One of the ways the FPMs defined the boundaries of GP was through process mapping. With the FPMs tied to employees’ work, IT developers and systems
analysts developed a technological infrastructure that could support and control DAFS’ operational model of choice – case management by ‘specialized functional units’. Embedded in this model is the idea that cases go through phases, each of which require clear outputs that count towards the measures. To ensure that cases followed the presumed path to deliver the outputs, IT experts developed mechanisms to make the paths known to those responsible for moving the cases along. The IT systems analyst, in particular, conducted process mapping sessions with DAFS employees to graphically capture the specific steps involved to produce the desired outputs (i.e. have the child’s legal father on record, file a court order, collect a payment, etc.). Using conventional process mapping protocols, Daria, the systems analyst, collected information about the type of cases processed by functional units, specific tasks deployed, roles involved, interactions required, and forms, documents, and other devices used along the way. She used spreadsheets, charts, process mapping software, and other tools to organize the information into specific processes and defined a unit’s operational boundaries by visually framing the entities involved. By using process maps to articulate who does what and when on which case, she reinforced the unit’s functions, valued actions, and the measures they represent. Indeed, Daria’s
deployment of the FPMs’ attributes through process mapping captured the ‘ecology of tributaries, allies, accomplices, and helper’ (Latour, 2011: 799) needed for the GP to subsist.
In an interview, Daria explained how she painstakingly guided caseworkers, team leads, and supervisors through several business process mapping sessions to objectify (Callon & Muniesa, 2005) the work of a specialized unit. Using probing questions, she tried to draw out from her audience the specifics of their work as cases arrive, move within, and leave their functional unit. She used a white board and some colored markers to draw industry-standard symbols to map out the steps involved in a
108 specific process. She helped her audience identify the individuals involved in every step of the process, specific tasks performed, documents handled, and tools and devices used on a regular basis. She encouraged her audience to think in terms of flowcharts with swim lanes, decision points, arrows, circles, diamonds, and other ‘symbolic tokens’ (Jeacle & Carter, 2011) to establish the boundaries of their work. Such symbolic tokens were used across units and processes and served as the
language of choice for defining entities, actions, and boundaries of operation. At the end of the sessions, she used a process mapping software to produce electronic versions of the process maps and saved them in a shared folder. By generating maps of the valued processes, converting them into electronic inscriptions, and storing them in DAFS’ computer network, she made these immutable mobiles accessible and reproducible (Latour, 1986b) across the organization at different times. Showing one of her (more than 20) electronic process maps, Daria explained,
So I actually explain what the swim lane is because people don’t know
…everybody now knows… But at the beginning, I had to explain everything. I have to tell them what the swim lane is, how I do it, what groups do I need. We were kinda doing like a brain storming to put ideas first because they couldn’t tell, okay, clerk does this. So I said, okay, who’s involved, who’s working, what are the groups, you know. So I list them…. That’s how we start it. […] there’s bunch of symbols in the flow chart world, but I figure these are the most simple ones, you know, like the step and then you have the decision point when you have to do, yeah, do I do that or no. (Daria, InterviewIT)
Making things visible allowed her to analyze the process with her audience and determine areas for improvement, because ‘by knowing exactly what the process is, what steps, who does what, you can really create those timelines, you can really manage your employees to really be as efficient as you can.’ She noted how the mapping exposed the connections, inconsistencies, and bottlenecks in the process. It showed them the possible leaks and channels of resources (Callon, 1998a) so they can make the necessary changes to improve their efficiency and effectiveness, and
formulate a standard of practice. She highlighted the importance of establishing the beginning and end of a process, and the links between them, to define the boundaries of their work and ensure a focused approach to their case management. As Daria said,
109 ‘you have to have a start and the end, okay. …And when you see the end, that means for that particular group or groups involved, this is it, that’s all they do.’ By breaking up a specialized group’s business process into specific tasks and outputs, and
capturing them in graphical terms, she reinforced the valued tasks that would produce the valued ‘good’. She also managed to frame the unit that these individuals, cases, and tasks represent, increasing their potential to produce the social fact that can be counted. Consequently, following the mapping exercises, DAFS employees became consciously aware of the limits of their actions and began to establish expectations of their newly framed units. Any component that fell short of their expectations meant reviewing the process for possible adjustments, remapping, and reframing of the circumscribed unit. Hence, the maps became for them a ‘visual performable space’ (Busco & Quattrone, 2015) in which they could engage with each other and decide how they ought to generate the measures’ GP.
To keep maps current, Daria conducted annual reviews of each process map. But conscious that office policies and procedures could change unexpectedly, she also sent out quarterly emails to each group requesting a notification of any modification to their process since their last review. This not only ensured that the process maps in the organization’s shared folder were good representations of current processes for training or planning purposes, but also encouraged employees to keep re-assessing their production of GP. As Daria explained, the review process gave employees the opportunity to keep their process current as regards who and what should be involved in delivering GP,
because maybe we don’t need to involve, I don’t know, judge anymore, so we need to like remove this whole portion of the process. […] If that document is being signed maybe now electronically, instead of like printing it, taking it to court, giving it to judge, taking it back, recording, e-filing, all of that stuff. So what’s happening now? So do we need these people, you know, that they were involved in that little portion of that process, or can we reassign them
somewhere else?
Through this exercise, groups, individuals, and other entities sometimes shifted or moved around. While some kept their roles within a process, others were excluded or
110 reassigned. The adjustments they made to the maps were their response to the leaks that flowed through the connectors and presented new possibilities to their operations. Maintaining this review process, therefore, was their way of managing their delivery of GP that was clearly prone to disruptions. This iterative process of mapping, reviewing, and re-mapping enabled the boundaries of the FPMs’ measured ‘good’ to be ‘disentangled, framed, externalized and internalized’ (Callon, 1999) so that the ‘good’ can keep emerging and be measured. But for the drama to unfold, actors and devices had to articulate their script and define their position within DAFS’ network so the measured ‘good’ can be performed.