Using Scope Models for Process Analysis

Alec Sharp argues that BPM practitioners under-utilise scope models — a simple "essence of the process" framing — and waste time diving into swimlane mapping before the process is scoped. The Column advocates a scope-first, decompose-later discipline built around two artefacts:

TRAC (the scope model)

Four components describing the "what" of a process (discovery iterates, order may vary):

Trigger(s) — initiating event(s).
Results — output(s) expected by each stakeholder category (customer / owner / performer / etc.).
Activities — 5±2 "milestones" or subprocesses.
Cases — variations/exception classes (not instances).

Mnemonic: "Get on TRAC by scoping before analyzing."

Process Summary Chart

The TRAC model + the organisational functions (internal and external) that participate in each subprocess, laid out as a one-pager. Sharp calls it "nearly as effective as nothing else at illustrating the distinction between business function and business process" — and it fits on one sheet of flipchart paper, which matters for executive engagement.

Augments cover: as-is assessment, to-be goals, supporting mechanisms (systems, forms, documents, checklists), metrics.

Three analysis approaches using the Chart

After scoping, Sharp uses one or more of:

Process Summary Chart alone — "learning more" by adding functions/organisations. Often surfaces the realisation that what looked like many processes is actually one end-to-end process (example: university "Admit and Onboard a Student" process spanning Recruiting, Admissions, Financial Aid, Housing, Registration).
Collecting more detailed activities by subprocess/function — "breaking down". Identify 3–5 Activities per Subprocess, plus the responsible Function and specific Actor.
Assessing a process by subprocess / function / stakeholder / enabler — "detailed examination". Use the Chart as a framework for structured issue/goal capture (Sharp's Figure 9 table: Subprocess-columns × Activities/Issues/To-Be rows).

Why 5±2?

Miller 1956 ("The magical number seven, plus or minus two"). Sharp uses five ("don't push the limits") as the target for scope elements, for assessment criteria, and for subprocess count. More than 7 → the technique collapses.

Concrete language advice

Sharp contrasts better-for-discovery phrasing against generic phrasing:

Generic (weak)	Scope-framed (strong)
"What happens within this process?"	"Who does what within each subprocess?"
"What are the strengths or weaknesses of this process?"	"What are the strengths/weaknesses of this process with respect to each of these six enablers?" OR "from the perspective of each of these stakeholders?"

Framework-anchored questions yield more thorough, less anecdotal answers.

The "90 minutes is the new day" principle

Sharp's target: produce a Process Summary Chart and an issues+goals table in a single 90-minute facilitated session with 8–12 participants. Requires: experienced facilitator, pre-work, motivated group, and the discipline to not descend into rules and data details during the session.

Worked examples in the Column

Strategic Enrollment (higher education) — demonstrating 7 "processes" were actually one end-to-end "Admit and Onboard a Student" process; scoped + decomposed + function-mapped in 90 min.
Remove Legal Entity (oil & gas) — 4 trigger sources, 5 stakeholder results, 6 subprocesses, 5 cases, 7 functional areas on one wall-sized Chart.
Continuing Education Student Journey (CSU) — demonstrates approach 3 (subprocess-anchored issues + to-be goals, rearranged by stakeholder in the end with metrics).

Connections