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

BradM said:

Even with operations, there must be tiered levels. I envision one big system, with several systems encompassed in that.

Click to expand...

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...

Peter Fraser said:

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.

Click to expand...

• I think there is little to be gained from debating whether your processes are better than my processes.
• ISO clearly allows/requires each organization to "define its processes." This collection of processes must cover all the activities of the organization.
• The organization may name them in any approrpiate manner, as long as it is an appropriate manner.
• The auditor does not define what may be a process, as long as they are reasonably appropriate.
• The key is how we improve and optimize the performance of those processes, the results, outputs, and interactions.
• It is not important whether we agree on process names, because we each approach this exercise from different perspectives.

CliffK said:

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.

Click to expand...

Helmut Jilling said:

• I think there is little to be gained from debating whether your processes are better than my processes.

Click to expand...

• Actually there is lots to be gained from debating understanding of processes. As covered in much detail elsewhere and my opening for this thread was:
  

  Paul Simpson said:

  On another thread (or several) there has been some disagreement about what a process is. Perhaps covers could take part in a poll as to which of the "processes" listed is significant and their justification.

  Click to expand...

  And then later when I explained my votes, I added:
  

  Paul Simpson said:

  • There is a point. ISO 9001 is supposed to be a quality standard. We are the key users of ISO. If we don't understand whether a process is a process or whether it is worthy of recording / flowcharting / measuring then who else will?
  • This is a dialogue. I may be abrupt but I want understanding to be better - if that is mine or everyone else's
  • To go back to the ISO definition of "transform inputs into outputs" is to miss the point. There are some things that are significant and important to control and need highlighting on a "process map" there are others that need less management

  Click to expand...

  I am not going to argue with the Input -> Process -> Output people any more - life is too short.
  
  What I will say as a parting shot is that if we are to rid ourselves of the image that others have of us as micro managers and the "document guys / gals" then we have to see big picture and concentrate on the business critical processes (significant) and let all the others go without significant monitoring or measuring.
  

  Helmut Jilling said:

  [*]ISO clearly allows/requires each organization to "define its processes." This collection of processes must cover all the activities of the organization.

  Click to expand...

  ISO doesn't allow anything. It does require the organization to identify its processes, the interrelationships and measures necessary to control (my ISO shorthand, you can look it up as well as I).
  
  If you are spending time on the insignificant many then the whole purpose of the process approach is lost.
  

  Helmut Jilling said:

  [*]The organization may name them in any approrpiate manner, as long as it is an appropriate manner.
  [*]The auditor does not define what may be a process, as long as they are reasonably appropriate.

  Click to expand...

  As we have discussed endlessly the point of an assessment is to take a judgement as to whether the organization has satisfied the requirements (in this case in clause 4.1) and if they haven't to raise a finding. So if someone has listed a process of IT support ))I would have to take issue. I'm not going to fail them just for that but it is part of the process of improving process understanding when I tell them that IT support is part of a series of other processes (see earlier).
  

  Helmut Jilling said:

  [*]The key is how we improve and optimize the performance of those processes, the results, outputs, and interactions.

  Click to expand...

  Starting with the important ones - the significant processes. On many other threads I have seen covers asking what kind of measures they should have for the calibration, document control etc., etc. systems. Concentrate on the big stuff and the little stuff sorts itself out.
  

  Helmut Jilling said:

  [*]It is not important whether we agree on process names, because we each approach this exercise from different perspectives.

  Click to expand...

Helmut Jilling said:

Let's move on to the important things - results, not names.

Click to expand...

Peter Fraser said:

Paul

I agree! Well said.

Click to expand...

Paul Simpson said:

Now I'm in trouble. :mg:

If you're agreeing with me Peter ....

Click to expand...

Helmut Jilling said:

Perhaps the warehousing process is actually "Inventory Management." If so, there is a lot involved in a company that buys batches of material, makes batches of product, and needs to have a robust method of storing this product until it can sell smaller quantities to various customers.

All of a sudden, it does not seem so silly, especially when one thinks of the vast amounts of money wrapped up in these inventories.

Click to expand...