One of our sister companies just recently had a consultant group come in and review the company for ISO 9001:2000 compliance and gap analysis. One of the consultants who previously worked for the registration company that they use has told them that as of a few weeks ago, turtle diagrams are no longer acceptable by ISO? IATF? IAOB? Has anyone heard anything similiar or is this just a consultant who is trying to get some $ for redeveloping the turtle diagrams into process flows?

One of our sister companies just recently had a consultant group come in and review the company for ISO 9001:2000 compliance and gap analysis. One of the consultants who previously worked for the registration company that they use has told them that as of a few weeks ago, turtle diagrams are no longer acceptable by ISO? IATF? IAOB? Has anyone heard anything similiar or is this just a consultant who is trying to get some $ for redeveloping the turtle diagrams into process flows?
Merely ask him to give you the citation so you can see the press release or regulation which backs up his statement. If he's selling a remedy, he darn well better be able to cite chapter and verse of the disease!

One of the consultants who previously worked for the registration company that they use has told them that as of a few weeks ago, turtle diagrams are no longer acceptable by ISO? IATF? IAOB?
Wes is correct. I'm curious though - acceptable for what? What are they using a turtle diagram for that this "consultant" says is not acceptable?

I was at AIAG for training in combining ISO 14000 & ISO/TS 16949 the week ending April 15, 2005. The trainer for the course was still using and promoting "Turtle Diagrams" for identifying process interactions. I'd consider it highly unlikely that he would have done so if they were no longer acceptable to AIAG.

Good idea Wes. Cari, the consultant was suggesting that the turtle diagrams were no longer acceptable for process mapping. Kevin, thank you also. If the AIAG training includes turtle diagrams, this consultant must be all wet.

Thank you again everyone. I love this cove!!!!

Turtle diagrams are quality tools. They have been accepted for a long time in the quality industry. Saying they are no longer acceptable is like saying control charts are no longer acceptable.

I too went to a recent auditor training class conducted at AIAG in Michigan. The turtle diagram was a central part of the class. If a consultant is telling you they are no longer acceptable and he can't show you something solid I would avoid him like the plague.

Dave

:2cents: As Turtle diagrams were never required but rather a tool and a guide they cannot be unacceptable.
Your consultant would appear to be unacceptable
This appears to be unanimous :applause:

:agree1: I totally agree with Howard that instead of turtle diagram is no longer acceptable, the consultant he him/herself is unacceptable. Your sister company should "dispose" him/her off.

I have been certified to TS and am up for re-audit April 06. My Auditors have recommended Turtles, to the point of this being their preffered tool. Audit training undertaken recently, included turtle diagrams. Your consultant is definetly trying to engineer an earner.:read:

Our company has been registered to TS going on 3 years. Last October, we added another division to our scope / certificate. I was issued a non-conformance for my turtle diagrams (that was accepted during the doc. review portion) and was told I needed process flows. Between the doc. review and the actual audit days, the registrar went to a "training class" and was told to no longer accept the turtles????????
Based on the other post in this thread,,,, I got the short end of the stick!!:mad:

Our company has been registered to TS going on 3 years. Last October, we added another division to our scope / certificate. I was issued a non-conformance for my turtle diagrams (that was accepted during the doc. review portion) and was told I needed process flows. Between the doc. review and the actual audit days, the registrar went to a "training class" and was told to no longer accept the turtles????????
Based on the other post in this thread,,,, I got the short end of the stick!!:mad:


We were just certified TS16949 this past November and I used both T diagrams as well as process flows and the auditor loved what I did....

:agree1:

Our company has been registered to TS going on 3 years. Last October, we added another division to our scope / certificate. I was issued a non-conformance for my turtle diagrams (that was accepted during the doc. review portion) and was told I needed process flows. Between the doc. review and the actual audit days, the registrar went to a "training class" and was told to no longer accept the turtles????????
Based on the other post in this thread,,,, I got the short end of the stick!!:mad:
Please tell us what clause he cited for the non conformance:bonk: :bonk:

4.2.2
Present described process interactions do not describe interactions fully.

And like I said, these were used for 2 1/2 years at our other facailities with NO findings. They were reviewed and accepted at the onsite document review, prior to the audit.
Exactly 2 weeks later a N/C was issued. I should have fought it, I guess!

We planned on adding a new division of the company to our certificate this spring, and arranged through AIAG for a trainer to upgrade train the existing auditors to ISO/TS in November of 2005. They were still promoting the use of turtle diagrams, and in fact suggested using them as an auditing tool to help identify sub-processes, inputs, outputs, etc. So, still a tool promoted by AIAG, and presumably the IAOB.

Was there more to the N/C than what you have posted? I don't see how having a turtle diagram could result in a N/C. There is no requirement against having one. The N/C must have been written against another specific requirement and I would ask the auditor to identify the specific requirement.

I am thinking your auditor was looking for a corporate process map or flow chart showing the interaction of your defined processes. We are required to identify our processes and show the relationship between them. The turtle, on its own may not meet that requirement. Even considering that each process has a flow chart, may it be a step by step work instruction, traveler or even a PPAP flow chart, it may not show the relationship between processes.

Is it possible that the N/C was not for having turtles, but for not showing the flow between processes?

There isn't even a possibility that turtle diagrams are no longer allowed as they have been an accepted quality tool for years and are still used in gap analysis and process definition. To disallow them would be like trying to ban Pareto charts.

As a last comment, I have seen nothing about not accepting turtles and offer a possibility that the auditor training sited may have been training given by his employer only and not industry wide. Sometimes an interpretation within a specific registrar is discussed in their training meetings and a policy is adopted internally for consistency. Once again, the requirement the N/C was raised against must be known to determine the validity of the interpretation.

Dave

Sorry, a bit slow with the typing - many others got there first LOL

4.2.2
Present described process interactions do not describe interactions fully.

And like I said, these were used for 2 1/2 years at our other facailities with NO findings. They were reviewed and accepted at the onsite document review, prior to the audit.
Exactly 2 weeks later a N/C was issued. I should have fought it, I guess!

If that was the complete text of the finding, I would first ask for a specific reference to what wasn't "fully" described, and what was missing.

In general, some auditors commit the error of confusing the container for the thing contained. Thus it's not important how information is conveyed; it's important that the information is complete and understood by those who need to understand it. If a company's quality system documentation is written in Swahili, it's only a problem if the information, properly translated, isn't accurate, or if the people who need to understand it can't read Swahili. Even then, it's not a documentation issue if the documentation is accurate; it's a training or hiring issue. By the same token, if diagrams convey the needed information and it's understood by those who need to understand it, the format (i.e., the container) isn't important.

My Audit team were themselves being audited by IATF, therefore I am clear on Turtles being acceptable.

Again, fight this N/C and determine exaclty what it was raised for as some Auditors can get stuck with an idea in there head and it takes you to be strong willed enough to tell them so.

Remember, they can only audit your system against the standard, not their own interpretations or ideas.

My Audit team were themselves being audited by IATF, therefore I am clear on Turtles being acceptable.

Again, fight this N/C and determine exaclty what it was raised for as some Auditors can get stuck with an idea in there head and it takes you to be strong willed enough to tell them so.

Remember, they can only audit your system against the standard, not their own interpretations or ideas.Yes indeed, it occurs to me that this could be simply highlighting the differences, the variation between registrars. Such variation has been cited as one of ISO's weaknesses.

But since you are this far into the process with your outfit, I would ask for specifics of what is missing or why turtles are unacceptable/insufficient. If the auditor hedges, saying he/she doesn't want to perform as consultant, I would consider weighing the forces for and against contracting a new auditor or registrar.

4.2.2
Present described process interactions do not describe interactions fully.

This is clearly a matter of opinion. How "fully" does the auditor want the interactions described? If your organization feels that the description is adequate, then tough! With that said, I have seen turtle diagrams that are specific to a process, and have no real reference to other processes. In this case, the auditor may have a point. If you list other processes in the inputs/outputs, etc., then I can't find the nonconformance.

Yes indeed, it occurs to me that this could be simply highlighting the differences, the variation between registrars. Such variation has been cited as one of ISO's weaknesses.

But since you are this far into the process with your outfit, I would ask for specifics of what is missing or why turtles are unacceptable/insufficient. If the auditor hedges, saying he/she doesn't want to perform as consultant, I would consider weighing the forces for and against contracting a new auditor or registrar.


Or you could appeal the finding with the office.

Was there more to the N/C than what you have posted? ... I am thinking your auditor was looking for a corporate process map or flow chart showing the interaction of your defined processes. We are required to identify our processes and show the relationship between them. The turtle, on its own may not meet that requirement. Even considering that each process has a flow chart, may it be a step by step work instruction, traveler or even a PPAP flow chart, it may not show the relationship between processes.

Is it possible that the N/C was not for having turtles, but for not showing the flow between processes?
Yeah - what D. said. It doesn't sound like the auditor is saying you can't use turtles - it sounds like your turtles may not be showing the interaction between processes.

Yeah - what D. said. It doesn't sound like the auditor is saying you can't use turtles - it sounds like your turtles may not be showing the interaction between processes.


I guess I would agree,, except that for 2 1/2 years what we had was fine (BTW: SAME AUDITOR).

I have seen occasions where an auditor who isn't completely comfortable with his/her knowledge of a quality tool has relied on a surface evaluation or what "appears to be happening". This often prompts a continual improvement cycle where the auditor gets better understanding of the tool.

It is very believable that a better understanding of turtle diagrams (he said he had just gone through training) would point out the interactions he had assumed were there, were not.

Just a possibility but offered as a peace-keeper.

Dave

Looks like that poor guy had turned "turtle".

If you are using the turtle diagrams similar to those in the Standard, copying them may be a copyright violation. The Standard is copyright protected, the notice is on the second page of the booklet.
Bob Schiller

If you are using the turtle diagrams similar to those in the Standard, copying them may be a copyright violation. The Standard is copyright protected, the notice is on the second page of the booklet.
Bob Schiller


The turtle diagram is a common format, I doubt that it is copyrighted by anyone in particular.

The IATF, and I assume ISO, is not promoting any particular prescribed format that has to be used to define processes. Nor, are they against using turtles, squirrels, foxes or whatever.

In TS training last week, turtles were discussed often, and no reluctance was evident.

I don't own any standards that have a turtle diagram in them.

Did I miss something? What standard and what turtle diagram? What is the copyright issue?

Thank you,

Dirk

Yeah - what D. said. It doesn't sound like the auditor is saying you can't use turtles - it sounds like your turtles may not be showing the interaction between processes.Right on :agree1: .
Even though this thread is under the TS Forum, the N/C was written pretty much against a basic ISO 9001 requirement. One of the (un)official :rolleyes: documents provided by ISO TC176/SC2 is the Guidance on the Concept and Use of the Process Approach for management systems (http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/3554880/Process.doc?func=doc.Fetch&nodeid=3554880). <=hyperlinked.
Figure 4 of that document shows a very generic process flowchart, which has a legend Figure 4. Example of a process sequence and its interactions.
So, the point is, according to that document, a very high level, simplified process map should be sufficient to "fully" describe the interactions of the processes that comprise the QMS. It should not take you long to develop one, in case you don't have one yet.

Well said, Sidney!
A good turtle contains the Inputs and Outputs for a process. Unless it goes further and describes where the Inputs COME FROM and where the Outputs GO TO, I don't think that it fully describes the "sequences and interactions." You need a high level process flow diagram to tie all those turtles together.

See this thread and my post #8 and 27. (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=134262#post134262)

I don't own any standards that have a turtle diagram in them.

Did I miss something? What standard and what turtle diagram? What is the copyright issue?

Thank you,

Dirk


The turtle is not in any of the ISO based standards. It was provided from Plexus in the auditor training.

What, :mg: turtle diagrams are no longer acceptable by ISO/IATF/IAOB.
We were audited last december 2005 and the auditors says that based on the latest IATF Rules, Checklist is Dead.... and recommend us instead of using checklist, we must used other tools just like turtle diagrams.

Raffy :cool:

What, :mg: turtle diagrams are no longer acceptable by ISO/IATF/IAOB.
We were audited last december 2005 and the auditors says that based on the latest IATF Rules, Checklist is Dead.... and recommend us instead of using checklist, we must used other tools just like turtle diagrams.

Raffy :cool:


The TS QSA checklist is cancelled. Turtles and flowcharts, etc. are fine.

The expectation of the Rules is that the audits be process-based. There is no prohibition against use of a checklist to aid that, it just cannot be element based. Nor can it limit the audit to just the checklist.

I made a process-based checklist for a consulting client to help their auditors along, but it is process based, not elements.

Dear Hjilling:

Excellent posting.

Thank you, Dirk

since the infamous 'Turtle' diagram is simply a tool (used in the Plexus training for the registrar auditors and supplier equivalent) to get the auditors to think/plan for a process audit instead of an 'element' audit. I have attempted many times to use the 'Turtle' as an implementation tool and it fails in many cases, for many reasons. Why use a turtle when a process map (not a flowchart) is far more effective at showing the waste and bureacracy in operations? Certainly the turtle has been a good tool to prepare auditors (I use it in internal auditor classes) and I support it that way. But, as for documenting an organizations processes, there are better tools.

Andy

Why use a turtle when a process map (not a flowchart) is far more effective at showing the waste and bureacracy in operations? ... as for documenting an organizations processes, there are better tools.



For many clients with simpler skills, and simpler systems, it is easier for their managers to get their arms around turtles, rather than flow charts. Since I can't consult them, there is nothing worng with letting them use them as part of their formal documented procedures. It's an acceptable and useful graphical device. At least they understand them.

I have seen many process maps that only the engineer could explain. Complicated is not always better. I leave it to the client to decide.

Andy, I totally agree. I've heard auditors that think the turtle is a 'requirement.' Process map, flow charts, or simple identifying inputs and outputs is equally acceptable IMHO. I simply ask my clients, when developing a process, what has to happen first? What do you need to know? What happens, then, at the end, what happens, who get's what?

then I'd suggest that it isn't the 'format' or tool used, it's more that 'management commitment' is at the root of the problem. I know I sound like a cracked record (does that analogy still work?) but a process map, if done correctly should be very easy to follow. Indeed, by using them properly, just like a value steam map, these complexities are supposed to be hi-lighted so management can drive out the waste. Who approved a documented process map that could only be explained by such a person too?

I see too many 'quality' folks making the proverbial 'mountain out of a mole hill' with their process doocumentation, and 'H', you're correct, only a person with an engineering degree can make sense of the 'schematic' (wiring) diagram they end up with.;)

However, I remain convinced that turtles are not for documenting a quality management system process. It's simply an appeasement to an external auditor to show them something they can recognize and avoid a non-conformance due to mis-interpretation. If a turtle works (and it's only another form of fishbone/Ishikawa diagram) how come more folks don't use one of those??

At best, even if you consider that it's better than anything used by an auditor before, Plexus have force fitted the Turtle to the process situation. 'Measurement' is the 'odd one out' here. No-one considered (apparently) the need for other key parts of the process, like what do you do if you don't get the product right (duh!) or what happens if the process measurement shows the objective isn't being achieved??? Where is that part of the turtle.

Yup, it's a good tool to get auditors out of element auditing, but it leaves a heck of a lot to the imagination if management are supposed to be able to describe the processes of the organization using a couple of turtles.........

Andy

I'm not recommending any particular format. I was just suggesting there is no one "best" format. If a company selects a format that helps them understand their processes, and helps them improve, who am I to complain.

I have seen too many of the Los Angeles Freeway maps that no one but the consultant understood. I am not impressed if they can get it onto one 11x 17 page. I also understand the Turtle is limited, and generally needs some other high level flowchart to tie it together.

I just want the client to use whatever tool will help them improve. Maybe they'll move to more sophisticated tools.

I haven't done it yet, but I'm tempted to write a nonconformity when they show me a process map they can't explain. but I'm too nice to do that...:lmao:

This training show turtles as acceptable...

Well said, Sidney!
A good turtle contains the Inputs and Outputs for a process. Unless it goes further and describes where the Inputs COME FROM and where the Outputs GO TO, I don't think that it fully describes the "sequences and interactions." You need a high level process flow diagram to tie all those turtles together.

See this thread and my post #8 and 27. (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=134262#post134262)

I agree. A turtle is a tool that can define one single process, but there needs to be a high level document that shows how they all tie together in sequence.

This training show turtles as acceptable...

The CB Auditor training is just that......not an implementation training tool for process owners. It is supposed to get the 'element auditors' to start thinking about 'process'. A Turtle isn't all that should be considered in a process when defining it, its controls etc. If it was any good, we could all just use a fish bone diagram. There's a principle at stake here - just because you can use a turtle, doesn't mean you should use it........

Andy

Clarification. The IAOB training for TS requalification described the turtle & terrapin as acceptable , and others are acceptable too if they have inputs/outputs/ interfaces, controls , process owners, metrics, etc...
Just trying to provide this insight. All options are open .
This is a subjective area for sure.. and we all need to keep an open mind.

I know the IATF etc were pushing the 'octopus', but what's a terrapin? (a small turtle....????):lol:

Andy

Hey don't shoot the messanger, a terrapin is the "plexus" version of a turtle.

I like to say "perplexus" , and would like to post the IAOB stuff , but its copy writed. ... Hope that helps

I know the IATF etc were pushing the 'octopus', but what's a terrapin? (a small turtle....????):lol:

Andy

Yup, that's exactly what it is. See here

http://www.ocean.udel.edu/kiosk/terrapin.html

Also, the terrapin is the mascot of the University of Maryland. His name is "Testudo"

Dave

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lmao: :lmao: :biglaugh: :applause: :bigwave: :thanx:

The turtle was still acceptable last week during our audit. In fact the auditors loved it. Most of the quality manual is turtles (80% of the manual). The rest of the maunal is the policy, scope and organization, an interaction map, a process and site interaction matrix and index and revision pages. This works well for 5 sites (both ISO and TS). As for terrapene, it was OK when we first started mapping out the processes but I found that it had too many limitations and switched to using word for the final product.

Hey,

I just attended Supplier auditor training ran by SMMT the IATF oversight office in the UK last week.

During the course many aquatic animals were used and the turtle still made an appearance!!

I am really new to this and am in the midst of writing our QMS. I did one a long time ago...and now we have a new business and it is like starting over for me! I need all the help I can get! I am in AZ.:cool:

I am really new to this and am in the midst of writing our QMS. I did one a long time ago...and now we have a new business and it is like starting over for me! I need all the help I can get! I am in AZ.:cool:

Yes, they are still acceptable to help describe a process. I have posted a (improved) modifed turtle diagram on the Cove, but if you send me a private message, I will send you a copy. It is better than the standard turtle because it includes a few more fields to make it easier to use.

I am really new to this and am in the midst of writing our QMS. I did one a long time ago...and now we have a new business and it is like starting over for me! I need all the help I can get! I am in AZ.:cool:
Hi lgumm - welcome to the cove! :bigwave:

Do you have any specific questions, or were you just looking for some guidance on turtles and their acceptability?

If you're not looking specifically for turtle-related information, I'd recommend that you post a new thread instead of posting in this one. That way you'll get a little more attention focused on what you are needing.

The turtle is still being used. I do some training using Plexus material and the latest material that I ordered from them (May 2008) still has a lot material using the turtle. The other animals seem to have gone to the wayside.

The turtle is still being used. I do some training using Plexus material and the latest material that I ordered from them (May 2008) still has a lot material using the turtle. The other animals seem to have gone to the wayside.

I rather doubt that Plexus would give up something they'd championed with the AIAG etc as being the way to train external auditors on the process approach..........

I find turtle diagrams very useful, and have no intention of giving them up.

If one wants to add standard element numbers to turtle entries, that may help satisfy external auditors but it's otherwise potentially overkill...at which I excel. :rolleyes:

So true. They made a lot of money not only from the turtle but all of TS. At my last company, the external auditors (CBs) were still using the turtle during their audit so I don't think that it will go out of style for awhile. At least until TS is replaced or obsoleted.

I find turtle diagrams very useful, and have no intention of giving them up.

If one wants to add standard element numbers to turtle entries, that may help satisfy external auditors but it's otherwise potentially overkill...at which I excel. :rolleyes:

When I set up a quality maunal for TS at another company I used the turtles for most of the manual. I added the clauses that applied to each of the processes to each of the turtles. After I did that I had some second thoughts that the CBs would look at it as an element approach rather than a process approach. As it turns out when the CB auditors came in and looked at it the first words were "This makes my job a lot easier". The other benefit of adding the clauses to the turtles is that it gives more guidance to our internal auditors and help to ensure that all of the clasues were audited.

Our surveillance audit will be on June 26-27, 2008. We have updated our turtle diagram to help the external auditor a picture of the process that will be audited. Turtle Diagram could be a waste of time to others but for me, it will help one organization or process to visualize what are the things or materials that shall be input to the process. It’s like summing each process and put that in a bullet format that will help anybody take a look a process and therefore, it is easy to understand.
Raffy:cool:

I've registered more than sixty facilities to one standard or another (ISO/QS/TS/AS) and used turtle diagrams for the last decade or more. My most recent registration was to TS, and the expectation from the registrar was "show me your turtles.":yes: I am not aware of newsletters from any governing body, precluding the use of turtles. The only caution I would offer is that no two registrars (or their auditors,) will look for exactly the same things as supporting evidence of a viable QMS. Some organizations tend to rely too much on their turtle diagrams, and put less emphasis (and less information,) in their lower level documents (procedures and work instructions.) This can lead to problems in dissemination or misinterpretation of instructions, and subsequent process failure. :caution:
I would have to agree with the first comment made......the consultant was looking for a way to fatten his wallet.