Process Mapping - Process Flow and Interactions of Processes - ISO 9001

hjilling said:

There is NO requirement to make flowcharts, process maps, or turtles! The requirement is that we define the sequence and interactions. ANY format that accomplishes that can meet the requirement. So, if YOU want to have flowcharts, process maps, or turtles, that is great. But, don't make it for the auditor. Make it to be what you need! If you understand the standard, you will make it in such a way that it also meets the requirements.

Click to expand...

You've stated it perfectly and I did not realize that "maps" were not "the format" to use. It seems that most people create that type of document so it must be the best? Hey, this could be a poll. What does everyone use? Anyone want to start a poll here too?

Lee said:

Re: benefit...I do not see the benefit of the document. Why is it needed?
...Sounds like it is a bit complicated. Big Thanks!

Click to expand...

The fact that you have come to this conclusion is good, it sets you on a course where you can tune the document(s) to a stage where they actually do provide value. I'll try to offer a couple steps:

1. Sequences (cl 4.1.b) The value of a sequential diagram is to see if there are bottlenecks, redundancies, or wasted steps. Is the process unclear, or obvious and straightforward. Can we simplify the steps. It is also a useful tool for internal auditors to use.

2. Inputs and Outputs (Interactions cl 4.1.b) are useful to define what is actually adding value and what is merely paperwork. It also helps show the sequences discussed above.

3. Criteria for Effectiveness (cl 4.1.c) helps establish what the team agrees are the important criteria of the process. These become the focal point. Note: These are not the same thing as the process outputs, except in some cases. There are like the key dimensions on a blueprint that we inspect parts to.

4. The Measurables (cl 4.1.e) are how we track whether those Criteria are being met.

These four steps are requirements, as indicated, but the format is left to you. A process map is an attempt to evaluate these variables. Some folks find the turtles are an easier format to do this.

Hope that helps.

Lee,
I looked at the process map.

I guess my main question would be: can you put this in front of someone new to the organisation, and can they glean anything useful out of it? (NO cheating now... no having someone steeped in ISO and quality terminology to sit next to 'em and explain it).

If not... what's the value? And why bother?

JaneB said:

If not... what's the value? And why bother?

Click to expand...

My question exactly. That is why I am looking to change it to something that means something to someone. Thanks.

The probem is that many folks don't have a methology on how to execute and use process maps to improve their process. For those who believe it is just flow charting then I would say that is like comparing elementry arithmetic with advanced accounting.
Let me just give you a few hints at what we are doing, keep in mind we are a complex international organization with many sites around the globe. Pick an important process to map, say training. Now training occurs through many departments in most companies so you need to get together the head people from all the different training groups, those would be the process owners. Now have them discuss what the high level training processes are, then break down each of the high level processes to a second level to get the most benefit. You would be surprised to find out that those managers cannot even agree on what those process steps are and they live eat and breathe training...anyway after many hours of deliberation the final output is an "as is" process definition which includes maps from a high level 1 to a second level as well as a supporting document that outlines process measures/monitors, controls, chronic obstacles, and improvement opportunities. I can honestly as an internal auditor that we have had more process improvements from this process mapping activity in the last 3 months than we have ever had from internal audits for the past 5 years. The activity has served as a trigger and thread to show connection between all of the veritcally siloed department controlled planning processes and give a meaningful horizontal view of the a consolidated planning process. An extra plus is that we are able to show top management in a complex organization the issues of silo management and now truly do process oriented audits.
The next step is to develop a "to be" process that will close the gaps in the current horizontal process. I am currently in process of documenting this process definition methodology in order to capture the intellectual capital gained. It may be a while before I can share it here but once it is done I will share it.

qualityboi said:

The probem is that many folks don't have a methology on how to execute and use process maps to improve their process. For those who believe it is just flow charting then I would say that is like comparing elementry arithmetic with advanced accounting.
Let me just give you a few hints at what we are doing, keep in mind we are a complex international organization with many sites around the globe. Pick an important process to map, say training. Now training occurs through many departments in most companies so you need to get together the head people from all the different training groups, those would be the process owners. Now have them discuss what the high level training processes are, then break down each of the high level processes to a second level to get the most benefit. You would be surprised to find out that those managers cannot even agree on what those process steps are and they live eat and breathe training...anyway after many hours of deliberation the final output is an "as is" process definition which includes maps from a high level 1 to a second level as well as a supporting document that outlines process measures/monitors, controls, chronic obstacles, and improvement opportunities. I can honestly as an internal auditor that we have had more process improvements from this process mapping activity in the last 3 months than we have ever had from internal audits for the past 5 years. The activity has served as a trigger and thread to show connection between all of the veritcally siloed department controlled planning processes and give a meaningful horizontal view of the a consolidated planning process. An extra plus is that we are able to show top management in a complex organization the issues of silo management and now truly do process oriented audits.
The next step is to develop a "to be" process that will close the gaps in the current horizontal process. I am currently in process of documenting this process definition methodology in order to capture the intellectual capital gained. It may be a while before I can share it here but once it is done I will share it.

Click to expand...

Excellent stuff, qualitiboi...

I would add, there is turbocharge power in defining the Criteria for Effectiveness (cl 4.1.c)

This helps establish what the team agrees are the important criteria of the process. These become the focal point. (Note: These are not the same thing as the process outputs, except in some cases.)

An example. I had a training situation where I asked a Maintenance Mgr. to describe the top 4 things (criteria) whereby he judges whether he is doing a good job for the Production Mgr. (his internal customer). He rattled off four good things. I next asked his customer, the Production Mgr., what 4 things HE felt were important criteria to judge the performance of Maintenance. He also mentioned 4 good things.

However, only one of the four things the Maintenance Mgr. mentioned as important, were mentioned as important be the Production Mgr!

In other words, 75% of the focus of the Maintenance Mgr. was misplaced, and of secondary importance to the Production Mgr. Just understanding this discrepancy allowed these two managers to better align their efforts for the maximum benefit.

This stuff works, if we do it right!

I agree with the last few posts that the process map must be of some value other than showing the auditor that you have them. I have made a training package that some of you may have seen called "Process Mapping" .
It is very basic but I get everyone to do it before I get them to look at their processes. There is an exercise where they have to map 'making a cup of coffee'. It sounds easy until you let them loose with it . I emphasis at the end of it that they must do the following:
1. Check if the process is effective
2. Explain how they monitor the process
3. Explain how they measure the process
4. Explain how they can improve the process

We lead them thru to another project where they have to explain how they monitor the transition of their process thru to the customer...be it the next process in line, transport, storage or the final customer. We look at the gaps between the processes!!!

It is a very interesting exercise and it has broken down some departmental barriers that people had established as they felt that their responsibility ended with their process.

qualityboi said:

You would be surprised to find out that those managers cannot even agree on what those process steps are and they live eat and breathe training...

Click to expand...

Jim
I agree entirely. After finding it is so common, it no longer surprises me - how difficult it is for competent, experienced people to explain to someone else what they do! It makes it all the more important that an organisation has a very simple, clear method of describing how they operate, so that new staff don't have to rely on these same people to tell them (although it is always useful to have someone to refer to if in doubt).

Greg B said:

I have made a training package that some of you may have seen called "Process Mapping" .
It is very basic but I get everyone to do it before I get them to look at their processes. There is an exercise where they have to map 'making a cup of coffee'. It sounds easy until you let them loose with it.

Click to expand...

Greg
Thanks for the package - it is very clearly set out. Do you mind if I use it to illustrate what I think is a major obstacle for folk who are still trying to get their heads round "processes"?

First of all, I am pleased that Jim (above) used "Training" for his example, and that you use "Making a cup of tea". In both cases, each "instance" of the process will be different, and the staff need to manage the differences (between customers, their demands, the other orders being processed at the same time etc). Neither is a "continuous production line" type of process, which is where I feel much of the confusion comes from.

Quoting the accepted definitions (which I believe are production line based, and so at the root of the problem!) you say "Inputs ... may include equipment". You say that a process "... transforms inputs into outputs". You say that "a cup" and "a spoon" are two of the inputs required to make a cup of coffee. So what do you use to make the second cup, now that the cup you used for the first customer has been "transformed" (into a pumpkin?)

You ask "What are your inputs from the customer?" Why just "from the customer"? You have listed many more "inputs" (or are they resources?!) Your question suggests that you are closer to my definition of a process - which has something "triggering" the process to start. So the order from the customer triggers the "Make a cup of coffee" process, whose objective is to deliver a cup of coffee, in a clean cup, without undue delay, and with a smile... How well you can do it depends (a) on the resources you have available, and also (b) on the other factors that can influence the process (such as the attitude of the staff, the length of the queue...).

I like your "What now" section. Often, just defining the process is a challenge - but the real benefit comes after that, when managers (and staff) can think about what the process is trying to achieve, what the organisation's overall objectives are and how they affect how the process is designed and delivered. For example, do you want the customers to tell their friends how friendly the staff are, and how clean the premises are? Then encourage the staff to smile when they take the order, and to clean the table as soon as it is vacated. It's all part of the process.

How many staff in a coffee shop go to work to "do" transformations? They go to serve customers / deliver a service / keep the boss happy enough to get paid.... After all, the staff are "resources" as well - I bet they don't want to be "transformed" by their shift either!

Sorry for having a go (not at you, but at the definitions), but your example was so clearly set out...!

Peter Fraser said:

Greg
Thanks for the package - it is very clearly set out. Do you mind if I use it to illustrate what I think is a major obstacle for folk who are still trying to get their heads round "processes"?

Click to expand...

Peter Fraser said:

First of all, I am pleased that Jim used "Training" for his example, and that you use "Making a cup of tea". In both cases, each "instance" of the process will be different, and the staff needs to manage the differences (between customers, their demands, the other orders being processed at the same time etc). Neither is a "continuous production line" type of process, which is where I feel much of the confusion comes from.

Click to expand...

Making cups of coffee can be a production line and our company does not have a production line. It is an example only to get them thinking and works well.

Peter Fraser said:

Quoting the accepted definitions (which I believe are production line based, and so at the root of the problem!) you say "Inputs ... may include equipment". You say that a process "... transforms inputs into outputs". You say that "a cup" and "a spoon" are two of the inputs required to make a cup of coffee. So what do you use to make the second cup, now that the cup you used for the first customer has been "transformed" (into a pumpkin?)

Click to expand...

These are questions that are posed as they go about their process mapping. They actually have all the resources (we do this in the common room) and individuals get up and make coffee with others mapping away. I don't like to pre-empt their thought process so a lot of this they discover during their own 'process' of coffee making. People ask them what do you do with the spoon? What happens to the dirty cup? What temp is the water? is the customer satisfied? Who placed the order? etc they often have to be roped back to the process or they go off at tangents….especially the accountants and engineers

Peter Fraser said:

You ask "What are your inputs from the customer?" Why just "from the customer"? You have listed many more "inputs" (or are they resources?!) Your question suggests that you are closer to my definition of a process - which has something "triggering" the process to start. So the order from the customer triggers the "Make a cup of coffee" process, whose objective is to deliver a cup of coffee, in a clean cup, without undue delay, and with a smile... How well you can do it depends (a) on the resources you have available, and also (b) on the other factors that can influence the process (such as the attitude of the staff, the length of the queue...).

Click to expand...

I don't tell them who the customer is! They have to work this out and usually get it wrong. In our company the process operators don't usually know who the final customer will be….they only know up and down stream from their area of responsibility. I ask them about their manager being a customer etc. 'resources' can be and are 'inputs' to the physical process but I also get them to think about Training, paperwork, instructions, maintenance etc because these all have to be ticked off.

Peter Fraser said:

I like your "What now" section. Often, just defining the process is a challenge - but the real benefit comes after that, when managers (and staff) can think about what the process is trying to achieve, what the organisation's overall objectives are and how they affect how the process is designed and delivered. For example, do you want the customers to tell their friends how friendly the staff are, and how clean the premises are? Then encourage the staff to smile when they take the order, and to clean the table as soon as it is vacated. It's all part of the process.

Click to expand...

I get them to realise that their are two parts of the mapping. The 'physical' that will be documented in work instructions and the flow charts etc and the 'business map' of where and how their process fits into the organisation.

Peter Fraser said:

How many staff in a coffee shop go to work to "do" transformations? They go to serve customers / deliver a service / keep the boss happy enough to get paid.... After all, the staff are "resources" as well - I bet they don't want to be "transformed" by their shift either!

Sorry for having a go (not at you, but at the definitions), but your example was so clearly set out...!

Click to expand...

Peter, I am not taking offence but I need to clarify that this is more than the physical process during the class.... it is a thinking lesson and I don't want to impart my bias or kill them with PowerPoint slides . Cups of coffee were easier than walking thru a noisy plant with people that had 'their' opinion of how 'their' process operates. I take them away from that environment and give them something relatively easy that turns out to be not so easy when documenting it. We also have people form different sections in the class.
I too not always agree with the 'terms' as it used in the various standards but I use them in name only and do not get stuck down with semantics as many in the cove do.. Just look at the 'Shall' people or those that have conniptions over 'preventative' versus 'corrective’
PS: If you want this presentation then you may do with at you please. I put all of my presentations on the cove for everyone to use. I just like the recognition if they are re-used on this site, which has happened.

Greg

That all sounds brilliant - much more to it than you can see from the slides, and covering all the things I would have thought about (and more!)

You are right that many people just don't know that they are part of a process - all they are doing is taking the next piece of paper out of the in tray, or doing what they did last week, or doing what they think will keep the boss happy. Customer - what customer?

Many thanks.