Replying to LO30328 --
"Andrew Steele" <andrew@cnet.org> wrote:
> I think that any resistance to the idea that 'if you can't flow chart it,
> you can't do it' is based on the rigidity implied by a flow chart.
>
> I know that it doesn't have to be that way - but putting a chart on paper
> can ;ead to a very fixed view of a process.
>
> I've been finding that use of Mind Mapping approaches leaves me with a
> more flexible, less apparently rigid picture. A Mind Map could be
> transformed into a more conventional flow chart in due course but my own
> experience is that the Mind Map leaves a deal more freedom in the
> creation.
For those feeling constrained by flow charts as process maps, Andrew's
idea may make a lot of sense. There are other approaches, too, including
RINs (Role Interaction Networks), RADs (Role Activity Diagrams), Colored
Petri Nets, a system dynamics stock and flow, or even structured text
(what our software engineering comrades would call pseudo-code). Rummler
and Brache in their Improving Performance add the concepts of roles to
flow charts, which I have found more helpful than normal flow charts while
easier for most to understand than some of the other alternatives. They
aren't as powerful as the other alternatives, though.
Bill
-- Bill Harris 3217 102nd Place SE Facilitated Systems Everett, WA 98208 USA http://facilitatedsystems.com/ phone: +1 425 337-5541Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.