Are process map mandatory? :notme:

One existing discussion thread: Are we required to have process maps for each department? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=4646) I think there are several existing discussion threads about requirements for process maps.

Yes. According to our TS auditor whom has just passed his re-cert exam. He told us that to fulfil the requirement of 4.1(a) and (b), the organization has to establish the process maps. However, it is not the IATF requirement to have a turtle diagram. Turtle analysis is just a recommendation but not a mandatory.

Yes. According to our TS auditor whom has just passed his re-cert exam. He told us that to fulfil the requirement of 4.1(a) and (b), the organization has to establish the process maps. However, it is not the IATF requirement to have a turtle diagram. Turtle analysis is just a recommendation but not a mandatory.

Again, the vow of silence is broken:rolleyes:

Your auditor is wrong. There is a requirement to define the sequence and interactions of processes, but there is no requirement to do it graphically. A written description will satisfy the requirement, for example.

There is no universally accepted definition of what a process map is, or must consist of, so how could it be a requirement?

Are process map mandatory? :notme:

I would say that if they were mandatory, they would be mentioned in either the ISO/TS 16949 requirements (not there!) or in the 'TS Rules', IATF 'FAQ' or 'Sanctioned Interpretations' (not there either).
Therefore, they aren't mandatory. Anything an auditor says is, once again, a figment of their imagination. I've been to the AIAG training and it isn't in there, either!

Andy

I would say that if they were mandatory, they would be mentioned in either the ISO/TS 16949 requirements (not there!) or in the 'TS Rules', IATF 'FAQ' or 'Sanctioned Interpretations' (not there either).
Therefore, they aren't mandatory. Anything an auditor says is, once again, a figment of their imagination. I've been to the AIAG training and it isn't in there, either!

Andy

Jim welcome, a pleasure
In the Check List 16949:2002 book Page 4 states:

In Spanish
Cualquier auditor ISO/TS 16949:2002 debe, por lo tanto, ser capaz de comprender el tratamiento de procesos de automoción IATF así como el tratamiento de procesos y el mapa de procesos de la organización auditada.
Ver cláusula 2.9 de las “Normas para las entidades de certificación ISO/TS 16949:2002 – 1ª edición”

Translating

Check List 16949:2002 Page 4 states
Every Auditor ISO/TS 16949:2002 must be able to undestand the Automobile process treatment IATF and the process treatment and map process of the audited company, See clasuse 2.9 Rules for Certification bodies ISO/TS 16949:2002
In this check list List 16949:2002 Page 5 (In Spanish version) include the process map proposed by IATF

see the link that I posted with the IATF process map (The best in my opinnion I have seen).

Please Critique my process map - Fiberglass business (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=154882#post154882).

So it seems that IATF strongly recommended the process map and their interpretetion of processes interaction.

Jim welcome, a pleasure
In the Check List 16949:2002 book Page 4 states:

In Spanish
Cualquier auditor ISO/TS 16949:2002 debe, por lo tanto, ser capaz de comprender el tratamiento de procesos de automoción IATF así como el tratamiento de procesos y el mapa de procesos de la organización auditada.
Ver cláusula 2.9 de las “Normas para las entidades de certificación ISO/TS 16949:2002 – 1ª edición”

Translating

Check List 16949:2002 Page 4 states
Every Auditor ISO/TS 16949:2002 must be able to undestand the Automobile process treatment IATF and the process treatment and map process of the audited company, See clasuse 2.9 Rules for Certification bodies ISO/TS 16949:2002
In this check list List 16949:2002 Page 5 (In Spanish version) include the process map proposed by IATF

see the link that I posted with the IATF process map (The best in my opinnion I have seen).

Please Critique my process map - Fiberglass business (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=154882#post154882).

So it seems that IATF strongly recommended the process map and their interpretetion of processes interaction.


Well, there certainly appears to be a different spin in the Spanish than in the English. According to the rules, the English language version would be the prevaling determining requirement.

Also, note, the TS Checklist book was obsoleted by IATF. The contents and comments in it are no longer applicable.

The TS standard and Rules do not mention that process maps are required.

In the other post on this topic, my reply to your question indicated I like process maps, but as an auditor, I have to recognize it is a method, but other tools are acceptable as well. Such as, diagrams, flowcharts, circles connected with lines, photographs, post-it notes, spagetti diagrams, Turtles. You can also describe it with narrative text, describing how the pieces work together. There are surely other methods as well.

I certainly like flowcharts and process maps, but the standard leaves it flexible to allow each organization to select the methods best suited for its processes.

PS: a lot of companies will use different methods for different processes. For example, a linear production process lends itsef well to a flowchart. But some non-linear processes look silly on a flowchart and do much better in a diagram or narrative.

Again, the vow of silence is broken:rolleyes:

Your auditor is wrong. There is a requirement to define the sequence and interactions of processes, but there is no requirement to do it graphically. A written description will satisfy the requirement, for example.

There is no universally accepted definition of what a process map is, or must consist of, so how could it be a requirement?


Jim is correct and the auditor you cited is wrong. By the way, I also "passed my TS auditor recertification." Passing the test does not make an auditor's opinion a normative criteria. It still has to be based on the standard and the Rules, and it ain't in there...

PS: that auditor would have missed those questions if he answered that way on the test.

PPS: welcome back Jimmie, we missed ya'

Nice to see you again Jim :bigwave:

I agree with Jim and Hjilling. Process maps are not required, but I am making them now so as to record the interactive (both among associated documents and during handoffs from one group to another) nature of our support processes and indicate control points from a macro level.

What I find is that different registrars want to see different evidence of interprocess effectiveness: preference.

If an organization feels a registrar is asking for a lot, the management should interview other registrars to and select that which is a good fit for the organization.

This doesn't say much positive about the registration process does it?

Check List 16949:2002 Page 4 states
Every Auditor ISO/TS 16949:2002 must be able to undestand the Automobile process treatment IATF and the process treatment and map process of the audited company, See clasuse 2.9 Rules for Certification bodies ISO/TS 16949:2002
In this check list List 16949:2002 Page 5 (In Spanish version) include the process map proposed by IATF

see the link that I posted with the IATF process map (The best in my opinnion I have seen).

Please Critique my process map - Fiberglass business (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=154882#post154882).

So it seems that IATF strongly recommended the process map and their interpretetion of processes interaction.

If I'm reading the translation correctly, it seems to be saying that auditors must be able to understand "...the map process of the audited company..." which is different from saying that there must be a map process. In other words, if there is a map process, auditors must be able to understand it. I see no recommendation, strong or otherwise, for graphical process maps.

Note also that I'm not recommending against process maps (which used to be called "process flow diagrams" :frust:); the question is whether or not they're required under the standard, and they're not.

If I'm reading the translation correctly, it seems to be saying that auditors must be able to understand "...the map process of the audited company..." which is different from saying that there must be a map process. In other words, if there is a map process, auditors must be able to understand it. I see no recommendation, strong or otherwise, for graphical process maps.

Note also that I'm not recommending against process maps (which used to be called "process flow diagrams" :frust:); the question is whether or not they're required under the standard, and they're not.

I agree :agree1:

Great...

Thanks Jim.

It is a pleasure to have your deep understaning for the interpretation of the standard.

I am an animal lover, but even though the "horse is dead", I will kick it once more.

From the FAQ section of ISO TC176 SC2 (http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/138402/755901/1069636/FAQs.html?nodeid=3554529&vernum=0)
Is there a standard way of describing a process?

No, there is no standard way to describe a process. It depends on the culture, management style, staff literacy, personal attributes and their interactions.

A process may be described using a flow chart, block diagram, responsibility matrix, written procedures or pictures.

Process flowcharts or block diagrams can show how policies, objectives, influential factors, job functions, activities, material, equipment, resources, information, people and decision making interact and/or interrelate in a logical order.
[FAQ 025, April 2004]