---
title: "Using Scope Models for Process Analysis — Fast Results for a Hurry-up World"
type: source
tags: [bpm, scoping, discovery, facilitation, practitioner, trac]
authors: [Sharp, Alec]
year: 2014
venue: "BPTrends — Practitioner's Perspective column, May 2014"
kind: article
raw_path: "raw/Process Frameworks & BPM/Sharp 2014 - Using Scope Models for Process Analysis.pdf"
sources: []
key_claims:
  - "Scope the process before analysing it: 'Get on TRAC by scoping before analyzing.'"
  - "TRAC: Trigger(s) · Result(s) expected by each stakeholder · Activities (5±2 milestones/subprocesses) · Cases (variations)."
  - "Process Summary Chart = Scoping Model + organisational functions in rows — 'one-pager' for executive framing."
  - "5±2 elements per framework (Miller 1956) constrains thoroughness without overwhelming participants."
  - "Target duration: 90-minute facilitated sessions with 8–12 participants."
  - "Three analysis approaches using the Process Summary Chart: (1) chart alone, (2) activity decomposition by subprocess/function, (3) assessment by subprocess/function/stakeholder/enabler."
  - "Better phrasing: 'who does what within each subprocess?' (not 'what happens?'); 'strengths/weaknesses with respect to each enabler?' (not generic)."
  - "Issues + To-Be goals structured by subprocess (Fig 9) — a tabular alternative to flow-based analysis when time does not permit swimlane mapping."
created: 2026-04-16
updated: 2026-04-16
---

# Using Scope Models for Process Analysis

[[entities/alec-sharp|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):

1. **Trigger(s)** — initiating event(s).
2. **Results** — output(s) expected by *each* stakeholder category (customer / owner / performer / etc.).
3. **Activities** — 5±2 "milestones" or subprocesses.
4. **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:

1. **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).
2. **Collecting more detailed activities by subprocess/function** — "breaking down". Identify 3–5 Activities per Subprocess, plus the responsible Function and specific Actor.
3. **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
- [[entities/alec-sharp]] — author.
- [[sources/2014-sharp-whats-wrong-with-this-process]] — same author, same framework, focused on the assessment question rather than the scope artefact.
- [[concepts/six-enablers-framework]] — the enabler lens used in approach 3.
- [[syntheses/interview-structuring-for-process-models]] — Sharp's scoping-first principle complements Dumas's five-step modelling method (which starts with boundaries/activities, similar spirit).
- [[syntheses/qualitative-discovery-method-selection-matrix]] — 90-minute facilitated scoping is a distinct, faster alternative to Dumas's 3–5 session workshop-based discovery.
- [[methods/process-discovery-methods]]
- Hammer & Champy's "Case for Action" *(referenced-not-ingested — source for initial-assessment framing)*.
- Miller, G.A. (1956) "The magical number seven, plus or minus two" *(referenced-not-ingested)*.