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

I think identification of processes means, detailing all the processes involved in QMS including design and development and production.

However since process flow chart for production may be big (depending on the product), a interaction of all other processes can be developed refering details of production as annexure (which can be called from interaction of processes).

A simple one is attached for reference.

Regards

Ajay

I have posted one query on calibration today, kindly give your suggestions.

stephenh said:

Hi all, is it possible for you to take a look at my Interaction of Processes map? I find alot of the diagrams over - complicated and wanted to keep mine as simple as possible. Without referencing individual procedures, I have just used terms e.g Management, or New Business. Is this okay. Any advice would be appreciated

Click to expand...

I'm a little late in reviewing this one, but it does not appear to address all the activities of your organization. Somewhere, all your processes must address all activities, including Purchasing, Calibration, etc.

It might be easier for you to show the sequence of your main processes first, as a stright pipeline. Then plug in all the supporting processes around that, perhaps in a circle surrounding the main process line.

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...

Good point, hjilling! It seems to me that the standards are often looked at 'as something we must do' rather than 'a way to improve upon our business'. In the case of the former, people seem to misinterpret the standard and then scramble to appease the 'all powerful, all knowing auditor'.

It also seems that a lot of people jump straight to Point 1 of the ISO 9001:2000 standard - Requirements, and don't (or forget to) read the Introduction, especially the first sentence of 0.2.


To enhance customer satisfaction by meeting customer requirements...that is my mantra. And I ask myself every working day if my organisation has evidence to show that it is doing just that.

Yes, we need an understanding of how our business operates and interacts with each component (dept, section, whatever), but there certainly isn't any requirement to map it out.

When I conduct inductions of new staff into the QMS, I explain our company processes and how they interact. Explaining how each person contributes to a process and the flow on effect from one process to another certainly helps to make our staff understand the purpose of our QMS.

When I am audited on this point, I show my training material which has been reviewed by Management, approved and notated in their minutes. That is one way that I am able to evidence that the organisation has determined the sequence and interaction.

Rather long-winded, but I just wanted to point out that there are other ways to approach this without 'process mapping' and to challange any auditor who says that it is required.

YankInOz said:

It seems to me that the standards are often looked at 'as something we must do' rather than 'a way to improve upon our business'. In the case of the former, people seem to misinterpret the standard and then scramble to appease the 'all powerful, all knowing auditor'.

It also seems that a lot of people jump straight to Point 1 of the ISO 9001:2000 standard - Requirements, and don't (or forget to) read the Introduction, especially the first sentence of 0.2.

To enhance customer satisfaction by meeting customer requirements...that is my mantra. And I ask myself every working day if my organisation has evidence to show that it is doing just that.

Click to expand...

Yes, indeed! You make excellent points, with which I could not agree more.

YankInOz said:

I just wanted to point out that there are other ways to approach this without 'process mapping' and to challange any auditor who says that it is required.

Click to expand...

Again, yes. Auditors are there to test the system against the relevant Standard, & all the good ones I've come across are willing to discuss and debate & consider alternative ways of meeting requirements.

And one of the best ways to challenge any auditor is to know the Standard very well indeed, and keep debate to what the Standard itself says - which effectively undercuts personal interpretations.

YankInOz said:

To enhance customer satisfaction by meeting customer requirements...that is my mantra. And I ask myself every working day if my organisation has evidence to show that it is doing just that.

Click to expand...

An interesting view! This is one of (several) terms in ISO9001 that confuse me. I would have thought that to "enhance customer satisfaction" you would need to go beyond "just" meeting customer requirements by "exceeding" them in some way, or perhaps by meeting their expectations (if these go beyond basic or stated requirements). Perhaps the words ‘to ensure’ would be more accurate...?

Peter Fraser said:

An interesting view! This is one of (several) terms in ISO9001 that confuse me. I would have thought that to "enhance customer satisfaction" you would need to go beyond "just" meeting customer requirements by "exceeding" them in some way, or perhaps by meeting their expectations (if these go beyond basic or stated requirements). Perhaps the words ‘to ensure’ would be more accurate...?

Click to expand...

Good point, Peter, however, the idea behind the 'model' of a QMS in ISO 9000 is based on the premise that the organization has to consider its position in the market place and if the customer base actually wants to have their expectations exceeded! Or indeed, if expectations can be identified. I believe that it's very difficult in many situations for a company to do either and the customer doesn't require it anyway.

AndyN said:

Good point, Peter, however, the idea behind the 'madel of a QMS in ISO 9000is based on the premise that the organization has to consider its position in the market place and if the customer base actually wants to have their expectations exceeded! Or indeed, if expectactions can be identified. I belive that it's very difficult in many situations for a company to do either and the customer doesn't require it anyway.

Click to expand...

Yes. If most or many of a customer's suppliers don't meet expectations, you can exceed their expectations just by consistently meeting the requirements.

Peter Fraser said:

An interesting view! This is one of (several) terms in ISO9001 that confuse me. I would have thought that to "enhance customer satisfaction" you would need to go beyond "just" meeting customer requirements by "exceeding" them in some way,

Click to expand...

Possibly. Certainly Sony's Walkman exceeded the requirements of the pocket transistor radio buying public. Enhanced satisfaction with Sony products resulted, as evidenced by the death of the pocket transistor radio.

or perhaps by meeting their expectations

Click to expand...

Many customers have a hierarchy of requirements, from must-haves though nice-to-haves and up to life-would-be-perfect-if's. If you are operating on the must-have level and move up to the nice-to-have level, you have enhanced customer satisfaction.

At the same time, you have improved your chances of retaining their business.

if these go beyond basic or stated requirements.

Click to expand...

It's up to you - and to your benefit - to learn these unstated requirements. 7.2.1(d) mentions "any other requirements determined by the organization."

Knowing these requirements can help you stand out from the pack.

Perhaps the words ‘to ensure’ would be more accurate...?

Click to expand...

Nah. No change necessary.

Your flow diagram looks okay. One thing we have done with our flow diagrams to make them even more useful is that we associate the implementing procedure to the steps and hyperlink to the procedure itself. Users can then use the flow diagram to understand where in the process they are; what procedures they need to use; and can actually go to the procedure all from one place.
Hope this helps.

dcarson said:

One thing we have done with our flow diagrams to make them even more useful is that we associate the implementing procedure to the steps and hyperlink to the procedure itself. Users can then use the flow diagram to understand where in the process they are; what procedures they need to use; and can actually go to the procedure all from one place.
Hope this helps.

Click to expand...

That can be a very handy thing.

You can incur a maintenance burden as procedures get deleted from the system and new ones added.

Another reason to be lean in your documentation.