The 'Best of the Best' Process Map Format
- Thread starter Marc
- Start date
Our clients favor TeamFlow as recommended by Deming disciple Myron Tribus.
Even today, TF is streets ahead of any other process analysis tool our management system consultants have used.
TF has the added benefit of resulting in a procedure showing who does what to fulfill the process objective from which hyperlinks may bring forms and instructions into view as required.
TF will display in .tml format or as an HTML document accessed by a browser. Most clients prefer the PDF output with any necessary hyperlinks embedded.
John
Even today, TF is streets ahead of any other process analysis tool our management system consultants have used.
TF has the added benefit of resulting in a procedure showing who does what to fulfill the process objective from which hyperlinks may bring forms and instructions into view as required.
TF will display in .tml format or as an HTML document accessed by a browser. Most clients prefer the PDF output with any necessary hyperlinks embedded.
John
Richard Regalado
Trusted Information Resource
I've used Visio even before it was bought by Microsoft. I like the Snap and Glue functionality. It allows me to work quicker.
Attached is an example of a flowchart done in Visio.
Comments are welcome.
ADMIN (Marc) Note: The site owner is Mr. Gary Hinson. A NZ chap whose passion is infosec. ISMS professionals from all of the world collaborated and contributed freely to the site - www.iso27001security.com. They started with a Google Group that offers pro-bono advise to newbies. Then someone thought of creating a toolkit. The toolkit there is freely downloadable. No email required. No name required. Just a right click and save. The toolkit contains relevant materials for companies who cannot afford to hire consultants. The Google Group provides the support by answering questions..
.
Attached is an example of a flowchart done in Visio.
Comments are welcome.
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Post https://Elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=548173&postcount=103 (above this one) Updated with an "Admin" note.
Marc
With process maps, I have discovered a few things over time.
Process maps are inherently manual information and therefore are currently not useful as operational devices which allow transactions to occur. There is a vast opportunity for software companies in this area with an advancement of Mapping and related software transaction. Many of the current manufacturing software packages still exist in menu format.
I find it interesting that ISO MSS's support PDCA (PDSA) as the process method of choice, however engineering and auditing disciplines in most cases don't follow this process when considering mapping.
The most helpful consideration for auditing I have discovered is to consider process activities (inputs, transformation, outputs) as planned risk and control events, related to Deming's idea of variation (common and uncommon causes) which can include as focus any one or a multiple of disciplines (quality environmental health & safety, security, financial etc), set in PDSA or PDCA format. Interfaces and their related activities are determined as effective planning activities. Controls indicate some determination and ranking of risk has occurred. Here is a simple explanation of how I use the PDCA for manufacturing auditing.
Plan
Manufacturing Inputs would include:
The activities and controls for such things as:
Material, Manpower, Machines, Infrastructure, Work Environment
Do/Check
Manufacturing Transformation would include:
The activities and controls for the Methods used to manufacture conforming product and control any non-conformity.
Do/Check
Manufacturing Outputs would include:
Products or services which meet customer requirements (which obviously would require records as evidence)
and a whole host of other outputs depending upon the disciplines being considered at the time of audit.
Study-Check/Act
The final step in this Process Map is Management, which includes:
Analysis and Review of data and the actions related to analysis and review which include things such as: Stay the course, Consider Improvements, Reassess capability/ability and determine a course of action.
Yes I leave out root cause, because its a function of the actions related to Reassessing capability or ability.
I find even entry level auditors can easily grasp hold of this format and perform very effective audits by staying focused on the activities and controls at various stages of the process under single or multiple disciplines.
Even with a modest understanding in Materials, one can determine that things such as; Identification, Status, Preservation, Traceability, Handling, Packaging, Storage, Delivery, Scanning, Competence, are all necessary controls for several disciplines.
With this tool, auditors don't need to understand numbered sections of an ISO MSS, or conceive the meanings of turtle diagrams, they simply need an understanding of:
I find with this method, folks don't tend to get bogged down or wander off track when performing audits. Further since the controls are defined in most cases, its difficult for anyone to B/S their way round either their absence, or ill use.
With process maps, I have discovered a few things over time.
Process maps are inherently manual information and therefore are currently not useful as operational devices which allow transactions to occur. There is a vast opportunity for software companies in this area with an advancement of Mapping and related software transaction. Many of the current manufacturing software packages still exist in menu format.
I find it interesting that ISO MSS's support PDCA (PDSA) as the process method of choice, however engineering and auditing disciplines in most cases don't follow this process when considering mapping.
The most helpful consideration for auditing I have discovered is to consider process activities (inputs, transformation, outputs) as planned risk and control events, related to Deming's idea of variation (common and uncommon causes) which can include as focus any one or a multiple of disciplines (quality environmental health & safety, security, financial etc), set in PDSA or PDCA format. Interfaces and their related activities are determined as effective planning activities. Controls indicate some determination and ranking of risk has occurred. Here is a simple explanation of how I use the PDCA for manufacturing auditing.
Plan
Manufacturing Inputs would include:
The activities and controls for such things as:
Material, Manpower, Machines, Infrastructure, Work Environment
Do/Check
Manufacturing Transformation would include:
The activities and controls for the Methods used to manufacture conforming product and control any non-conformity.
Do/Check
Manufacturing Outputs would include:
Products or services which meet customer requirements (which obviously would require records as evidence)
and a whole host of other outputs depending upon the disciplines being considered at the time of audit.
Study-Check/Act
The final step in this Process Map is Management, which includes:
Analysis and Review of data and the actions related to analysis and review which include things such as: Stay the course, Consider Improvements, Reassess capability/ability and determine a course of action.
Yes I leave out root cause, because its a function of the actions related to Reassessing capability or ability.
I find even entry level auditors can easily grasp hold of this format and perform very effective audits by staying focused on the activities and controls at various stages of the process under single or multiple disciplines.
Even with a modest understanding in Materials, one can determine that things such as; Identification, Status, Preservation, Traceability, Handling, Packaging, Storage, Delivery, Scanning, Competence, are all necessary controls for several disciplines.
With this tool, auditors don't need to understand numbered sections of an ISO MSS, or conceive the meanings of turtle diagrams, they simply need an understanding of:
- The Process method PDCA,
- Some knowledge of risk and how to handle risk (Vehicle insurance and accepting or transferring risk is a good place to get people started)
- Deming's causes of variation (common and uncommon)
I find with this method, folks don't tend to get bogged down or wander off track when performing audits. Further since the controls are defined in most cases, its difficult for anyone to B/S their way round either their absence, or ill use.
For some reason, I scrolled down the screen and the number of Cove members who have read this thread just wowed me. At the time of this post, close to 2,800 Cove'rs have popped into this thread. Yes, the thread started back 2004 and perhaps some may find that number of readers in such a large time span to be unimpressive, but...
- 10 years!
And we kept adding to it! - 2,800 readers...who may have taken the information to other people...ripple effect!
Maybe I need a cheerleader icon for myself - especially if no one else finds these numbers fascinating. But I look at the duration and the reach of this thread and think "Just imagine all the possible people and organizations and systems we may have helped or impacted!"
This is the power of the Cove at work!
J
Joe Cruse
I had used a graphical map to illustrate our processes, and their interactions, when we developed our QMS to meet the 2008 revision. It worked exactly as written, but was still heavily influenced by the "departments" idea, and a couple of auditors have noted that to me, without giving us an OFI or finding, in recent years. With the 2015 revision coming, I decided to push the map directly down the all process/no department road, and looked through this thread quite a lot, to help me decide how to detail ours within one graphical shot. The auditors on our re-certification audit last week liked what we came up with, so I will share it here, in case someone wants another example to help them build their own. The MS Word attachment has the diagram embedded (SmartDraw), but if it doesn't work, there is a PDF attached, also.
This is a really great thread, with a TON of examples AND experienced (and inexperienced, which is great, too) commentary.
Joe
This is a really great thread, with a TON of examples AND experienced (and inexperienced, which is great, too) commentary.
Joe
Joe,
I like your depiction of the sequence and interaction of processes in your system.
I would have included two more processes:
A. Marketing and Selling
B. Invoicing and Controlling Credit
...to reflect the business cycle.
Well done on completing the transition from a department-based management system to the one that is process-based where the departments collaborate in serving customers.
Updating your management system for ISO 9001:2015 should be a lot easier.
Best wishes,
John
I like your depiction of the sequence and interaction of processes in your system.
I would have included two more processes:
A. Marketing and Selling
B. Invoicing and Controlling Credit
...to reflect the business cycle.
Well done on completing the transition from a department-based management system to the one that is process-based where the departments collaborate in serving customers.
Updating your management system for ISO 9001:2015 should be a lot easier.
Best wishes,
John
J
Joe Cruse
John,
thanks for the feedback. Our situation is a little different that some, and very different at this time, compared to all my 20 years here. Under our new ownership, we now sell exclusively to our sister company (as do ALL our sister production companies), which is strictly a sales organization. The end user customer is their customer, so my company now only has one customer. We must retain a Customer Service process within our business, but we do not have a "department" anymore, and our company does no marketing and selling, per se. And as such, invoicing is simply now a support to the main processes of our business and QMS.
But, yes, in our past life, what you noted would be included within the Customer Service Process, a process where the departments of Executive Office, Customer Service, Quality, and Finished Goods Production all collaborate to run that process.
Thank you,
Joe
thanks for the feedback. Our situation is a little different that some, and very different at this time, compared to all my 20 years here. Under our new ownership, we now sell exclusively to our sister company (as do ALL our sister production companies), which is strictly a sales organization. The end user customer is their customer, so my company now only has one customer. We must retain a Customer Service process within our business, but we do not have a "department" anymore, and our company does no marketing and selling, per se. And as such, invoicing is simply now a support to the main processes of our business and QMS.
But, yes, in our past life, what you noted would be included within the Customer Service Process, a process where the departments of Executive Office, Customer Service, Quality, and Finished Goods Production all collaborate to run that process.
Thank you,
Joe