Has anyone seen an organizational chart that lists process instead of departments? Or maybe an Org Chart that lists process owners instead of traditional department names? Or something similar?

I was thinking about how traditional org charts support the Department Approach where as we are asked to follow the Process Approach.

Thank you,

Dirk

I would love to be able to define my organization by process, but the processes at our plant cross too many "departmental" lines to be convenient. I have audited many vendors, but I have never seen an org chart like that yet. If you come across one that works, my interest is peaked!

I've never seen a chart like that as well I have done various supplier audits and none of them ever produce a chart with process owners. Usually auditors are looking for the generic organizational chart with names. If you run across one I would like to see it as well.

Best Regards,
al40

They're call organigraphs...I have examples.

They're call organigraphs...I have examples.

Do you have any that you can share??

http://www.maaw.info/ArticleSummaries/ArtSumMintzbergVanderHeyden99.htm

Some explanation and examples are included in this link.

I ask my question since we are supposed to be looking at processes. What good is a traditional org chart if we care about the processes and their inter-connections?

What does it matter if the process goes across departmental lines if we want a one page description of the organizational processes?

Aren't we supposed to be understanding the processes and not the departments? Traditional org charts don't necessarily tell us who is responisble for a process or how the processes interrelate. I suppose the traditional response to 4.1 b is an organigraph similar to what I invision in my mind.

Regards,

Dirk

What good is a traditional org chart if we care about the processes and their inter-connections?

It's a matter of comparing apples and kiwi fruit... they're different things, meant to accomplish different purposes.

The org chart shows people & their relative reporting lines and relationships. They need things like job descriptions to support them & elucidate (my General Manager might be your Office Coordinator) - whereas Process charts show activities & sequences.

No, an org chart won't show how processes relate - it isn't intended to do that, & why would it? Process charts do that (or can). Both types of chart (org & process) have their place & uses - and limitations.

Re. process ownership, if the Process Owner = Department Manager AB (or Executive DE), then it can.

As for the organigram... hmm. I haven't yet seen that they've taken hold, which I suspect is for a good reason. The last time I saw one it showed everyone in a 'circle' with more arrows & connectors than Custer's Last Stand. And made about as much sense.

If in an external audit for say 9001, someone offered a 'web' style org chart and told me that "all individuals may act in a management capacity. 'Managers have to be everywhere.' Management structure may be loose or undefined." (all quotes from the web link given above) I'd need a lot of evidence to demonstrate that they were meeting the requirements for defining & communicating responsibilities & authority appropriately.

In our company, we have the standard org chart, and the process interaction map. Responsibilities for the processes cross departmental lines, but are defined through procedures. Depending on the size of an organization, you may be able to combine both, but I agree with JaneB that typically it would be too muddled. Perhaps there are better chart designs, but I wasn't impressed with the amount of information conveyed by the examples linked in this thread.

It's fairly easy to identify organizational involvement on your process flow charts.

Simplest: just include the name of the department in each activity box on the chart. Instead of saying "Receive Parts" the box would say "Receiving Department Receives Parts."

More effective: create a vertical column on your flow chart for each organizational unit involved in the process. The place each organization's activity box in the appropriate column. It's easier to do than to explain, so I've attached a sample.

In the second method, it's very easy to follow the departmental responsibilities.

We have one of those loose, web like, everyone is empowered organization charts. Executive Management is in the middle of a circle. The outsides of the circle are Sales, Engineering, Service, Manufacturing, etc. The customer is represented as the area outside the circle. It did not fly during our Pre-Assessment. I overlaid this chart with a process map that showed the flow of the major processes (as defined in ISO9001) through our circle. New understanding achieved, auditors thrilled.

Icy -

Can you share?

I'm always a sucker for a new visual way of showing that kind of information. It cuts out so much journalism.

Thanks

I knew someone was going to ask for a visual. I tried to put this into a PDF so it would be more widely compatible. However, it does not make the Adobe to Microsoft Transition very well (probably because the original images came from Visio, which is now a Microsoft product, but don't get me started). Anyway, it's in Microsoft Word 97 format if you want to see all the glory. If you just need a visual to get the gist, and you don't have Word97, try the ugly PDF.

:applause:
Great visual, Icy. I also like the use of "Inside Out" it gets the point across that we (and our systems) are all here to serve the customer.

Well, thank you very much, Mr. Simpson. Coming from you that is high praise, indeed.:o The yellow circle is the original and was developed by our former president (also one of the current owners). He was not happy that our 3rd party auditors would not (or more likely could not) get their minds around it. I simply added the "ISO required" processes overlay to make things crystal clear to the "yeah, it's a process approach but it's made up of all these discrete statements and sections that I'm going to audit" crowd. In our Procedures Manual Introduction, the Circle stands on its own on page 2. The flow overlay is listed as an Appendix. Now everyone is happy.

We have one of those loose, web like, everyone is empowered organization charts. Executive Management is in the middle of a circle. The outsides of the circle are Sales, Engineering, Service, Manufacturing, etc. The customer is represented as the area outside the circle. It did not fly during our Pre-Assessment. I overlaid this chart with a process map that showed the flow of the major processes (as defined in ISO9001) through our circle. New understanding achieved, auditors thrilled.

I like the visual too - thanks for sharing it. It imparts a lot of info in an interesting way (though I can see why it might 'not fly' at pre-assessment without processes). Like Paul, I like the showing of the 'all here for the customer' very well.

Funnily enough, I couldn't (still can't) see Exec Management at the middle - the label said Admin, & I thought gee, Admin seems to be very powerful there, then I went back I read what you said again.

Tell me, does the Team A, B, C etc indicate that different teams work on different products? Or just that there are various different work teams?

Yes, that's one of the Ourspeak to AuditorSpeak translations: Administrative Team = Executive Management. Teams A-K are Production (i.e. manufacturing) Teams. They are subdivided not so much by product but along "natural workteam" lines. For example, Team D builds printed circuit board assemblies from bare board up through test, both through-hole and surface-mount. However, Team C also builds circuit-boards but only does through-hole assembly on pre-built surface mount boards and only to support the products that go through final assembly and test on their team. All of Team Cs products share a technology platform, final assembly flows, products have relatively small final assembly times, and relatively high volume. Team J does no circuit board assembly, relatively large final assembly times, with a common technology platform that tends to be lower volumes across a wider range of products. Teams A-K share a common boundary with the Service and Warehouse Teams in that the next customer for their product and/or service is THE CUSTOMER.

Yes, that's one of the Ourspeak to AuditorSpeak translations.
:lmao:
After a pretty awful day I am going into the evening with a smile on my face!

Yes, that's one of the Ourspeak to AuditorSpeak translations: Administrative Team = Executive Management.

I'm sorry to hear that this was felt necessary (or imposed upon you). I don't think any auditor worth their salt & worthy of professional respect has the right to do this, or should do this. But I'm aware it happens at times: I just won't have it, it makes me both sad & mad (that this view of 'quality' is imposed):( .

If I ever encounter it, I take it up, first with the auditor, then with their technical manager... and ultimately if met with refusal/resistance, I advise the client to switch to a better certifier (meaning, more professional and client-focussed). One who understands that it's your system & is happy for it to reflect your language.

I think it's the auditor's job to understand the company and its terminology and for them to make those translations, and it is not required by any clause in the Standard for the company to contort themselves or their system into the language of the Standard. (If it were... then it would be a mandatory requirement of the Standard.) Meet all requirements? Naturellement. And of course they need internal guidance/explanation from company as necessary, but heavens, they should do their job, dammit!

Thanks for the workteam explanation - I guessed it was something like that, but wanted to clarify. Which, BTW, is a microcosmic example of what I mean. I (as auditor) might ask you that question. You explain it to me. Triffic.

Icy,

Thanks for posting your chart. I like it.

I believe I share your feelings about Visio - a great product gone bad.

Cliff

I'm sorry to hear that this was felt necessary...
Jane, I won't quote your whole post but I agree wholeheartedly. A quick search of Icy Mountain posts will net you a whole bunch of rants about auditors imposing all kinds of non-standard items in order to make their life easier. I know you are all waiting on the but, you know there has to be a but...
BUT
There are times when it is far easier to spend a couple hours summarizing your system in order to make the entire rest of your life easier. This was one of those cases. Did I absolutely have to overlay a flow chart of sequences and interactions over my organizational chart? NO! But the organization shall determine the sequence and interaction of these processes. I spent two hours doing the flow chart. Every auditor that sees it has an intuitive understanding of how we fit ISO to our management system, not the other way around. Every auditor that sees it is immediately impressed with the understanding that we have of the sequence and interaction of the ISO required processes as they relate to our Teams. Every auditor that starts at the beginning and works their way through the standard begins with a warm fuzzy feeling about us rather than spending two or three hours trying to get their head straight as we explain and/or lead them through the Team Based Organization and our Procedures Manual (which does explain the sequence and interaction of processes in great detail). I'd say that's a lot of BANG for two hours work.

There are times when it is far easier to spend a couple hours summarizing your system in order to make the entire rest of your life easier. This was one of those cases. Did I absolutely have to overlay a flow chart of sequences and interactions over my organizational chart? NO! But the organization shall determine the sequence and interaction of these processes.

I shouldn't speak for Jane and hope she will correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe she is criticizing your map. You are right, you have to do something to satisfy ISO and what you have done is good. She is mad that you have to translate terms for your auditor. Like these:

Ourspeak to AuditorSpeak translations: Administrative Team = Executive Management. I still love the first part of this quote!

I believe from reading JaneB's postings over recent months that she, like me, believes the auditor should do their own translation and not have to be spoon fed or demand changes so it is more understandable to them - a party external to the organization that owns the document.

Again in other threads I have railed against this. Nevertheless I accept it does go on for expediency. I would never require it and it doesn't help me sleep easier in my bed knowing that some do.

There are times when it is far easier to spend a couple hours summarizing your system in order to make the entire rest of your life easier.
Know exactly what you mean! Times when, yeah, we know that strictly speaking it 'isn't right' or 'shouldn't be necessary' but it's one heck of a lot easier to sway a little with the flow, & save energy for the more important battles. One must be practical. :applause:


This was one of those cases.

Yup, sounds very much so. And my apologies if what I wrote sounded like criticism, it certainly was not meant to be so. Paul was right: my ire was for de auditors/auditing body, and definitely not you! (thanks, Paul). I do rail about it often - it really 'gets on my wick' as we say here downunder.

I'd say that's a lot of BANG for two hours work.
I'd agree with you! Ka-boom! :magic: Sounds like we both like to get maximum BANG for effort whenever possible.

Like you, I've also taken decisions for practical reasons, like the value of getting the auditors to have their 'warm fuzzy feeling' right from the start also. One of the certifiers here gives out detailed 'self guidance' forms to new registrants, which are supposedly a 'help' to said registrant. :nope:

Their less apt auditors are prone to expecting to see said form, duly filled in at pre-audit. Why? Because it makes their jobs easier! But if a client wants that certifier... then one does their silly form. I explain this to clients, & do it for them/help them fill it in. (And as a consultant, of course I charge for this).

But I'll also continue to growl about this & any other exercise of low/dubious value & work wherever possible to change/improve things.

Yes, that's one of the Ourspeak to AuditorSpeak translations: Administrative Team = Executive Management.


I still love the first part of this quote!


Me too! :lol:

Yup, sounds very much so. And my apologies if what I wrote sounded like criticism, it certainly was not meant to be so. Paul was right: my ire was for de auditors/auditing body, and definitely not you! (thanks, Paul). I do rail about it often - it really 'gets on my wick' as we say here downunder. No apology necessary. I understood exactly the object of your ire. I am indeed a practical applier. There are a lot of Covers that rail against the necessity of having to translate things for auditors in the absence of a shall. While I am one of those railers, I also try to put in my :2cents: about being practical. While not strictly necessary to register, my sequence and interaction overlay did not take much time relative to the amount of understanding generated, it makes a useful tool in training new associates on where there team fits into the QMS, it generated an enhanced understanding of the ISO standard for the President whom originally developed the circle, and it seems to impress the Covers. Mucho grande :magic: for the buck!

While there is great value in standing on your principles, one must be practical when winning the battle greatly increases the cost of fighting the war. Much like filling out your registrar's self-guidance form, sometimes it is far easier to surrender an early skirmish to save yourself from a 57 nit-pick finding carpet bombing.:whip:

While there is great value in standing on your principles, one must be practical when winning the battle greatly increases the cost of fighting the war. Much like filling out your registrar's self-guidance form, sometimes it is far easier to surrender an early skirmish to save yourself from a 57 nit-pick finding carpet bombing.:whip:

Ooh, isn't that de truth. Yes, indeedy.

And isn't it fun (not!!) filling out those laughingly misnamed 'self-guidance' forms? More correctly titled 'the form we require you to fill in to make it extremely easy for our new/not so good auditors". :lol: