:confused: I checked the cove for a thread on Turtle Diagrams and read what was said about a consultant telling someone that we don't need them anymore; that they're dead! Most of the replies indicated that the consultant was "mis-informed". My consultant said the same thing today, June 30, 2005! He just finished up with a company and they received their TS-16949 certification without them.

Can someone show me something from IAOB?

Regards
kiddo

My search that included both "turtle diagram" and IAOB" uncovered this site. I hope it helps: http://www.aiag.org/forms/CADILLACAIAGPresentationFinal.pdf

I'm a big believer in creating visual tools for process improvement, so I think why should turtle diagrams be "dead" if they help you?

I agree that they would not be a necessary piece of work for TS-16949 registration; they are tools to help you achieve an outcome. If you can do the same thing with other tools, very good.

To add on to Jennifer's reply - there is NO requirement for Turtle Diagrams (per the standard). They are a tool which many companies have found useful. Other companies can, and do, achieve the desired outcome with other means.

IT is interesting that your consulting said they were dead. I'm seeing more and more 3rd party auditors expecting internal auditors to be using them in internal audits. But there is no "shall", in Ts, that mandates turtle diagrams.

Turtles are not dead, just not mandatory. I used turtles for our TS16949 system and the auditors liked them. Easier to understand inputs, outputs and support processes than text verbage. If you want to use them go ahead, you may get an "ataboy" from your registrar.

We just went through the TS Initial Audit. Both auditors asked for some kind of inputs and outputs diagram for every process at the beginning of the audit and were very happy when we produced turtles. We're organized into teams and every team has one. The auditors made copies and carried them with them throughout. They take care of the "sequence and interaction" very nicely. They are not required but they make external auditors happy and when the auditor is happy, everyone's happy.
-IC

All of these stories add to my suspicion that the consultants were bluffing, simply didn't know about the diagrams and wanted to steer away from the subject. Why else dismiss a potentially useful tool and say "Turtle diagrams are dead"? Just wondering...

I did an electronic search in the IATF rules - second version May 2004 and found this :
During creation of the audit plan consider the IATF Automotive Process Approach, "customer oriented processes", support processes, "octopus", and "turtle" models utilized during the IATF training

So, in the IATF rules, as well as in the ISO TS there is no requirement to use turtles. The IATF just wants us to consider the tool as a good way....
and IMO they are a good tool to implement the process approach way of auditing/thinking.

Best regards,

Antoine

Hi,
I'd like to know where others are placing the Turtle Diagram in. As attachment / appendix of procedure? Or just supplementary 'uncontrolled document" tools? Please share your system. Thanks..

Hi,
I'd like to know where others are placing the Turtle Diagram in. As attachment / appendix of procedure? Or just supplementary 'uncontrolled document" tools? Please share your system. Thanks..

I think it is better to place the diagram in the procedure.
As metioned upstairs ,the diagram is just a tool.

We just went through the TS Initial Audit. Both auditors asked for some kind of inputs and outputs diagram for every process at the beginning of the audit and were very happy when we produced turtles. We're organized into teams and every team has one. The auditors made copies and carried them with them throughout. They take care of the "sequence and interaction" very nicely. They are not required but they make external auditors happy and when the auditor is happy, everyone's happy.
-IC


I rather like them too. They don't answer every question during an audit, but provide useful info.

But, be careful. Turtles generally do not show much of a "sequence," they just show the inputs/outputs and related details. Modified versions (like I posted on the cove) also have spaces to define the criteria and metrics. But, you still need some other "high level" document to describe the sequence.

We started out with Turtle charts ... Through our assessment audit. Then between that and our readiness review had shanged our system to an interaction matrix and visio flow charts. Our registrar / auditor during the certification audit found this to be quite simple to follow and use. We too have found them to be easy for internal auditing as well.

Hello,

our certification body, made them mandatory by internal rule. To make sure they comply to the IATF rules they want turtle diagrams.

I'm just on my way to change all functions that are not core processes ( Finanical, Law Quality Management) from a standard process flow into the turtle diagramm, so I will have the turtles direct in the Manual.

Not only our external auditors like the turtles, also our staff like them, they can see the process and informationen wanted from the auditor on one page and can easy explain on hand off them.

Greetings

Tamara :D

Our company uses them and the external TUV auditor loves them.
They are an excellent way to audit your internal quality system.

It details on 1 page each process.
Our QA Manual uses only these turtle diagrams, very little writting.

I hope this helps.
:agree1: