Work process map: review safety information at the handoffs

Read the written workflow

The fictional organization prepares training sheets. The written workflow says an author drafts a sheet, a reviewer approves the applicable revision, and a coordinator distributes the approved copy. The final step records where that copy was made available.

A learner turns this into three boxes labelled author, reviewer and coordinator. The roles are visible, but the map does not show what passes between them or how the coordinator knows which revision was approved. The missing information lies on the connections rather than inside a job title.

Compare the process people describe

In the supplied interview account, the coordinator says a short message reading “looks good” sometimes arrives without a revision identifier. The coordinator then searches the shared folder for the most recently modified file. That account describes a potential ambiguity; it does not establish that the wrong sheet has actually been released.

CCOHS discusses understanding job steps when analyzing work. This exercise uses an original information-flow map to examine a particular handoff, rather than treating the written sequence as proof of the sequence followed.

Create a handoff table

The table distinguishes a reported practice from a verified result and makes the unanswered handoff questions visible.

Add the decision that the first map omitted

A useful classroom map includes a branch for “approval cannot be matched to a revision.” Without that branch, the diagram silently suggests every message can proceed directly to distribution. The study answer should identify the need for clarification through the organization's authorized process.

Do not invent a new approval authority or assume the coordinator may decide technical content is acceptable. The task is to expose an ambiguous transition. A process map is a reasoning aid; it does not grant permission that the actual roles and procedures have not assigned.

Use the map to form a focused evidence request

Instead of asking for every document in the folder, the learner can ask for an example linking a named draft, its approval and the distributed copy. That chain directly addresses the handoff question. If the examples align, the conclusion can reflect that scope; if they do not, the gap becomes specific.

For practice, map an invented purchase-request review or meeting-action handoff. Label each connection with the information transferred and the decision required. Then compare the written sequence with a supplied account of actual practice. The most useful missing box may be a clarification decision rather than another role.