Which of these are Processes and should have Process Maps and why?

Re: Which of these are processes and why?

Paul Simpson said:

Thanks to all who have contributed to the thread .... and before you ask the skiing was magnificent!

Just to clear up a couple of things:

1. Yes, they are all processes
2. They are all important in their own way

......There is no requirement for a process map, please excuse my shorthand, if I have to explain every word and phrase the flow gets lost. A bit like reading a dictionary as a novel - not much of a plot but at least every word is explained as you go along!
................

Click to expand...

Hi Paul, and welcome back.

Not that I care to be redundant (Item #21 in this thread), or to extend this discussion further, but as Helmet has repeatedly pointed out in this thread, it depends what "level" Process Map you are referring to in your Question.

The discussion thread starter identifies the question as:


But then, your Poll question is:

Which of the following is a process worthy of inclusion on your process map?"​

These are two totally different questions, and now I'm wondering exactly which one people are answering. I originally thought you were speaking about the "QMS" sequence and interaction Map (which I believe only captures how the QMS works, and not how you build thingamajigs). The Poll question refers to "Process Map", in the singular, so I guessed you were speaking of the Map that defines the QMS.

Or....perhaps you really were asking: "What processes warrant inclusion in your Product Realization Process?"

Sorry, this is rather late in the discussion, but it might help to get everyone on the same page.

Thanks,
Patricia

P.S. I think this distinction demonstrates, at least in part, the importance and justification for having a Model that defines the workings of the QMS at a Macro Level. I know I won't find much agreement here on the Cove, since many have expressed their distinct disdain for this "requirement", calling it useless, of no consequence to anyone...not understood by employees, non-value added, or simply non-existent and unnecessary". I still contend that the QMS (sequence & interface) Model is Sr. Management's roadmap for managing the company, and should be familiar to, and understood by all employees. Rest assured, it is not my intention to revisit that discussion here. Patricia

Re: Which of these are processes and why?

Randy said:

Thank you Paul............

I will be in the UK in early April, possibly Milton Keynes, attending AS9110 Train-the-Trainer. I don't know the particulars yet.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Randy. I'd love to meet you. I am based in Northampton (c 20 miles) and work just outside Milton Keynes. Let me know your schedule and we could meet up - how will I recognize you?

Re: Which of these are processes and why?

Patricia Ravanello said:

Hi Paul, and welcome back.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Patricia. I'd love to say I'm glad to be back.

It's only visiting the cove that keeps me sane!

Patricia Ravanello said:

Not that I care to be redundant (Item #21 in this thread), or to extend this discussion further, but as Helmet has repeatedly pointed out in this thread, it depends what "level" Process Map you are referring to in your Question.

The discussion thread starter identifies the question as:

"Which of these are Processes and should have Process Maps and why?"​

But then, your Poll question is:

Which of the following is a process worthy of inclusion on your process map?"​

Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing this out. When I originally put together the poll it was under the ISO 9001 sub forum and the title wasn't the one that now heads this thread. Perhaps the moderator who moved it can remember what the original title was - I've skiied since then - and drunk schnapps!

Patricia Ravanello said:

These are two totally different questions, and now I'm wondering exactly which one people are answering. I originally thought you were speaking about the "QMS" sequence and interaction Map (which I believe only captures how the QMS works, and not how you build thingamajigs). The Poll question refers to "Process Map", in the singular, so I guessed you were speaking of the Map that defines the QMS.

Click to expand...

Agreed. The point of the poll was to invite covers to identify which of these processes is significant enough to be listed in your quality manual (sequence and interaction).

Patricia Ravanello said:

Or....perhaps you really were asking: "What processes warrant inclusion in your Product Realization Process?"

Click to expand...

Nope! A lot of the "significant" processes are support processes rather than core process (Product realization) - e.g. business planning.

Patricia Ravanello said:

Sorry, this is rather late in the discussion, but it might help to get everyone on the same page.

Thanks,
Patricia

P.S. I think this distinction demonstrates, at least in part, the importance and justification for having a Model that defines the workings of the QMS at a Macro Level. I know I won't find much agreement here on the Cove, since many have expressed their distinct disdain for this "requirement", calling it useless, of no consequence to anyone...not understood by employees, non-value added, or simply non-existent and unnecessary". I still contend that the QMS (sequence & interface) Model is Sr. Management's roadmap for managing the company, and should be familiar to, and understood by all employees. Rest assured, it is not my intention to revisit that discussion here. Patricia

Click to expand...

Exactly. The significance test was introduced to try and weed out the "IT support" and "document control" processes and get Covers to focus on the significant few rather than the insignificant many.

Re: Which of these are processes and why?

Helmut Jilling said:

• 44% agree that IT Support is a viable "suport process."

Click to expand...

But is it worthy of inclusion in the description of sequence and interaction?

Popularity doesn't mean it is right.

Re: Which of these are processes and why?

It is interesting how progress is made in management field....3R rules...

• Turtle chart was adopted from Phillip Crosby's "Process Analysis Work Sheet." I am sure Crosby also adopted it from someone else...

• Phillip Crosby also made a distinction between a "Process" and a "Program".

• Crosby defined a process as being "on going" and never ending and a program to have a beginning and an end.

Now, all work is process.

I wonder what QMS is headed?

Re: Which of these are processes and why?

michellemmm said:

Turtle chart was adopted from Phillip Crosby's "Process Analysis Work Sheet." I am sure Crosby also adopted it from someone else...
Phillip Crosby also made a distinction between a "Process" and a "Program".
For example: Quality Improvement is a process and not a program.
Crosby defined a process as being "on going" and never ending and a program to have a beginning and an end.

Click to expand...

Michelle

Thanks for making me think!

I'm not sure about "Quality Improvement" being a process. Could it be an "Objective", or even a "Policy", which is achieved in a variety of ways, perhaps by individual "projects"?

And I reckon that the "Procurement" process, and the "Tendering" process, are just that - ways of doing something which may be (is) repeated as required. To me, a "Program" is more like a collection of projects - which by definition is time-limited.

I can see that a "continuous" production line could fit the "process" definition (at least until someone turns the power off), but I'm not convinced otherwise.

It all adds to the challenge of deciding "what is a process"!

Re: Which of these are processes and why?

Peter Fraser said:

Michelle

Thanks for making me think!

I'm not sure about "Quality Improvement" being a process. Could it be an "Objective", or even a "Policy", which is achieved in a variety of ways, perhaps by individual "projects"?

Click to expand...

Think about it Peter....Quality Improvement has to have inputs, something done with them, and outputs (primarily improved Quality)


And I reckon that the "Procurement" process, and the "Tendering" process, are just that - ways of doing something which may be (is) repeated as required. To me, a "Program" is more like a collection of projects - which by definition is time-limited.

I can see that a "continuous" production line could fit the "process" definition (at least until someone turns the power off), but I'm not convinced otherwise.

It all adds to the challenge of deciding "what is a process"!

Click to expand...

Process is so easy that the tendency is to complicate it to make it more acceptable

INPUT - - ACTIVITY (Doing something to or with the Input) - OUTPUT (The result of something being done to or with the Input)

Re: Which of these are processes and why?

Randy said:

Process is so easy that the tendency is to complicate it to make it more acceptable

INPUT - - ACTIVITY (Doing something to or with the Input) - OUTPUT (The result of something being done to or with the Input)

Click to expand...

As you may guess I take a different view.

A process may be simple but it is rarely easy.

The difference is:

• You can easily identify all the inputs and outputs, the resources and controls - that is the easy bit.
• The difficult bit is to identify and manage all the interactions of the elements of the process - particularly the humans involved.

Take implementing a new procedure for example - simple.

Then why:

• does it take so long
• is it difficult to get all stakeholders to agree what it should contain
• once issued despite how much you communicate requirements and train people they don't follow it?

It's called systems thinking and says you can't break a complicated organization like a company down and micro manage small bits of it and expect the whole to work as well as you would like.

Re: Which of these are processes and why?

Peter Fraser said:

Michelle

Thanks for making me think!

I'm not sure about "Quality Improvement" being a process. Could it be an "Objective", or even a "Policy", which is achieved in a variety of ways, perhaps by individual "projects"?

And I reckon that the "Procurement" process, and the "Tendering" process, are just that - ways of doing something which may be (is) repeated as required. To me, a "Program" is more like a collection of projects - which by definition is time-limited.

I can see that a "continuous" production line could fit the "process" definition (at least until someone turns the power off), but I'm not convinced otherwise.

It all adds to the challenge of deciding "what is a process"!

Click to expand...

I don't think we should debate whether IS a process. Pretty much most activities can be classed as a process. In systems thinking, I think the relevant question is which processes should be defined at the QMS system level, and the rest should be subprocesses and even subactivities below that.

Re: Which of these are processes and why?

Paul Simpson said:

As you may guess I take a different view.

A process may be simple but it is rarely easy.

The difference is:

• You can easily identify all the inputs and outputs, the resources and controls - that is the easy bit.
• The difficult bit is to identify and manage all the interactions of the elements of the process - particularly the humans involved.

Take implementing a new procedure for example - simple.

Then why:

• does it take so long
• is it difficult to get all stakeholders to agree what it should contain
• once issued despite how much you communicate requirements and train people they don't follow it?

It's called systems thinking and says you can't break a complicated organization like a company down and micro manage small bits of it and expect the whole to work as well as you would like.

Click to expand...

It's all very simple....Humans are resistant to change no matter how beneficial it may be. We like contiuity...sameness so to speak. If it is different, we aren't gonna do it.

Just look at the old Roman Republic and the later Empire....it conquered, but did not require those conquered to change anything other than where the taxes were sent, and to whom ultimate alliegence was to be given (always to Rome and later to Ceasar (sitting Emperor). Those conqured were allowed to keep their identity, religion and internal culture pretty much intact. Rome recognized early on that with less change there is greater potential for stability, acceptance and peace (Pax Romana). It was only after more aggressive Roman rule came down that we see the internal strife (like in Judea).

New procedure = Change = Resistance