops, queues or parallel paths. The sequence runs 1 through 6 in a straight line. Real processes branch, stall and loop back. It also does not capture volume, so a step that takes 5 minutes on thousands of invoices looks small here.

Finally, a 100 per cent readiness score means your table is complete, not that your analysis is correct. Use the result to focus the conversation and to order your experiments. Then go and verify the big number before anyone builds a plan on it.