Linking Business Process Map with Sub-Process Process Map

Hello Neil,

I can see that you already understand that you should have 2 levels of "instructional documents" in your business operating system:

I have attached a flow chart of Phase 8 of the the 10 phases of our Product Realization Procedure. The supporting and/or associated Work Instructions (as well as procedures, where applicable), are identified within the text of the Procedure (easily identified in RED Text). When you open the procedural document, you can hyperlink to any of the sub-processes without having to search for the Work Instructions.

The green (input) and pink (output) shapes on the sides of the "Processes" are the necessary inputs and outputs to each step. The person responsible is identified at the beginning of each process. (Additionally, for internal auditor reference, we have included the applicable TS requirement, in the yellow boxes, which can be "visible" or "invisible" to viewers as desired (per MS-Visio layering).

This methodology precludes the need for "Turtle Diagrams", and helps people understand the "Macro" view of company Key Processes and their links to other Procedures as well as Work Instructions.

...Just another option.

Patricia

Hello Patricia,

The methodology for key processes and procedures you have developed is; to us, (in the steel processing business), an excellent, user friendly system which encompasses, links & identifies all the metrics we developed for our QMS, Policy manual, etc.

If possible, and very much appreciated, could I see some more of your flow charts, (we have seen your past attachments), especially for Full Production-Product Realization Process.

Rich in steel processing.

To: RJM Steel,

Thanks for your comments. I would like to help you if I can. Is there any particular process that you're interested in? If it's more convenient, you can call me and we can talk - I can be reached at 519-252-9009 (Windsor, Ontario, Canada).

Patricia Ravanello

Patricia Ravanello said:

....and helps people understand the "Macro" view of company Key Processes and their links to other Procedures as well as Work Instructions.

...Just another option.

Patricia

Click to expand...

Patricia, I like this alot as well. You mention that this is phase 8 of 10, I suppose you could even go one level higher and have a process map of the 10 key processes....I think i'm getting close to saying buh-bye to our inch-and-a-half thick Work Instruction binder seeing that the w.i. can be linked digitally...Our registrar alluded to using our process map in place of hard copies of our QMS, but I wasn't sure where to start....Great example, thanks to all for sharing

Hi Neil
I'm always grateful for feedback from objective third parites...thanks for your comments.

You wrote: "You mention that this is phase 8 of 10, I suppose you could even go one level higher and have a process map of the 10 key processes...."

You are right...and there is a process map of the 12 key processes of the management system (in addition to the 10 phases of Product Realization). All companies are required to create one in response to ISO 9000 (and ISO/TS 16949).

Per 4.1 General Requirements:


Most companies answer this requirement by plotting out the phases of Product Realization and creating links to their management system. That's not what the requirement asks for, and it doesn't answer the question of the sequence and interaction of the KEY Processes themselves. Each organization should first define the Management System Processes, their sequence and interaction, and then subsequent to that, map out how each process is implemented. Within those process flowcharts, as you've seen in my attachments, you link the processes to one another, and as applicable, to lower level documents like Work Instructions, etc.

Most of the examples I've seen posted on this site are incorrect, and most Auditors don't challenge these "maps". I'm not sure that auditors really know the difference either. If done properly, the Key Processes Map is one of the most important documents in your system, and one of the best tools for training and orienting employees to the workings of the "System", (and not just to Product Realization).

The whole of section 4.1 General Requirements is very specific. It refers almost exclusively to the "Management System", and not to Product Realization. The NOTE at the end of 4.1 is a further clue that their focus is not "Product Realization", since they include Product Realization as just "one" of the processes that need to be included in the "System".

How has your company responded to this requirement?

Thanks again,
Patricia

Patricia Ravanello said:

....
Per 4.1 General Requirements:

Clause 4.1.a : identify the processes needed for the quality management system and their application throughout the organization,

Most of the examples I've seen posted on this site are incorrect, and most Auditors don't challenge these "maps". I'm not sure that auditors really know the difference either. If done properly, the Key Processes Map is one of the most important documents in your system, and one of the best tools for training and orienting employees to the workings of the "System", (and not just to Product Realization).

The whole of section 4.1 General Requirements is very specific. It refers almost exclusively to the "Management System", and not to Product Realization. The NOTE at the end of 4.1 is a further clue that their focus is not "Product Realization", since they include Product Realization as just "one" of the processes that need to be included in the "System".

Click to expand...

What I see most is a high level map showing all the defined processes of the organization. These become the map that shows how they sequence. Then, most will have a map or diagram for each process showing the greater detail (inputs, outputs, criteria, metrics, objectives, etc.).

[QUOTE=hjilling;198169]What I see most is a high level map showing all the defined processes of the organization. These become the map that shows how they sequence. Then, most will have a map or diagram for each process showing the greater detail (inputs, outputs, criteria, metrics, objectives, etc.).[/QUOTE]

Hi Hjilling,

That's refreshing to hear...perhaps what I've seen posted on this site is not reflective of what is being certified. These are my observations:

I'm glad to hear that your experience has been otherwise.

I'd love to see more Key Process Maps that do both.

Patricia

Patricia Ravanello said:

[QUOTE=hjilling;198169]What I see most is a high level map showing all the defined processes of the organization. These become the map that shows how they sequence. Then, most will have a map or diagram for each process showing the greater detail (inputs, outputs, criteria, metrics, objectives, etc.).

Click to expand...

Hi Hjilling,

That's refreshing to hear...perhaps what I've seen posted on this site is not reflective of what is being certified. These are my observations:

Firstly, it seems that many companies have a problem distinguishing between "lower" and "higher level" processes, and as a result, their "Key Processes Map" ends up being a hybrid of both, with far more detail than required, and no clear deliniation of the "management system", or it's sequences and interactions.​

Secondly, a great part of my objection to these maps is that, while the boxes with arrows linking the processes might demonstrate the sequence, they certainly don't explain the interaction of two processes (interestingly, your comment above doesn't mention the "interaction" aspect either - I understand that it most likely has been captured in the Process Flow Charts...perhaps that could be deemed adequate). My understanding is that the "Key Processes Map" should do both...I suppose it might be just a case of pot'ay"toes/pot"aw"toes...​

I'm glad to hear that your experience has been otherwise.


I'd love to see more Key Process Maps that do both.

Patricia

Click to expand...

I am not certain we are actually agreeing, in our viewpoints. I am referring to a high-level map that shows all processes, not a detailed map of just high level processes. I encourage companies to simply make one map at the 5000 foot level, that shows all the processes - the whole organization. That becomes the basis for all the rest of the documentation.

Each of those processes then is developed in detail, even down to subprocesses if appropriate. The details are contained in those. Inputs/outputs (those are the interactions), criteria, metrics, objectives, process flows, etc.

If you put all the detail in the top level map, it gets awfully complex and intimidating. It is hard to read, which limits it's usefulness to the rest of your team.

I do however, encourage people to define which are the key customer processes, and which are the supporting administrative processes. There is a benefit in clearly knowing the difference.

Hi again, hjilling,

I think we are agreeing conceptually, however, the "High-level" map that I refer to only has about 12 to 15 processes in it and it does, in fact, capture the entire organization. I like your idea of looking at the company from 5000 feet up...but I think that our basic difference is that I'm looking from an altitude of about 10,000 feet, where you can't see all the sub-processes, but you can still see the interaction between the Key processes.

Patricia

Patricia Ravanello said:

Hi again, hjilling,

I think we are agreeing conceptually, however, the "High-level" map that I refer to only has about 12 to 15 processes in it and it does, in fact, capture the entire organization. I like your idea of looking at the company from 5000 feet up...but I think that our basic difference is that I'm looking from an altitude of about 10,000 feet, where you can't see all the sub-processes, but you can still see the interaction between the Key processes.

Patricia

Click to expand...

"Sub-processes" would by definition be a sub part of a whole process. For example, a process called "Manufacturing" might be made up of subprocesses - stamping, welding, painting, assembly. I agree the subprocesses would not be on the high level map.

However, if you mean the administrative "Supporting" processes, for example, Management, Calibration, Maintenance, Training, etc., I feel these belong on the high level map. Else, you would need your "10,000" foot level view, and my "5,000" foot level view. Not sure I would want both.

One overview map, showing how the whole organization interacts, coupled with a more detailed document for each process, seems to work very well, and is easy for the team to work with.