C&RL News June 2018 302 Natalie Ornat and Renee Moorefield Process mapping as an academic library tool Five steps to improve your workflow The academic library is a complex orga-nization whose staff executes numerous processes each day to deliver materials and services in a timely manner to patrons. A process where tasks, information, or docu- ments are passed from one participant to the next is called a workflow. Libraries use workflows to coordinate tasks between people and departments and create an ef- ficient progress of work. Interlibrary loan shipping, electronic serials acquisition, damaged item repairing, and reference desk referrals are just some of the hundreds of workflows within the academic library. When diagrammed, these workflows provide valuable information in visual form regard- ing the path a process takes throughout a library. Diagramming workflows is known as process mapping. While examining this practice as a form of organizational assessment within an academic library, Sarah Barbrow and Me- gan Hartline define process mapping as an “exercise to identify the major steps and decisions in a routine workflow in visual form.”1 Commonly drawn as a flowchart, the visual document tracks the movement of information and clarifies the tasks, decisions, and potential actions taken throughout the process. The map also displays the different individuals or departments who participate in or affect the process. The practice of process mapping originally developed to maximize efficiencies in manu- facturing environments, but proves useful in analyzing other organizational processes.2 The creation and analysis of process maps can reveal inefficiencies and problems within a seemingly smooth process. When mapped out, an examiner may uncover duplicated work, bottlenecks where a process slows down, or areas of potential collaboration. Besides improving processes and in- creasing organizational efficiency, the act of process mapping can be beneficial to an organization in other ways. By depicting a complex process (including its actors and stakeholders), maps can help pass down, share, or communicate institutional knowl- edge. They are particularly valuable in aid- ing crossfunctional collaboration between different library departments or units. Ad- ditionally, process mapping is evidence that managers can use to advocate for changes and improvements. As an assessment tool, it is easily learned and adaptable. Process mapping is an approachable way for librar- ians and library staff to adopt a culture of assessment and reflective practice within their work. Process mapping in practice Usually the task of process mapping is done by an individual or a small group over a series of weeks. The analysts may Natalie Ornat is humanities librarian, email: nornat@ uncc.edu, and Renee Moorefield is interlibrary loan coordinator, email: rmooref2@uncc.edu, at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte © 2018 Natalie Ornat and Renee Moorefield mailto:nornat%40uncc.edu?subject= mailto:nornat%40uncc.edu?subject= mailto:rmooref2%40uncc.edu?subject= June 2018 303 C&RL News be part of the process they are examin- ing; however, it can also be beneficial to have an outsider perform the examination. Looking at a process with fresh eyes can help illuminate inefficiencies and avoid the resistance to change that might keep the process in stasis. Another way this practice can be imple- mented is by gathering all relevant stake- holders in a room and developing both “As Is” and “Should Be” maps collaboratively.3 When done in the form of a workshop, this process may take several days; however, these intensive sessions can serve as a valu- able team-building exercise and may prompt helpful discussions on library workflows. In the summer of 2017, the authors mapped workflows for two library processes at J. Murrey Atkins Library on the campus of the University of North Carolina-Charlotte. This project was part of the Atkins Fellows program, an 11-week paid residential fel- lowship program for students or recent graduates. Before beginning the project, we met with the associate dean for public services and the director of access services to de- termine what broadly scoped processes might be in need of improvement and documentation. The processes for damaged and missing items were targeted, due to their many moving parts and potential for confusion. There were a lot of unknowns within both processes and problem areas that were suspected. Damaged items workflow Step 1: Defining the process and scope The first step in process mapping is to identify the process to be analyzed and define its scope. We had selected the dam- aged item process. Next we defined the scope as the process from identification of a damaged item to its repair or replace- ment. Defining the beginning and ending points provides a concrete frame to fill in. Step 2: Gather information After the process and scope are set, the tasks, documents, and flow of the current process can be determined. It is important for the analyst to gather information on the process as it currently happens so that the map can serve as an accurate portrayal and be a baseline for creating recommenda- tions. We identified those involved within the process and worked with them to learn about each stage of the process. We asked each process participant simple but targeted questions such as, “What happens next?” or “Who completes the next task?” to pinpoint each step. We also shadowed staff members as they performed their work, observing and taking notes. If more than one worker performed the same action, we observed each of them to identify any inconsisten- cies. An alternate method that can be used to record process flow is to gather the process participants together in a room to trace the process collaboratively. This can be especially helpful if more than two people perform the same responsibilities. Step 3: Create “As Is” process map Once we had collected information regard- ing the process, we began creating a dia- gram to represent the workflow. The for- mat of this visual should be determined by the workflow being depicted and represent the information in a logical and easy-to- read format. One common diagram used for process mapping is a crossfunctional flowchart, which follows the flow of a process through different roles or depart- ments. This type of diagram shows who does what within the process and displays potentially problematic handoffs between individuals, departments, or units. Flowcharts use shapes that represent dif- ferent actions or decision points. Commonly, rectangles represent a task or action, and diamonds represent a decision that could result in different paths taken. Figure 1 below contains common flowchart shapes used in process mapping. The text within each shape should be short and concise, keeping the map readable. C&RL News June 2018 304 It might be tempting to incorporate sug- gested improvements from the start, but the “As Is” map should accurately represent the process as it is currently performed. After creating the “As Is” process map for damaged items, we met with process participants for confirmation and/or corrections. Creating the initial “As Is” map is an it- erative process that may take s e v e r a l a t - tempts to cre- ate accurately. Our resulting “As Is” process map for dam- aged items can be viewed in Figure 2. Step 4: Analy- sis for im- provement After the final version of the “As Is” map is created, the next step is to look for areas that might be improved. The analyst will look for areas where there are bottle- necks, duplication of work, illogical or un- necessarily complex work, and other oppor- tunities to create greater efficiency or needed collaboration within the process. Sometimes the analyst may have already gathered sug- gestions from process participants during the information collection stage. In examining a crossfunctional map, gaps may be identified where other stakeholders should be involved or dead ends where follow up is needed. In our analysis of the damaged items work- flow, it became clear that an important voice was being left out of the process. All damaged items were immediately going to be repaired. If the item was deemed irreparable, a replace- ment copy was ordered and the original was withdrawn from the collection. However, there was no evaluation built into the process to de- termine whether an item was worth repairing, or whether an item to be replaced should be replaced with a n u p d a t e d edition. As a result, items t h a t c o u l d have been re- placed with updated edi- tions or been withdrawn al- together were going back on the shelves. Wi t h a n a l - r e a d y o v e r- crowded print c o l l e c t i o n , these actions could hinder the library’s goals to create a more relevant and up-to-date collection. Those who were best equipped with the subject area knowledge to make this evaluation, the liaison librarians, were not formally involved within the dam- aged item process. Step 5: Creating a “Should Be” map The last step in process mapping is turning the identified improvements into an action- able set of recommendations and depicting the ideal process within a new, reworked diagram called a “Should Be” map. This map shows how the workflow will look if specific recommendations are adopted. This visual can then be used to advocate for the pro- Figure 1: Common process mapping shapes. Figure 2: Damaged items “As Is” map. View this article online for detailed images. June 2018 305 C&RL News posed changes and serve as an intuitive and readable resource if the process is adopted. In order to determine how to involve the liaison librarians in the damaged item process while still maintaining the greatest efficiency of the workflow, the authors met with the Re- search and Instructional Services team at Atkins Library to gauge past participation and future ideas for involvement. A step was added to the “Should Be” process model, which allows the liaison librarians to evaluate damaged material and decide whether to have the item repaired, replaced with an exact or updated edition, or withdrawn. Each decision sets into motion a separate set of tasks. If the item is to be repaired, it is sent to the materials pro- cessor for re- pair and then reshelved. If the item is to be reordered, the acquisi- tions manager completes the ordering and withdraws the original book. If it is to be withdrawn, the item is given to the acquisitions depart- ment to be weeded. After the “Should Be” map was drawn up, the last step entailed meeting with all involved process owners and departmental supervisors to share the proposed changes, answer ques- tions, and gather feedback. Plans were made for how the items would successfully get to and from the liaison librarians. The “Should Be” process map for damaged item is found in Figure 3. A new damaged item slip was designed to accompany the item through the revised process. Conclusion This five-step procedure for process mapping can be recreated to assess a variety of work- flows within a library. After completing an as- sessment of the damaged item workflow, we also analyzed and revised the missing items workflow. Both modified workflows created through this project were approved by depart- ment supervisors and are in the process of being implemented. Once implemented, staff and process participants have been encour- aged to remain vigilant to reflect on the new processes and identify any further pain points. As with any workflow, the process should be regularly assessed and open to change. Process mapping is a valuable tool for library staff and li- brarians who wish to docu- ment or refine a process. As in these cases at Atkins Li- brary process mapping can help identify inefficiencies and opportu- nities, provide a method of k n o w l e d g e transfer and institutional memory, and offer a visual representation of steps within a prescribed course of action. Notes 1. Sarah Barbrow and Megan Hartline, “Pro- cess mapping as organizational assessment in academic libraries,” Performance Measurement and Metrics 16, no. 1 (2015): 34–47. 2. Paul Savory and John Olson, “Guide- lines for using process mapping to aid im- provement efforts,” Hospital Material Man- agement Quarterly 22, no. 3 (2001): 10–16. 3. J. Fulscher and S. G. Powell, “Anatomy of a process mapping workshop,” Business Process Management Journal 5, no. 3 (1999): 208–38. Figure 3: Damaged items “Should Be” map.