Hi, its the first time I have posted, could you have a look at my process map and one of my Turtle diagrams and give me your opinions on the format, I have got to introduce one QMS for three manufacturing sites At the moment two of the sites are TS registered the 3rd has only just started production. It is my intention to have a turtle diagram for each of the processes identified on the process map.

I would appreciate any comments

:(

Hi, its the first time I have posted, could you have a look at my process map and one of my Turtle diagrams and give me your opinions on the format, I have got to introduce one QMS for three manufacturing sites At the moment two of the sites are TS registered the 3rd has only just started production. It is my intention to have a turtle diagram for each of the processes identified on the process map.

I would appreciate any comments

:(
Another information systems support process!
Sorry, my humour, but I don't see it as a process.See earlier threads.

Just one general comment - it seems to be based around the standard (and its clauses) rather than what your organization does - and so it tells me (as an outsider) nothing about your business and how you work - the main aim of a process interrelationship diagram.

Re the turtle diagram - again change management doesn't exist as a process. It is an outcome of something else - e.g. introducing a new model, business planning, kaizen.

Unless you clearly identify what you do and where it fits in then it is difficult to capture it in an interrelationship diagram.

My recommendation is to start with the core business processes IN YOUR TERMS and then try to map it out. If you feel it necessary to check that against the standard you can do that after the map has been agreed internally.

Paul thanks for your reply.

Two questions,
1, when reading up on several sources all indicate that the business process map can be created to suit your business which I believe this one does which is why I chose the ISO 9001:2000 process model, it shows the input which is customer requirements, our key processes, and the output which is customer satisfaction. I realise it follows the system but as a tier 1 automotive supplier it is how we work.
so why does this not tell you about our organisation does?

2. Change control is vital to our business which why I included it in the process map.
It has an owner
It is defined.
It is documented
There are major linkages to all aspects of the business.

It is my belief that it is a very important process for our business.

Why should I not identify it as such?

I'm very interested in understanding your views

Thanks
Paul

I am already (mentally) girding my loins for another kicking as my views are not necessarily the same as other covers.

You are right to document your processes exactly as you see fit. As an outsider I will always question if it doesn't seem to be relevant. Please take them in the spirit they are intended. :)

Manage customers - very few companies are in this fortunate position. Most organizations have processes for "accepting customer orders." Similarly "project management" does not exist as a process, it is part of another process such as "introducing new products to the market" or "improving our infrastructure". Similarly "change management" is not part of manufacturing" but is another part of the "introducing new products."

To explain what I mean I will have a go at a changed version of your process map and then post it as an alternative - no time now as I have a 3 hour drive ahead.
:nopity:

Paul.

I have taken it in the way it was intended :D I just wanted a more in depth explaination,
. I think that the big thing TS has done for me is to have the ability to choose the processes that have a high impact on our business and give them a greater focus, i.e change control has a big effect in new project intro. current production and after market, and some of our customers have asked for it to be included in our business map due to importance they put on it.

I look forward to your input on my map.

Belatedly here is my attempt at describing how a process interrelationship could look. There are two slides - the first is the overall map. The second is a click through to the new product introduction process. It isn't based on any company and there are many other processes that would be linked from the overall map - never quite as far down as IS management though. ;)

As ever any views gratefully received.

Phomer !
Take a look at these ones, maybe they help as well.
György

Hi phomer,
Please see attached files.
When I raised my draft copies I was told they looked too busy, they looked similiar to yours (no offence intended).

Our auditor suggested that if I didn't put in details, just process steps, that was all he could audit. I took his advice and also used the minimum number of words.

Our Quality Manual & Business Process are one & the same.
We have just been recommended for TS2 and are vehicle converters in the UK. The attachments were auditted and accepted by the BSI.
Possibly they may help you.
They were raised on a progam called Smartdraw which I find easy to use, cheap and they give a free reader download which means you only buy one and control is simple. We don't provide printers to the shop floor!

Good luck. I found the advice received from the respondents helpful, but I did have to clarify my questions, more than once!

Anthonyl :bigwave:

Belatedly here is my attempt at describing how a process interrelationship could look. There are two slides - the first is the overall map. The second is a click through to the new product introduction process. It isn't based on any company and there are many other processes that would be linked from the overall map - never quite as far down as IS management though. ;)

As ever any views gratefully received.

Paul

Dare I ask... what do you see as the benefit of this sort of diagram? Why do you think that people produce them? Is it so that (i) employees can learn something about the organisation they didn't know before, (ii) it will help staff do their job better, or (iii) they can meet some (unexplained) requirement in ISO9001:2000?

How many such pictures have you seen which add value to an organisation?

Just picking up a few points from your example (but similar comments could equally be applied to the vast majority of such maps - by the way, is it better to describe them as "system maps" rather than as "process maps", which as you know I think of as a flowchart of a process?):

1 "Monitoring & Measuring" is often done as an intrinsic part of another process rather than as a separate process. Even if it is a separate process, it will (or should) affect the process(es) being monitored (otherwise why do it?) - so there should be an arrow going up as well.

2 In the same way, "Research and Development" and "Planning and Logistics" may well have an impact on the "Provision of Resources", so there is another arrow or two needed.

3 "Provision of Resources" may impact on "Monitoring & Measuring", so another arrow is needed.

4 "Fulfilling repeat orders" may affect "Enquiry and Order receipt" if the production line can't cope and you have to quote longer delivery times...

My concern is that at the one extreme the system map will have the sort of missing links I mention above, and at the other you will need an n-dimensional picture which is so complex that it would be unusable. I personally don't see any benefit in either, other than just to satisfy an external assessor, which cannot be a good reason for doing it.

In any organisation, "process interaction" is far more involved than this sort of picture can show in any sort of accurate and usable format, and the "sequence of processes" as it is usually depicted makes no reference to the fact that many instances of each process may be happening at the same time. If everything was linear, you probably wouldn't need managers, and certainly not managers who understand what is required for good process management.

An alternative approach? Our customers use a simple numbering system to define a small number of process groups ("2 Getting Work", "3 Doing Work" etc), and processes with each (eg "2-1 Respond to an Enquiry", "2-2 Prepare a Tender") which implies a logical sequence, and define the processes (using "process maps"!) which link to other processes from the relevant tasks. They only draw a picture if they have an unenlightend assessor.

So ... grateful or not?!

In my view these maps give me the freedom to show an external customer the basic idea of the processes involved in producion of their vehicles. Unlike the old naval manuals that were cumbersome, often meaningless to those not directly involved or of no real interest and stayed unused on a shelf ( and I wrote 30 years ago).

Linked to each stage of the flow map are the relevant training plans, procedures, work instructions, control plans, H & S instruction/advice, forms, BOS, SPC and drawings. These are available for the internal customer (or the more interested external) who would like to know the details and just have to click on the process they are interested in.

I like the freedom of expression that TS2 allows - at least all manuals are not the same anymore. Each company can show itself of in it's own unique way.

Cripes, when I asked for feedback I didn't expect both barrels. ;)

Paul

Dare I ask... what do you see as the benefit of this sort of diagram? Why do you think that people produce them? Is it so that (i) employees can learn something about the organisation they didn't know before, (ii) it will help staff do their job better, or (iii) they can meet some (unexplained) requirement in ISO9001:2000? Two benefits
It can help the top management understand ISO 9001 is about business processes - not just document control
It identifies the processes that run across the business - not departmental procedures - helps to change the perspective

It also satisfies a couple of 9k2k elements (4.1.1 & 4.2.2 c) - generally a good thing if you want that elusive certificate! :D
How many such pictures have you seen which add value to an organisation? Depends how you quantify value add. Generally the thinking that happens way before adds the value - the "picture" just provides evidence of the outcome.

Just picking up a few points from your example (but similar comments could equally be applied to the vast majority of such maps - by the way, is it better to describe them as "system maps" rather than as "process maps", which as you know I think of as a flowchart of a process?) I have heard them called a wide range of things - I really don't mind what they are called.

1 "Monitoring & Measuring" is often done as an intrinsic part of another process rather than as a separate process. Even if it is a separate process, it will (or should) affect the process(es) being monitored (otherwise why do it?) - so there should be an arrow going up as well. My loop is a bit wider (for simplicity) to show that it goes through a management review and then may lead to the need for resources before it comes back to the core process - but I take your point, there has to be appropriate feedback to the process.

2 In the same way, "Research and Development" and "Planning and Logistics" may well have an impact on the "Provision of Resources", so there is another arrow or two needed. Again the same logic applies - the Business Planning process should preplan these activities and any monitoring and measuring of Research and Development and Planning and Logistics would be part of a feedback loop

3 "Provision of Resources" may impact on "Monitoring & Measuring", so another arrow is needed. The aim was that the Business Planning activity is a separate (managerial) process and would identify the need for all resources. I take the point - on Revision 2 I will have another box!

4 "Fulfilling repeat orders" may affect "Enquiry and Order receipt" if the production line can't cope and you have to quote longer delivery times... Again monitoring and measuring will tell you this and feedback to the other processes

My concern is that at the one extreme the system map will have the sort of missing links I mention above, and at the other you will need an n-dimensional picture which is so complex that it would be unusable. I personally don't see any benefit in either, other than just to satisfy an external assessor, which cannot be a good reason for doing it. Not sure I can agree the links are missing - as with all process interrelationships they have to be explained by the person who developed them (as we can see in this thread!). I understand about complexity - hence all my interrelationship diagrams start off simple and stay that way - constructive feedback notwithstanding. :bigwave:

In any organisation, "process interaction" is far more involved than this sort of picture can show in any sort of accurate and usable format, and the "sequence of processes" as it is usually depicted makes no reference to the fact that many instances of each process may be happening at the same time. If everything was linear, you probably wouldn't need managers, and certainly not managers who understand what is required for good process management. Not sure I understand the argument here. Yes, all the processes are operating at the same time but - for one customer and one order - they are happening in a logical sequence. There is an argument you don't need managers on processes that are running effectively - hence the earlier efforts to delayer and process re-engineer. Whether you consider either to be a success I will leave to the individual!


An alternative approach? Our customers use a simple numbering system to define a small number of process groups ("2 Getting Work", "3 Doing Work" etc), and processes with each (eg "2-1 Respond to an Enquiry", "2-2 Prepare a Tender") which implies a logical sequence, and define the processes (using "process maps"!) which link to other processes from the relevant tasks. They only draw a picture if they have an unenlightend assessor. Each to his / her own. Your system sounds pretty good to me - if only you weren't charging me so much to evaluate it I might be even more positive. ;) But seriously whatever works, works. From an assessment point of view I would accept any style of addressing the standard element that the organization puts in front of me. .....Does that make me enlightened?

So ... grateful or not?! Always grateful for your input, Peter.

Paul

Cripes, when I asked for feedback I didn't expect both barrels. ;)
I admit to taking advantage of you since I knew that I could rely on a constructive and reasoned response(!)


Two benefits
It can help the top management understand ISO 9001 is about business processes - not just document control
It identifies the processes that run across the business - not departmental procedures - helps to change the perspective
Oh dear - if that is needed for top mgt then they really need help! How do they manage?



It also satisfies a couple of 9k2k elements (4.1.1 & 4.2.2 c) - generally a good thing if you want that elusive certificate!
(4.1a/b?) That is my main point - I don't believe that many such pictures do anything of the kind - they merely regurgitate the "model" from the standard with a bit of twiddling added. Maybe it comes down to what folk believe is necessary for "process management" - I have always thought that drawing "maps" is only the first step of a long road.

Often, the most challenging aspect of management is to manage the concurrent operation of instances of a number of processes. Drawing a picture that says (eg) "we sell then we make then we deliver then we invoice" is so trivial that it is pointless. And folk put things like "Training" into a box which links into another box, which by implication means that Training doesn't impact on anything in any of their other "boxes". It doesn't give a true picture of how the processes act on each other, or on themselves ("interact").

I really wonder what the writers of the standard expected folk to do to satisfy the clauses. I would hope that it would be something along the lines "show that you plan and understand how your business operates, that you understand how any one process impacts on other processes and how other processes affect how it operates".

(I wish that I hadn't used "aspect" - that is a word which is going to cause even more confusion unless the draft of PAS99 is amended - but that is another subject altogether!)

Depends how you quantify value add. Generally the thinking that happens way before adds the value - the "picture" just provides evidence of the outcome.
So the "value" lies in helping to get the "badge"(?) - I was hoping that it would be of real value to staff and to the operation of the business.


I have heard them called a wide range of things - I really don't mind what they are called.
Same here - but I do get confused at times when someone uses the term in one way and I think that they mean the other. My argument is shot down anyway when you think about a "road map" - it is a "town map" with roads on it... English!


Not sure I can agree the links are missing - as with all process interrelationships they have to be explained by the person who developed them (as we can see in this thread!). I understand about complexity - hence all my interrelationship diagrams start off simple and stay that way - constructive feedback notwithstanding. :bigwave:
But you can't have a written description that needs someone standing there to explain what is missing?! I agree about the benefits of simplicity - but I doubt if it is possible to draw a useful picture that is both accurate and comprehensive.


Not sure I understand the argument here. Yes, all the processes are operating at the same time but - for one customer and one order - they are happening in a logical sequence.
... which is so obvious in most cases that no-one needs a picture to explain it???


Each to his / her own. Your system sounds pretty good to me - if only you weren't charging me so much to evaluate it I might be even more positive. ;) But seriously whatever works, works. From an assessment point of view I would accept any style of addressing the standard element that the organization puts in front of me. .....Does that make me enlightened?
Dear Enlightened,
Free evaluation available - I'll even draw you a process map of how the evaluation and implementation process works...


Always grateful for your input, Peter.
And I for your reasoned responses!

Without wanting to take over the thread with a mutual admiration society ...


Oh dear - if that is needed for top mgt then they really need help! How do they manage?
The problem is not necessarily one of top management, I find that the people holding these positions tend to have them through merit (not always but that is another thread) the problem is one of perception of ISO as a documentation standard when it isn't - it is about business processes and satisfying customers. The focus on business processes helps change that perception - or at least I think so!

(4.1a/b?) That is my main point - I don't believe that many such pictures do anything of the kind - they merely regurgitate the "model" from the standard with a bit of twiddling added. Maybe it comes down to what folk believe is necessary for "process management" - I have always thought that drawing "maps" is only the first step of a long road. I have tried, with a simple model (hey, it was only 20 minutes), to identify how the interrelationship of core processes might be defined at the high level - obviously failed!:truce:

Often, the most challenging aspect of management is to manage the concurrent operation of instances of a number of processes. Drawing a picture that says (eg) "we sell then we make then we deliver then we invoice" is so trivial that it is pointless. Again it is a simple model - sorry, I don't have a more complex one I can put up. We do disagree, then, about the challenging aspect. IMHO the most challenging aspect is for management not to over complicate simple processes and to merely sit back and allow the processes to run themselves and, only when the process measures tell them the process isn't working well, to intervene to bring things back on course.

And folk put things like "Training" into a box which links into another box, which by implication means that Training doesn't impact on anything in any of their other "boxes". It doesn't give a true picture of how the processes act on each other, or on themselves ("interact"). We agree again. I deliberately keep things like training, IT, accounts out of process interrelationships as they only exist to support the core processes and can broadly be covered under the management "Provision of resources" banner or "Business Planning" process.

I really wonder what the writers of the standard expected folk to do to satisfy the clauses. I would hope that it would be something along the lines "show that you plan and understand how your business operates, that you understand how any one process impacts on other processes and how other processes affect how it operates". I think that is what they have tried to do with the 4.1.1 elements a - f. Or, to quote the great philosopher, Terry Wogan, "Is it me?"

So the "value" lies in helping to get the "badge"(?) - I was hoping that it would be of real value to staff and to the operation of the business. Now I hope you are playing devil's advocate on this one. I originally said:
Depends how you quantify value add. Generally the thinking that happens way before adds the value - the "picture" just provides evidence of the outcome. That says the value is in the organization sitting down and identifying its processes, sequence etc., measures, criteria (4.1.1 a - f again)

But you can't have a written description that needs someone standing there to explain what is missing?! I agree about the benefits of simplicity - but I doubt if it is possible to draw a useful picture that is both accurate and comprehensive. Not necessarily standing there. It can be covered in text or more pictures (as we are doing now). As you said organizations are complex things and any description of the organization is going to be a bit simplistic.


... which is so obvious in most cases that no-one needs a picture to explain it??? Again. The process map is a representation of all the hard work (4.1.1 a - f again) that has gone into an organization understanding what it does, how it works and what is important to its continuing success. If this was all so easy then how come people are still struggling with it 6 years after the new standard was launched and ? years after people started talking about managing processes rather than departments.


Dear Enlightened,
Free evaluation available - I'll even draw you a process map of how the evaluation and implementation process works... Love to see it - can you post it here?

...the problem is one of perception of ISO as a documentation standard when it isn't - it is about business processes and satisfying customers. The focus on business processes helps change that perception - or at least I think so!



Very well put. I agree completely.

PS: to a previous post, the point is not just drawing trivial pictures, and "getting a badge"...


The key is management defining and understanding the important criteria in each process, and defining how you will measure and monitor the unique performance of those aspects of each process. Studying the results of that focused measuring is what leads to the improvement in the PDCA cycle.

Interrelationship diagrams (ID's) are more complex than a simple flow diagram. ID's show input/outputs, bottlenecks, dependant and independant functions. They help us see the "real" system and grasp the complexities.

Sorry but I had difficulty following it. However, if it's clear to you and others that work with you then surely that's all that matters. An auditor just has to see the sign posts (and they appeared to be there), so to speak and takes a snapshot view to check that we do what we say we do and not something different. As long as we cover all the bases of the standard, how we define them is up to the individual company.
I sometimes think we get lost in our own ego and I used to worry that people would dislike the format of my work. However, as long as my customers (both internal and external) understand the maps, processes and instructions etc etc. they will get what they asked for. Which is all that is required by TS2 quality system and that to me, is all that the standard requires me to do anyway. I.e. supplying all customer needs and expectations with what they requested and on time.
;) Plus we together get customer satisfaction and repeat orders(hopefully). By that I mean that I feel that I am the customers' customer. After all, we go shopping for business instead of products don't we?

;)

Anthony,

Interrelationship Diagrams (ID) are usually larger than 8.5 x 11 inch paper. We print ours on the engineering plotter. The ID is part of the 7 Management & Planning Tools. Its function is to identify relationships, bottlenecks, core processes; those that have lots of inputs and generate critical outputs. As such, it is the intent of the ISO/TS 16949 standard, though not many have made the jump. There are a few knowledgeable organizations that provide great background information as applied to ISO.

The process approach in the new standard is what we have discussed since Deming introduced the "system" concept back in the early 1980's. Though "graphic language" tools such as ID's have been around for a long time, they are finally entering the mainstream for those who choose to use them.

Joe

Joe,
Thanks for that. As I said it only has to work for you and yours (and the auditor). I just tend to break my diagrams down by use of hyperlinks but I guess it has the same result and that is all that matters.:bigwave:

Interrelationship diagrams (ID's) are more complex than a simple flow diagram. ID's show input/outputs, bottlenecks, dependant and independant functions. They help us see the "real" system and grasp the complexities.
Please can you save it in another format as for some reason I cannot download the Smart Draw viewer.
I get a security alert!!!

I Hope that the pdf's attached will give you an idea of the way we have set our manual and system up. Each of the attachments plus a further three others are hyperlinked along with the work instructions and forms. All linked to one aspect on the Quality Manual that was posted earlier. (Sorry could only link five to this)

Two hours ago I received our first TS2 certificate from the BSI, our auditing body, so it either works for them or we baffled them. One or the other. I like to think it works and our guage for that is the level of understanding, approval and commitment from the guys on the shop floor, my own immediate customers.

Howard,

I changed the Interrelationship Diagram format to PDF. Hopefully, that will help you see the document. For clarification, this diagram fulfills section 4.2.2 in ISO 9001:2000 or ISO/TS 16949. We are hyperlinking each of the segments of the Interrelationship Diagram to supporting procedures which are hyperlinked to work instructions and to forms. From a documentation perspective it is very efficient.

Joe

Howard,

I changed the Interrelationship Diagram format to PDF. Hopefully, that will help you see the document. For clarification, this diagram fulfills section 4.2.2 in ISO 9001:2000 or ISO/TS 16949. We are hyperlinking each of the segments of the Interrelationship Diagram to supporting procedures which are hyperlinked to work instructions and to forms. From a documentation perspective it is very efficient.

Joe


I like the diagram. It is a bit unique, but makes the connection, as far as the manual and procedures go. However, and very importantly, you need to have something like this that addresses the processes, rather than the procedures. It is the interrelationship between the processes that is required by cl 4.1, and forms the basis for the ISO/TS process approach. Do you have something for the processes as well?

HJ,

The Interrelationship Diagram shows a "linked system" of procedures. A procedure has always described a process; who, what and when (flow charts). I see them as interchangeable terms. Some other participants in this forum have provided slightly different flow diagrams which describe the same. The key distinction in 4.1 is section "e" - "monitor, measure, analyze".

ISO 9001/2000 & TS/QS can use "turtle" diagrams which contain a flow diagram, inputs, outputs, owners and metrics. Our "procedures" describe processes using flow diagrams. Each flow diagram has inputs and outputs defined, who is handling the inputs and outputs and the metrics which monitor process effectiveness.

This new standard is refreshing.

Joe

hi,

As the name imply " Business Process Map", it deals with the processes of how you do your company's business in relation or compliance with the requirements of your quality management system. I am attaching the Business Process Map, we have developed in preparation for the TS 16949 certification. Using the so called "Turtle Diagram" you can establish the relation of each processes.

I hope this will help.
Comments/suggestions for improvement are most welcome:)

Thanks,

CCD
from Philippines

Thankyou CCD.
I posted the question some time ago and in that time have acheived the TS2 standard. (In fact we have our second full audit, not counting the initial book audit, booked for next week.)

The maps I finally settled on and which have been approved by the BSI, are as attached. They are written using "smartdraw version 7". You can get a free reader download on the web.

Although the attachments look simplistic, in actual fact I find that they take just as long to raise as your example because you have to identify the key steps just the same and the definitions you use have to briefly convey each indivual process. These maps are then hyper-linked & supported with work instructions, which can be process maps, photographs or written word, in addition to documentation such as COSHH and H & S info and finally the forms required by the operator.

I discovered through a training course that the standard expects flow maps that show the process. (The key was the fact that the standard asked you to identify the process steps only. Our trainer explained, over lunch, that this was the most important thing.) You have to show a link to the next step but you do not have to define how you do it. The more you define the more an auditor has to audit.

This is now established by the auditor, who identifies the process itself through the documentation trail. For example - our auditor now looks in much greater depth at our training records and interviews more operatives to verify that they are fully conversant with the process. (Much greater depth than when he auditted our ISO9000:2000 & QS9000 where he seemed to concentrate on documented records, which is still a large part of the audit).

I wish you the very best of luck in your quest to gain the standard and thank you for the info that you provided. :cfingers:

As a company we have definately benifitted from the change in style. The guys actually take notice of the maps and the pictorial WI's. It's worth the effort.


Best regards,

Anthonyl

The Turtle in concept is correct, but should also include the risks for each input, I will send you mine as an example, was just audited by TUV Germany and they were happy with it.

Regards

Caron

Could some one please offer me a simple explanation of how to use the turtle diagram when performing an internal audit.
Thanks!!!!!

Hi,
You seem not to have had a reply regarding auditing a turtle diagram..
I was told I had to have training or get a non-conformance for not being suitably qualified to audit the TS2 standard. Training to ISO & QS9000 was not considered to be adequate by my auditor.
The course recommended to me was, Auditing to the Automotive Process Approach, a BSI course.
It was very helpful and I have since had all of my auditors trained on the same course. By the end of it the audit to a turtle process makes perfect sense and the number of improvements to our processes and systems has more than paid for the training.

It's not cheap but it is well worth it.

If interested, it can be found on the web: www.bsi-global.com/training

Thankyou CCD.
I posted the question some time ago and in that time have acheived the TS2 standard. (In fact we have our second full audit, not counting the initial book audit, booked for next week.)

The maps I finally settled on and which have been approved by the BSI, are as attached. They are written using "smartdraw version 7". You can get a free reader download on the web.

Although the attachments look simplistic, in actual fact I find that they take just as long to raise as your example because you have to identify the key steps just the same and the definitions you use have to briefly convey each indivual process. These maps are then hyper-linked & supported with work instructions, which can be process maps, photographs or written word, in addition to documentation such as COSHH and H & S info and finally the forms required by the operator.

I discovered through a training course that the standard expects flow maps that show the process. (The key was the fact that the standard asked you to identify the process steps only. Our trainer explained, over lunch, that this was the most important thing.) You have to show a link to the next step but you do not have to define how you do it. The more you define the more an auditor has to audit.

This is now established by the auditor, who identifies the process itself through the documentation trail. For example - our auditor now looks in much greater depth at our training records and interviews more operatives to verify that they are fully conversant with the process. (Much greater depth than when he auditted our ISO9000:2000 & QS9000 where he seemed to concentrate on documented records, which is still a large part of the audit).

I wish you the very best of luck in your quest to gain the standard and thank you for the info that you provided. :cfingers:

As a company we have definately benifitted from the change in style. The guys actually take notice of the maps and the pictorial WI's. It's worth the effort.


Best regards,

Anthonyl


Please bear in mind. You are not creating documents for the auditor, they should be for your benefit. Secondly, ISO and TS audits are not just auditing the steps of a process, but are to audit the "effectiveness in implementation."

In other words, if the whole audit time is spent writing down the steps and links, then the value of the audit has little benefit. After the first couple cycles, it will plow the same audit trails.

A better approach may be to document the turtles and /or flow charts into the QMS. Then, they, along with the metrics, are available to auditors to use to evaluate the effectiveness of each process, rather than the existence of each process.

Have just read your response. Thanks but I was already aware and even my internal audits are turtle based as are the external ones.

As I understand it the standard is business based, looking towards eutopia with no defects,rejects or errors. To me at least the external auditor is just another of my customers, that we pay, and for whom our Quality System must satisfy by addressing the needs.

At the end of the day the system has to be of (real) benefit to the company/employer and it really does not matter if others do not like it. It may not meet the requirements of their own institution, but as long as the measurables meet your own and show that it is functioning and improvements are being instigated, where deemed necesary, whilst at the same time meeting the standards requirements then it is fine by me.

I always remember the guy I worked with as a junior saying "KISS" over and over until I got it. He made the wind tunnel models for the development of the Spitfire, they worked and they were simple too.

Hi CCDizon,
Do you have an outsource process? If there is, how would you insert the utsourced process in your business map? Please advice.
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Raffy:cool:

Have just read your response. Thanks but I was already aware and even my internal audits are turtle based as are the external ones.

As I understand it the standard is business based, looking towards eutopia with no defects,rejects or errors. To me at least the external auditor is just another of my customers, that we pay, and for whom our Quality System must satisfy by addressing the needs.

At the end of the day the system has to be of (real) benefit to the company/employer and it really does not matter if others do not like it. It may not meet the requirements of their own institution, but as long as the measurables meet your own and show that it is functioning and improvements are being instigated, where deemed necesary, whilst at the same time meeting the standards requirements then it is fine by me.

I always remember the guy I worked with as a junior saying "KISS" over and over until I got it. He made the wind tunnel models for the development of the Spitfire, they worked and they were simple too.


I agree with your comments, except, the external auditor is not a customer. He is a supplier who has been hired by you to assess how effectively you meet the requirements of the standard you agreed to be committed to. We are also a supplier to the registrars and Accreditation Bodies.