Hi,

we had an internal discussion if it's necessary to determine "continuous improvement process" as an individual process as such or to integrated in the defined COP, MOP and SOP processes.

If we take it as a process on its own, what are the input's , output's and the key indicators measurements ?

Have some of yours perhaps an example.

Thanks in advance for a quick respons.

Best regards,

Filip

Hi Filip, not into automotive at all, but i think i understand your question. My approach would be to look at the improvement process as the entire management system and not describe it specifically. Depending on the systems structure this is more or less obvious.

I structured my management system so that input for continual improvement are complaints, audits, corrective actions, process indicators, customer satisfaction assessments, etc. This is all summarized in a management review, which can be seen as the official round up of the continual improvement loop. From there we get more corrective actions + new input for strategy / goals / targets, which is input for the operations, which again gives input in the form of complaints, audits, etc.

Hope this clarifies things a bit.

Groet, Martijn

I think it's a good idea to adopt a simple improvement algorithm that's universally applicable:

Identify something that can be improved, and define what "improved" means in each individual context.
Make a plan.
Make sure that you define the problem to be solved in simple, straightforward language.
Make sure that it is a problem.
Make sure that in solving the problem, you don't screw something else up.
Define the resources that will be needed, and confirm their availability.
Make a reasonable effort to define the criteria to be used in judging whether or not the problem is solved.
Implement the plan.
Determine whether the plan has worked or not
If it has, move on to something else, but keep monitoring and be open to opportunities for further improvement. If not, go back to #2 and adjust your plan and repeat the steps.This is nothing new; it's just the PDCA/PDSA (whichever you prefer) cycle that originated with Walter Shewhart and was refined by Deming, and has successfully withstood attempts by scores of dilettantes to repackage and present it as a wonderful new strategy. The object is not perfect processes; the object is to reach a state of optimum performance--that is, a state that is operating as well as possible given the known constraints.

Dag, heren!

I wouldn't advocate a 'process map' (or any other document) to meet ISO/TS 16949. What's needed is an 'approach' much as described in ISO 9004 - the guidance on Improvement. For example, if you choose to use 6 Sigma or Kaizen as your means to improve, these are more approach than process, perhaps (sure, you can process map them, of course). Since there's a need to have well qualified people doing these activities, like 6 Sigma 'Black' and 'Green' belts, there's less need for a document which describes the way they do things.

Perhaps more importantly, the way you get your management team to identify and support improvement through leadership, direction and resource allocation is of higher significance. Improvement should be identified from an effective management review of the QMS and lead to a clear plan which is supported by human resources, budget, progress monitoring etc......

Do you have these in place too?

Tot ziens!

Andy

Hi,
we had an internal discussion if it's necessary to determine "continuous improvement process" as an individual process as such or to integrated in the defined COP, MOP and SOP processes.
If we take it as a process on its own, what are the input's , output's and the key indicators measurements ?
Have some of yours perhaps an example.
Thanks in advance for a quick respons.
Best regards,
Filip

Filip

Perhaps best to think of it as an objective which can be met by other processes (such as process design, process review, management review...)

While I'm not TS, we do have process maps and as Jim said, they are structured in the PDCA format (y-axis) along with who is involved (x-axis) for each step.

Continual improvement is factored into each process as opposed to being a process on its own. The reason for this is to us, PDCA = CI. As part of our Act, we have a learning cycle from which the outputs become the inputs to the first step back up at the Plan stage.

Basically our process maps are cycles, just as PDCA is a cycle, and CI is part of the process.