Analysis of the Use of Flowchart Symbols in Process Mapping
Thiago Loretti
Gerente de Qualidade, Sustentabilidade e Processos | Professor Lato Sensu na Funda??o Assis Gurgacz | Pesquisador de Kaizen | Master Black Belt em Lean Six Sigma | Auditor Líder ISO 9001 e 14001
Introduction
Process mapping represents an initiative aimed at standardizing and improving procedures to enhance efficiency through the identification and evaluation of involved steps, waste elimination, standardization, process simplification, and other facilitating elements. This document provides a systematic literature review (SLR) on process mapping using the quality tool known as a flowchart. The focus is on discussing the various applications of symbols in flowcharts that can impact the communication of process mappings. The results of this systematic review illustrate the practices of using flowcharts adopted by researchers. The research took on an exploratory nature, using a qualitative approach in analyzing the identified material. Keywords: process mapping, flowchart, quality tools, production systems, BPM, BPMN.
Theoretical Framework
This theoretical framework will address the topics of quality tools, flowcharts, and BPMN, essential for understanding this article.
Quality Tools
According to Neto et al. (2017), quality tools are essential for identifying causes and effects of problems in organizations, contributing to process improvement. Six of the main tools are listed below, with the flowchart tool detailed in chapter 2.2:
Flowcharts
Miranda et al. (2020) emphasize that the flowchart is a widely used tool to graphically represent the steps of a process, providing a clear understanding of its structure within a company. This visual tool offers a step-by-step view from the beginning to the end of an operation. According to Coelho (2016), the flowchart can be represented in various ways, using different symbols with specific functions, such as skeletons, blocks, procedures, verticals, horizontals, and integrations, aiming for a better understanding in process analysis.
Dias et al. (2015), cited by Sousa and Mota (2022), state that the flowchart is a widely used graphical representation to schematically illustrate the steps of a process. Using graphic symbols, it provides a clear and visual understanding of how the process functions. It is a valuable tool for understanding and visualizing the flow of activities in an organized and intuitive manner. ISO 5807 (1985) addresses, from the perspective of computational development, symbols and conventions for documentation of data flowcharts, programs and systems, as well as network diagrams of programs and system resource charts, expressed in Figure 1.
Figure 1 - Symbols for flowcharts according to ISO 5807:1985
Source: adapted from ISO 5807 (1985)
ISO 5807 (1985) standardizes the use of symbols in flowcharts, including symbols for documents, inputs and outputs, decision points, processes/activities, alternative processes, standardized process, delay or bottleneck, terminator, and representation of parallel processes.
BPMN - Business Process Model and Notation
BPMN (Business Process Model and Notation) is a graphical language used to model and execute business processes (Object Management Group, 2010). This language consists of five types of elements: flow objects (events, activities, and gateways) that determine the behavior of the process, connecting objects that link these elements, data representing the items manipulated in the process, swimlanes used to group activities, and artifacts to provide additional information. Figure 2 presents a visual representation of the main elements of BPMN.
Figure 2 - Symbols for Flowcharts according to BPMN
Source: adapted from Object Management Group (2010, p 29-35)
Events mark the beginning and end of process instances, activities represent the work performed, gateways define alternative paths, sequence flows connect the elements, pools and lanes organize the process, and text annotations provide extra information.
Results and Discussion
During the systematic literature review, it was found that the analyzed articles presented various symbols and flowchart models, and none of them fully used the BPMN-suggested symbology. For this conclusion, the works of Hailu et al. (2018), Gon?alves et al. (2018), Martim et al. (2019), Silva et al. (2019), Miranda et al. (2020), Silva and Tarrento (2020), Nascimento and Oliveira (2020), Pompermayer, Lima and Stoco (2020), Parsad, Khatkar and Mehra (2020), Silva et al. (2020), Lima et al. (2020) and Solanki et al. (2021) were evaluated.
领英推荐
Hailu et al. (2018), addressing the minimization of delivery time for shoes through the integration of seven quality tools, present two flowchart models. The first model uses specific symbols for the beginning and end, arrows to indicate flow, and rectangles to insert activities. The second model has a different structure, using specific symbols for the beginning and end, arrows to indicate flow, a triangle to represent inventory, and decision points. However, there are disconnections in the flowchart, and three "no" outputs seem not to be connected to the rest of the process.
Gon?alves et al. (2018) present a flowchart of a cassava processing production process in their work on the implementation of quality tools. The flowchart shows the use of a specific symbol for the beginning and supposed ends of the process. However, identified disconnections in the flowchart, and two points indicate material instead of process steps, contradicting what is proposed by BPMN.
Martim et al. (2019), in their work on identifying causes of hematomas and fractures in broilers, present a flowchart to describe the broiler slaughter production process. In this flowchart, a specific symbol for the beginning and end of the process is not used, only rectangles and flow arrows. However, a flow arrow without connection is presented at the end of the flowchart.
Silva et al. (2019), in their work on the use of quality tools in the production of pumpkin-based vegetarian sausage, demonstrate a process flowchart model where specific symbols for the beginning and end of the process are noticed, as well as the use of rectangles for inserting activities.
Miranda et al. (2020), in their work on the implementation of quality tools in a microenterprise in the textile manufacturing sector, present a flowchart model that uses homogeneous symbology. The flowchart adopts rectangles to represent all activities without explicitly indicating the beginning and end according to BPMN and does not use diamonds to represent possible decision points.
Silva and Tarrento (2020), in their work on the implementation of quality tools in a clothing company, propose a flowchart similar to Martim et al. (2019). In this model, arrows are used to indicate flow and rectangles as the only descriptive elements, without using specific symbols to represent the beginning and end or other possible symbologies.
Nascimento and Oliveira (2020), in their work on the implementation of quality tools to improve the production process in a bakery, propose a flowchart model for bread production. They use symbols for the beginning and end of the process, rectangles to insert process steps, and diamonds for decision points or conditionals.
Pompermayer, Lima and Stoco (2020), in their work on continuous improvement in the production process using quality tools, propose a flowchart using symbols for the beginning and end, rectangles to insert operations, and flow arrows to link and sequence the process.
Parsad, Khatkar and Mehra (2020) propose a flowchart to describe the gear production process in their work on problem-solving in the manufacturing process using quality tools. A specific symbol for the beginning is not used, but an end symbol is, and a rectangle is also used for the same purpose. Diamonds are used for decision points or conditionals, and flow arrows connect and sequence activities.
Silva et al. (2020), in their work on the implementation of quality tools in a filled pasta industry, propose a flowchart that, although differing in the model of flow arrows, has the same format as the flowchart of Martim et al. (2019), adopting the rectangle as the major symbol to describe operations or activities and flow arrows to connect them. They do not use symbols for the beginning and end of the process or other symbologies.
Lima et al. (2020), in their work on the application of a system and quality tools for the improvement of the production process, propose a macro-process flowchart using a unique symbology not shared by other literature in this systematic review.
Solanki et al. (2021), in their work on the application of quality tools to reduce rejection of ice cream cones, propose a process flowchart using specific symbols for the beginning and end of the process, rectangles to insert operations, flow arrows to connect and sequence operations, and diamonds for decision points or conditionals. However, in this aspect, the authors indicate the condition only for the "rejected pieces," keeping the second exit of the diamond without information in the flow arrow.
It is evident that, within this scope, researchers have not yet reached a consensus on the use of flowchart symbols. Graph 1 presents a graphical summary of the uses of symbology in this SLR.
It can be concluded that the only element adopted by all researchers was the rectangle, used to insert activities into flowcharts. However, the use of flow direction identification and the adoption of specific symbols for the beginning and end fell below 92% and 67%, respectively, suggesting a lack of consensus on the use of these elements in flowchart symbology. Additionally, it is observed that some researchers opted for a unique symbology not found in other literature, while others incorporated steps without logical connection to the main flow. Some researchers also used the same symbology for more than one purpose.
Graph 2 highlights significant disagreements regarding the use of decision points/conditionals among researchers. This divergence can impact the understanding of flowcharts, emphasizing the need to establish clearer guidelines for the representation of these elements. In summary, the analysis of the results reveals the absence of a consolidated standard in flowchart symbology, indicating the need for greater consensus and alignment among researchers in the field.
Final Conclusions
It can be concluded that 80% of researchers used diamonds to represent decision points in flowcharts; however, only 40% of them explicitly identified the outputs of these decision points.
Regarding final considerations, it is observed that, due to the intuitive and easy-to-use nature of quality tools, researchers often adopt their procedures and symbologies for the development of flowcharts. In the conducted systematic literature review, it was found that BPMN symbologies are not yet fully incorporated by researchers in the industrial sector, which was the focus of this article.
The general objective, which was to "report the different uses of symbologies in flowcharts that may hinder the communication of process mappings," was achieved through the elaboration of graphs 1 and 2.
It is worth noting that this research has limitations related to the covered period, and for future work, the application of BPMN symbologies in the development of flowcharts in the industrial context is suggested. This approach would identify best practices and facilitators of application, aiming for standardization and greater efficiency in the visual communication of process mappings in the industrial sector.