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

Re: Which of these are processes and why?

Helmut Jilling said:

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.

Click to expand...

Absolutely right.

I would only add that some of these processes are critical to the health of the organization, and others are not so critical.

Hence, I think, Paul Simpson's earlier invocation of the Pareto principle.

Re: Which of these are processes and why?

Randy said:

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.

New procedure = Change = Resistance

Click to expand...

Thanks for the history lesson, Randy.

Applying your logic then nobody would ever want to change anything?

There are some of us who welcome beneficial change - like the need to move a debate forward!

Re: Which of these are processes and why?

Randy said:

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.

Click to expand...

Humans resist imposed change.

Humans resist change when there's no good answer to "What's In It For Me?" The change that benefits the company (shorter cycle time! yay!) may injure the employee (less overtime! boo!)

Humans readily adopt changes when they see a benefit; as in this whole Internet thing.

Re: Which of these are processes and why?

CliffK said:

Humans resist imposed change.

Humans resist change when there's no good answer to "What's In It For Me?" The change that benefits the company (shorter cycle time! yay!) may injure the employee (less overtime! boo!)

Humans readily adopt changes when they see a benefit; as in this whole Internet thing.

Click to expand...

The degree of resistance is proportional to culture and environment...

Sometimes it is negligible where absolute obedience is considered a positive attribute and virtue or "we/us" is used more considered than "I/me"...

Just my opinion.

Re: Which of these are processes and why?

michellemmm said:

The degree of resistance is proportional to culture and environment...

Sometimes it is negligible where absolute obedience is considered a positive attribute and virtue or "we/us" is used more considered than "I/me"...

Just my opinion.

Click to expand...

Good point. My cultural frame of reference for that post was Western.

Re: Which of these are processes and why?

Randy said:

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

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...

Randy

I assure you that I have thought about it(!) - which is why I am suggesting that "Quality Improvement" / "A safer working environment" / "Less damage to the environment" / "Learning lessons" are all "objectives". All of which can be achieved by lots of small (possibly unrelated) projects and activities.

Mind you, I don't find that the "Inputs - Transformation - Outputs" definition is always helpful (maybe because folk complicate it as you say). I prefer "a sequence of related tasks triggered by an event and intended to achieve an objective" - which recognises that there is a reason or aim in starting to do something, and so ties processes and objectives together.

Re: Which of these are processes and why?

Peter Fraser said:

Mind you, I don't find that the "Inputs - Transformation - Outputs" definition is always helpful (maybe because folk complicate it as you say). I prefer "a sequence of related tasks triggered by an event and intended to achieve an objective" - which recognises that there is a reason or aim in starting to do something, and so ties processes and objectives together.

Click to expand...

Peter,

I prefer the other definition because it makes it easy to see how the process adds value. If the output is not much changed from the input, then the process doesn't add much value.

Prime example: I recently encountered a process called "warehousing" that consisted of hauling big bags of stuff from place to place. I guess the assumption was that the stuff in one place was more valuable than stuff in another place.

Fortunately the organization has dropped warehousing as a process and quit hauling the stuff from place to place for no apparent reason.

Re: Which of these are processes and why?

CliffK said:

Peter,

I prefer the other definition because it makes it easy to see how the process adds value. If the output is not much changed from the input, then the process doesn't add much value.

Prime example: I recently encountered a process called "warehousing" that consisted of hauling big bags of stuff from place to place. I guess the assumption was that the stuff in one place was more valuable than stuff in another place.

Fortunately the organization has dropped warehousing as a process and quit hauling the stuff from place to place for no apparent reason.

Click to expand...

Cliff

That is exactly why "my" definition works for me! What is the objective in "hauling big bags of stuff from place to place"? If you asked the person involved: "why are you doing this, mate?", I bet he won't say "I am trying to transform an input" - if he has thought about it at all(?), he might be trying to keep it dry / keep it tidy / get it ready for despatch (or even "keep the boss off my back"...?)

Re: Which of these are processes and why?

Peter Fraser said:

Cliff

That is exactly why "my" definition works for me! What is the objective in "hauling big bags of stuff from place to place"? If you asked the person involved: "why are you doing this, mate?", I bet he won't say "I am trying to transform an input" - if he has thought about it at all(?), he might be trying to keep it dry / keep it tidy / get it ready for despatch (or even "keep the boss off my back"...?)

Click to expand...

What I don't get out of your version of the conversation is a way to show the boss that the movement is a waste of time.

With the input-transformation-output model I can show the labor vs. results very easily.

Re: Which of these are processes and why?

I am quite confused exactly which constructs are we referring to.

First, the title of the poll has been changed. It started as:

original 'Which of these are processes and why?

Click to expand...

And is currently:

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

Click to expand...

Just saying, that is two totally different things. I would vote differently for each.

Now, the word process is very general and vague. My definition is:

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...

Exactly what Randy has. Thus, every entity within the organization has a process. That process is important to them.

However, if you are using the business process definition, it is a bit more open, and I think may coincide with some of Paul's current thoughts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process

Within the business process definition above, yes, I would limit some of them as more impacting than others.
****
Consider the group of us taking a Cove cruise. Most of us hopefully are enjoying ourselves too much to be worrying about the operations management of the ship.

To the people who work on the ship, every operation has a process. Can anyone enlighten me which of the process on that cruise ship is not significant? It's significant to some group of stakeholders, one way or another.

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...

I agree with systems thinking. However, when eating an elephant, one must take one bite at a time. Even with operations, there must be tiered levels. I envision one big system, with several systems encompassed in that.