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

Peter Fraser said:

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!)

Click to expand...

Yup.

Any good presentation does & should have lots more to it than simply what is on the slides. The kind of 'presentation' that consists of someone simply standing there and droning through Every. Word. On. Every. Slide. is definitely tediousand rarely produces any result other than to send people to sleep.

Hi

I'm currently in the process of re-writing our manual as our QMS as the system was implemented by someone else with the help of a consultant and the manual is basically a regurgitation of the standard and doesn't really do anything for the company. I took over the system when the old manager left and am rather inexperienced. I've got the company through the renewal but I feel that in order to pass the next renewal the complete system needs to be re-written.

For a while I have been reading through threads and the information and advice you all share with each other has helped me a great deal. Apologies if I am asking a question that has already been asked a thousand times before but is it necessary for a process map to contain reference to the relevant procedures?

Thanks

JaiJay,

'Necessary'? No. But good practice is probably a yes. Unless you can have another way/ways to reference procedures?

I'm thinking of it from a 'dumb reader' point of view - if there's no reference to (presumably more detailed) procedures in/on/from a process map, then how does anyone actually know that said procedures exist, let alone what to go looking for? Now, if there's a good system of induction/training in place (for example) so that everyone does know that, then that might be an argument for not having them.

But having said, that, you always have to play off the 'maintainability' of that against the case for having readers able to find and access the information they need, ie, the procedures.

If you are doing the rewrite now, and don't have all the procedures clear at this point, then it would be a major effort & night mare to try & keep it all straight. In which case, I'd go for 'v2' which doesn't have them, and then work towards including references in v3 when you are clearer. I hope that makes sense.

PS, sorry to hear about the previous history. Someone who provides that kind of garbage is definitely not worthy of the term consultant.

Thanks very much, I'm trying to avoid the actual process map looking too busy. The problem I have is we are two companies under one certificate and not all processes/procedures apply to both companies. I thought maybe a list on a separate page could be a good way to go?

Thanks very much.

JaiJay said:

Thanks very much, I'm trying to avoid the actual process map looking too busy. The problem I have is we are two companies under one certificate and not all processes/procedures apply to both companies. I thought maybe a list on a separate page could be a good way to go?

Thanks very much.

Click to expand...

Avoiding 'busy' is another very good reason for not doing it. The list sounds like a way to do it.

Bottom line: make the system work for you not the other way around. There's lots of ways of doing just about everything - the key is: what do you need and want?

Presumably what you're trying to achieve is some way of documenting your system that captures key knowledge and makes it available to those who need it in a way that's useful? Focus on the outcomes you want and find a suitable way of getting those... compliance with the Standard almost always becomes then a byproduct of your having a good system that works for you (as it should be).

And ignore anyone who tells you that documentation "has to, must or always or should" look like so. If it isn't in the Standard... they are wrong.

Dear friend, I am afraid that what is included is not a process map, it is a workflow. There is a major difference between both!

rdr11511 said:

Dear friend, I am afraid that what is included is not a process map, it is a workflow. There is a major difference between both!

Click to expand...

Can you tell us the specific difference(s)? Thanks in advance!

Badgerman, hoping you are still there , or someone couldl answer, regarding your comment.

I don’t think you can have too many flow charts, but they can be too big and/or too detailed. Having several different flow charts with different levels of detail is the method we chose. Our QM has a high-level flow chart, like you’ve described, that references our procedures. Then, many of our procedures contain more detailed flow charts.

Your approach sounds like a good one and the idea of listing the procedure within the process symbol would be very helpful for someone trying to learn about your system. If you have an electronic system, try hyper-linking from the flow chart symbols to the related procedures or other flow charts.

Let´s suppose we detail process maps on the procedures, where should we mention
the KPI of every process, in the procedures or apart in other Quality documentation?

THanks four your responses

Hi QMATY,
see my response in the other thread you started.
I suggest that KPI can be placed as the organization believes the are functional to their QMS. You can put in quality documentantion for example, or on your intranet page if you have and show the trend in real time.
There are many way, the organization can decide where and how.
The important is that the top mgmt and process owners asses the effectiveness of the QMS processes aiming at continual improvement.

I am new to the company and there is always room for change. Our CB
auditor suggested changing the quality system process map.. Not really sure in which direction he meant. I have emailed him but he's always traveling and it wasn't a finding but he strongly suggested. He is also a repeat surveillance auditor for the company. So with that I would greatly
appreciate any feed back on our mapping.