Why I Hate the Word 'Process'

(and That’s Coming from Someone Who’s Been Working with Processes for Decades)

The Problem: The word "process" is often misunderstood and overused. It has become a catch-all term that means different things to different people, and in many cases, this ambiguity creates more confusion than clarity.

Having spent literally thousands of hours in assessments and process improvement programs across various industries, I’ve encountered the term “process” in all kinds of contexts. Yet, as I’ve watched its usage evolve, I find myself increasingly frustrated by how loosely the term is applied. The issue is simple: “process” can refer to so many different things, and without a clear definition, it becomes a source of miscommunication and inefficiency.

The Multiple Meanings of 'Process'

The term "process" is often used in various ways, leading to confusion. Understanding its different interpretations is key to avoiding miscommunication and ensuring we’re all on the same page. Let’s break down the most common meanings of "process."

1. Process as a Definition of a Sequence or a Workflow: In many cases, a process refers to the structured sequence of activities or steps designed to achieve a specific result. This might be represented in flowcharts or as detailed instructions on how to perform a task. In other words, the folder with the paper in the cabinet is often considered the "process"—the documented version that exists in theory but may not necessarily reflect how things are actually done in practice. It’s important to note that while this document might outline the steps, it can not always capture the complexities of execution or the real-world variability that occurs when the process is actually carried out.
2. Process as the Results of Process Execution: Alternatively, a process can be seen as the output of the execution of a sequence of steps, such as a product, a report, architecture, or source code. This perspective focuses on the outcomes created after following a prescribed series of actions. The key here is that the term “process” is not just about what’s documented, but about what’s actually delivered as a result of the execution.
3. Process as the Execution of Steps by a Person: Another interpretation sees a process as the actual execution of steps performed by an individual. This view emphasizes the role of human competency in transforming inputs into outputs—whether it’s creating a product, solving a problem, or delivering a service. This was historically referred to as an "instance of a process"—the real-world application of a documented process, where the steps are applied dynamically by individuals in different contexts, sometimes leading to variations in execution.

Why Does This Matter?

If we don't have a clear understanding of what we're talking about when we use the term "process," we risk facing the following issues:

1. Top-Down Definition of Processes (On Paper): A top-down definition of processes—those that only exist on paper—has never worked. Not once have I seen this approach be effective. The problem is that it moves further away from the people who are supposed to carry out the process. The better approach is to look over the shoulder of those who are doing it every day, write it down based on their actual experience, and then work on improving it. This approach is far more effective in creating meaningful and actionable processes.
2. Communication Challenges: When evaluating processes in assessments, I often get shown workflows. However, what is truly needed in an assessment is the actual results, so we can assess whether the processes are truly being lived in practice. Without seeing the outcome of the process execution, it’s difficult to judge whether the documented process is followed effectively or if it simply exists in theory.
3. The Mindset of "We Already Have Processes": The mindset of "We have processes" often refers only to paper-based processes. This is not a good starting point for any improvement program because the need for change in the actual, lived processes isn’t recognized. If people don’t see the need to evolve from paper processes to what’s actually happening, any improvement initiative will struggle to gain traction.

The Answer?

To resolve these issues, we need to adopt a more precise and consistent understanding of what we mean by “process” in each context. Documentation, flow diagrams, and reports are essential, but they must always be linked to and consistent with real-world execution. And, just as importantly, we need a functioning feedback mechanism from the people executing the processes to those defining the standard process definitions. This feedback loop ensures that the processes are relevant, effective, and continuously improved based on actual experience.

A process should be measured by its effectiveness in producing tangible results, not simply by the completeness of its documentation.

Conclusion

The term “process” has become too important to be used loosely. To make real progress in process management, quality assurance, and safety, we must first clarify what we mean by the term—whether we’re talking about sequence, output, or execution.

By taking the time to define process more clearly, we can move beyond confusion, simplify workflows, and achieve better outcomes. Let’s focus on what really matters: results.