Comprose

While Flow Charts certainly have proven benefits and many managers and quality experts advocate them, some recent empirical research uncovers some undeniable weaknesses that limit flow charts’ usefulness in practical applications such as corporate training, standardizing daily operations and performance improvement.  

• Several studies described in the Journal of Information Systems Education[1] and the British Journal of Educational Technology [2] found subjects performed faster and more accurately when using concise text instructions and/or pseudo-code compared to flow charted procedures.  Flow charts were found to be particularly ineffective when applied to complicated procedures with much branching.

• Researchers published in the ACM Annual Computer Science Conference put it this way:  “Although studying a “picture” may be more aesthetically appealing than poring through lines of “textual” code . . . empirical studies have indicated that flowcharts may be no more beneficial than source listings. In fact, they may be a hindrance”[3]   According to the same source, another study concluded that procedures written as flowcharts did not increase performance by subjects in identifying procedural faults. 
   
• A 2007 study published in the Journal of Information Systems [4],  cited weaknesses of flow charting and similar systems diagramming techniques finding them “inadequate for complicated processes.”  The study cited weaknesses including employee unfamiliarity with the method and limited usefulness in daily operations. Study authors found that flow charts made it “too easy for the documenter to over-simplify the processes” and found that most flow charts needed “additional narrative” to fully explain the process to users. User feedback stressed the deficiency that flow charts failed to indicate “why something is done”—a critical component in training, compliance and operational settings. 

• A 2009 study published by the American Accounting Association [5] found that although theory suggested flow charts would make it easier for auditors to create mental models of processes and improve their speed and accuracy, their study found that business process flow charts “did not improve auditors’ ability to identify missing internal controls” which was their primary aim, and in fact client prepared flow charts actually hindered the auditors work.

This research clearly indicates that although graphical representations of procedures (aka flow charts) can certainly aid in understanding and communicating process flows and Big Picture views, in many cases a picture is NOT worth a thousand words. Concise, well-crafted text procedures are often the most effective way to convey how-to instructions.

See our next post for the bottom line verdict on using flow charting when writing policies and procedures and company procedures manuals.

Sources:
[1] “Teaching Flowcharting with FlowC,” Journal of Information Systems Education, 15: 1 65-77

[2]  Abstract: “Extracting information from flowcharts and contingency statements: the effects of age and practice” British Journal of Educational Technology 22: (2) 84-98.

[3] “Survey of empirical studies of graphical representations for algorithms” Proceedings  of the 1988 ACM sixteenth annual conference on Computer Science. ACM Annual Computer Science Conference.

[4] Bradford, Marianne et. al., “System Diagramming Techniques: An Analysis of Methods Used in Accounting Education and Practice” Journal of Informations Systems 21: (Spring 2007) 173-212. 

[5] Bierstaker et. al., “Do Client-Prepared Internal Control Documentation and Business Process Flow Charts Help of Hinder and Auditor’s Ability to Identify Missing Controls?” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 28: (May 2009) 79-94.