The diagram, and the responsibility matrix over the top of it.
The core says a process exists, who owns it and what governs it. This module says how it actually runs: steps in order, with decisions and parallel paths, hand-offs to other processes where the work leaves the room, and a role against every step saying who is responsible, accountable, supporting, consulted or informed. The notation is deliberately small — three kinds of step — because a model nobody can read is a model nobody maintains.
The ISO 9001 module brings the process map and the role-grouped process view with it. We would rather tell you that than sell it to you twice.
The decomposition tree, the process map, and the view that groups processes by the roles that perform them. If that is all you need, you do not need this module.
Steps as records in their own right, the flow canvas they are drawn on, cross-process hand-offs, and the RASCI matrix. The map says a process exists and how it breaks down; this says how it runs and who does each part.
Drawing the boxes is the easy part. Saying who is responsible for each one is where the arguments happen, which is why it is worth doing in a tool that keeps the answer.
Each step is a record, with instructions you can write properly — not a label in a shape on a canvas.
Sequence, a decision where the path forks, a parallel split where two things happen at once. Three kinds, on purpose.
A RASCI assignment per step against the roles you have defined — responsible, accountable, supporting, consulted, informed.
A hand-off where a step passes the work to another process. That is where things actually get dropped.
A half-finished process model is more dangerous than none, because it looks finished. Grace derives the gaps rather than waiting for somebody to notice them: steps reachable from no process, steps with no responsible role, and processes nobody has modelled yet.
There is a fourth that catches people out — roles that perform no modelled step, weighted by headcount once you have stated an FTE. A role with eight people in it and nothing on any diagram is either a gap in the model or a question about the organisation, and both are worth asking.
Each is a count of records, derived from the model itself. None of it is a status somebody reports.
Illustration — not a real workspace.
Steps, swimlanes by role, decisions, parallel paths and hand-offs. Drawn once, and it is the same records the rest of the product reads.
The same model as a sequence rather than a picture — which is the form people actually check when they are arguing about order.
Step by step, one at a time, for somebody following the process rather than designing it. The instructions on each step are what they read.
One tick per step as you draw it, rolled up per process — and a process nobody has answered for shows as unassessed rather than as nought per cent.
A step can use a controlled document, so the work instruction and the procedure that governs it are the same fact rather than two. A control can be implemented by a step, if you run Risk & Compliance — which is how a control stops being a sentence in a register and becomes a thing somebody does on a Tuesday.
Roles here are the same roles the rest of Grace uses, and a role carries two separate ticks: whether it is a security role that grants permissions, and whether it is a process role that merely says who does the work. Recording that somebody is the Site Supervisor is modelling, not access, and conflating the two is how people end up with permissions they were never meant to have.
Processes carry a current and a target maturity on the record, so once the model exists you can rank what to work on by the gap rather than by who complained most recently.
Illustration — not a real workspace.
It does not run anything. The automated tick on a step is a statement that the step happens without a person — a fact you record while drawing, so the roll-up means something. It is not an integration, it does not trigger anything, and nothing in Grace executes a process. If you want a workflow engine, this is not one and we would rather say so on the page than in the second meeting.
It is BPMN-lite, and the hyphen is doing real work. Three kinds of step, not the full notation — no events, no timers, no compensation, no sub-process call semantics. That is a deliberate ceiling: the modelling notation most businesses abandon is the one they could not read back.
It does not mine your processes or discover them from logs. Somebody who knows how the work happens has to say so, which is usually a workshop rather than a piece of software.
And a RASCI matrix does not settle an argument about who is accountable. It records the answer once it has been settled, which is a smaller claim and the only honest one.
Not the whole business — one process, and the people who actually do it. Thirty minutes is usually enough to see whether this is worth $100 a month to you.