Canadian Government Executive - Volume 24 - Issue 03

38 / Canadian Government Executive // May/June 2018 audit Figure 1: Hotel Check-in Example Derived from Kazemzadeh, Yahya & Milton, Simon & Johnson, Lester. (2015). An Explication of Three Service Business Process Modeling Approaches. 1., inspired by Shostack (1984) Physical Evidence CustomerActions Line of Interaction Onstage Contact EmployeeActions SupportProcesses Line of Visibility Backstage Contact EmployeeActions Line of Internal Interactions Hotel Exterior Parking Wait for Ferry Take Boat to Island Lobby Waiting Area Hallway to Room Handling Placement inRoom Bed Bath Wait for Accurate Bill Arriveat Hotel GiveBags toBoat Driver Check In Go to Room Receive Bags Shower Sleep Check Out and Leave Registration System Greet and takebags TakeBags to Room Deliver Bags Process Check Out Process Registration and direct to room Registration System B oth internal auditors and evalu- ators take a systematic view of initiatives. They tend to use dif- ferent tools to do that. Evalua- tors often use a logic model to show how inputs connect to activities, outputs and a sequence of outcomes. Auditors often use process maps and flow diagrams to de- scribe a system. Each of these tools has its individual strengths and weaknesses. Logic models tend to differentiate the actions within the sphere of control of an enterprise (typically showing the ac- tions as ‘activities’ or ‘outputs’) and the actions in its sphere of direct or indirect influence (outcomes or impacts). This is useful to show accountability boundaries and the connection of activities to results. The weak point in typical logic models is a limited ability to show a true systems and relationship flow over time. As a con- sequence, many logic models get crowded with bullet form activities or outputs or even multiple results, and it becomes dif- ficult to tell what follows what. Process flow charts are designed to show the sequencing and often the branching and looping back of decisions, informa- tion, processes and actions. They are good at clearly describing what is connected to what and in what order things are connected. The problem with many flow chart type diagrams is that they do not often differentiate things within a given entity’s control vs. things in its influence. Some flow charts show columns or rows to depict the locus of activities – but they still don’t show the relationship between things which might be seen as controlled activities and things which may be con- sidered influence actions or outcomes. In- deed process flow charts are often mixes of activities, outputs and outcomes results – at least as defined by results logic. So the conventional tools of both the evaluator and the auditor tend to have their limitations. Is it possible to use an approach which fills that gap? Enter the idea of services blueprinting – sometimes called line of visibility modelling – first proposed by G. Lynn Shostack in Harvard Business Review Designing Services That Deliver in 1984. Shostack developed the approach so that managers can “subject service development to more rigorous analysis and control” and to identify mo- ments of truth between suppliers of ser- vices and users of services. These models were good as far as they went and were useful in explaining, for example, how a person applying for a bank loan might get frustrated from the limited line of visibil- ity they had in terms of understanding just how the bank determined eligibility and terms for the loan. The underlying prem- ise was that more transparency (visibility) was preferable to less visibility, and that each contact point with a service user was a ‘moment of truth’ for the service provider to make an impression. Figure 1 shows a very basic services blueprint or line of vis- ibility model as first described by Shostack. Note how the client or customer is above by Steve Montague and Shirley Steller A hybrid audit and evaluation tool serving many levels Services Blueprinting / Line of Visibility Charts: