My company uses a "System of Work" Business Process Map to show how we operate, from business strategy to invoice. Lately I have been developing what i'd call sub-process process maps (in this case job costing). I have linked the two through a complex :bonk: code of letters and numbers (which happen to correlate with every employees task matrix/responsibilities) as best as I could. I don't like that steps in Job Costing don't appear in our S.O.W., but realize if all processes of all processes of all processes were to be added to the System of Work it would be huuuuge.

Any suggestions on how to connect these documents? Any suggestions for improvement of either? What is the proper terminology for these two documents?

I've attached both, have your way with them. :biglaugh:

Niel,
I am having difficulties getting the files off the thread. I am relatively new to this forum, is there something special that needs to be done to download a file?

The obvious way of linking in my opinion would be to use an image map. This lets you create specific areas of an image that you can click on that will take you to various destinations, essentially it lets you create multiple hyperlinks on a single image.

Imagemapic (http://pidg.in/?p=23) is a freeware program which does this sort of thing, not used it myself so can't say how good it is.

Can anyone open?

I was able to open

Neil,
I disabled my download accelerator and was able to get the files. Thank you! Those gave me some ideas/info that help alot.

We use Igrafx process mapping software which allows you to create sub-process maps from a higher level process map, which you navigate to by clicking the box with your mouse. The document is in effect a 3D HTML file which negates the need for complex numbering systems.

That sounds like a better option, especially as we keep adding on.

Instead of PowerPoint, you could use Excel. The sub-processes can either be in separate Excel documents or other worksheets within the same document.

Excel lets you add a hyperlink to a flowchart symbol, but it will not let you link to another symbol. The workaround is to just link to a cell nearby the target process.

Here's an example:
http://www.breezetree.com/articles/hyperlink-flowchart-symbols.htm

[Disclaimer: that's my site.]

Here's an example:
http://www.breezetree.com/articles/hyperlink-flowchart-symbols.htm



Another good idea...I checked out the link and video, pretty impressive. I like the idea of linking to a different worksheet within the same document. I'll have to explore more. Thanks!

Hello Neil,

I can see that you already understand that you should have 2 levels of "instructional documents" in your business operating system:
1) Procedures (which capture all your key processes - customer-, support-, system- and management-oriented)
2) Work Instructions which are the "fine print" in the procedures, and which provide further detail where and if necessary.

I have attached a flow chart of Phase 8 of the the 10 phases of our Product Realization Procedure. The supporting and/or associated Work Instructions (as well as procedures, where applicable), are identified within the text of the Procedure (easily identified in RED Text). When you open the procedural document, you can hyperlink to any of the sub-processes without having to search for the Work Instructions.

The green (input) and pink (output) shapes on the sides of the "Processes" are the necessary inputs and outputs to each step. The person responsible is identified at the beginning of each process. (Additionally, for internal auditor reference, we have included the applicable TS requirement, in the yellow boxes, which can be "visible" or "invisible" to viewers as desired (per MS-Visio layering).

This methodology precludes the need for "Turtle Diagrams", and helps people understand the "Macro" view of company Key Processes and their links to other Procedures as well as Work Instructions.

...Just another option.

Patricia

Hello Patricia,

The methodology for key processes and procedures you have developed is; to us, (in the steel processing business), an excellent, user friendly system which encompasses, links & identifies all the metrics we developed for our QMS, Policy manual, etc.

If possible, and very much appreciated, could I see some more of your flow charts, (we have seen your past attachments), especially for Full Production-Product Realization Process.

Rich in steel processing.:applause:

To: RJM Steel,

Thanks for your comments. I would like to help you if I can. Is there any particular process that you're interested in? If it's more convenient, you can call me and we can talk - I can be reached at 519-252-9009 (Windsor, Ontario, Canada).

Patricia Ravanello

....and helps people understand the "Macro" view of company Key Processes and their links to other Procedures as well as Work Instructions.

...Just another option.

Patricia

Patricia, I like this alot as well. You mention that this is phase 8 of 10, I suppose you could even go one level higher and have a process map of the 10 key processes....I think i'm getting close to saying buh-bye to our inch-and-a-half thick Work Instruction binder seeing that the w.i. can be linked digitally...Our registrar alluded to using our process map in place of hard copies of our QMS, but I wasn't sure where to start....Great example, thanks to all for sharing :thanx:

Hi Neil :thanx:
I'm always grateful for feedback from objective third parites...thanks for your comments.

You wrote: "You mention that this is phase 8 of 10, I suppose you could even go one level higher and have a process map of the 10 key processes...."

You are right...and there is a process map of the 12 key processes of the management system (in addition to the 10 phases of Product Realization). All companies are required to create one in response to ISO 9000 (and ISO/TS 16949).

Per 4.1 General Requirements:

Clause 4.1.a : identify the processes needed for the quality management system and their application throughout the organization,

Clause 4.1.b: determine the sequence and interaction of these processes.

Most companies answer this requirement by plotting out the phases of Product Realization and creating links to their management system. That's not what the requirement asks for, and it doesn't answer the question of the sequence and interaction of the KEY Processes themselves. Each organization should first define the Management System Processes, their sequence and interaction, and then subsequent to that, map out how each process is implemented. Within those process flowcharts, as you've seen in my attachments, you link the processes to one another, and as applicable, to lower level documents like Work Instructions, etc.

Most of the examples I've seen posted on this site are incorrect, and most Auditors don't challenge these "maps". I'm not sure that auditors really know the difference either. If done properly, the Key Processes Map is one of the most important documents in your system, and one of the best tools for training and orienting employees to the workings of the "System", (and not just to Product Realization).

The whole of section 4.1 General Requirements is very specific. It refers almost exclusively to the "Management System", and not to Product Realization. The NOTE at the end of 4.1 is a further clue that their focus is not "Product Realization", since they include Product Realization as just "one" of the processes that need to be included in the "System".

How has your company responded to this requirement?

Thanks again,
Patricia

....
Per 4.1 General Requirements:

Clause 4.1.a : identify the processes needed for the quality management system and their application throughout the organization,

Most of the examples I've seen posted on this site are incorrect, and most Auditors don't challenge these "maps". I'm not sure that auditors really know the difference either. If done properly, the Key Processes Map is one of the most important documents in your system, and one of the best tools for training and orienting employees to the workings of the "System", (and not just to Product Realization).

The whole of section 4.1 General Requirements is very specific. It refers almost exclusively to the "Management System", and not to Product Realization. The NOTE at the end of 4.1 is a further clue that their focus is not "Product Realization", since they include Product Realization as just "one" of the processes that need to be included in the "System".




What I see most is a high level map showing all the defined processes of the organization. These become the map that shows how they sequence. Then, most will have a map or diagram for each process showing the greater detail (inputs, outputs, criteria, metrics, objectives, etc.).

What I see most is a high level map showing all the defined processes of the organization. These become the map that shows how they sequence. Then, most will have a map or diagram for each process showing the greater detail (inputs, outputs, criteria, metrics, objectives, etc.).

Hi Hjilling,

That's refreshing to hear...perhaps what I've seen posted on this site is not reflective of what is being certified. These are my observations:

Firstly, it seems that many companies have a problem distinguishing between "lower" and "higher level" processes, and as a result, their "Key Processes Map" ends up being a hybrid of both, with far more detail than required, and no clear deliniation of the "management system", or it's sequences and interactions.

Secondly, a great part of my objection to these maps is that, while the boxes with arrows linking the processes might demonstrate the sequence, they certainly don't explain the interaction of two processes (interestingly, your comment above doesn't mention the "interaction" aspect either - I understand that it most likely has been captured in the Process Flow Charts...perhaps that could be deemed adequate). My understanding is that the "Key Processes Map" should do both...I suppose it might be just a case of pot'ay"toes/pot"aw"toes...

I'm glad to hear that your experience has been otherwise.

I'd love to see more Key Process Maps that do both.

Patricia

[QUOTE=hjilling;198169]What I see most is a high level map showing all the defined processes of the organization. These become the map that shows how they sequence. Then, most will have a map or diagram for each process showing the greater detail (inputs, outputs, criteria, metrics, objectives, etc.).


Hi Hjilling,

That's refreshing to hear...perhaps what I've seen posted on this site is not reflective of what is being certified. These are my observations:

Firstly, it seems that many companies have a problem distinguishing between "lower" and "higher level" processes, and as a result, their "Key Processes Map" ends up being a hybrid of both, with far more detail than required, and no clear deliniation of the "management system", or it's sequences and interactions. Secondly, a great part of my objection to these maps is that, while the boxes with arrows linking the processes might demonstrate the sequence, they certainly don't explain the interaction of two processes (interestingly, your comment above doesn't mention the "interaction" aspect either - I understand that it most likely has been captured in the Process Flow Charts...perhaps that could be deemed adequate). My understanding is that the "Key Processes Map" should do both...I suppose it might be just a case of pot'ay"toes/pot"aw"toes... I'm glad to hear that your experience has been otherwise.


I'd love to see more Key Process Maps that do both.

Patricia




I am not certain we are actually agreeing, in our viewpoints. I am referring to a high-level map that shows all processes, not a detailed map of just high level processes. I encourage companies to simply make one map at the 5000 foot level, that shows all the processes - the whole organization. That becomes the basis for all the rest of the documentation.

Each of those processes then is developed in detail, even down to subprocesses if appropriate. The details are contained in those. Inputs/outputs (those are the interactions), criteria, metrics, objectives, process flows, etc.

If you put all the detail in the top level map, it gets awfully complex and intimidating. It is hard to read, which limits it's usefulness to the rest of your team.

I do however, encourage people to define which are the key customer processes, and which are the supporting administrative processes. There is a benefit in clearly knowing the difference.

Hi again, hjilling,

I think we are agreeing conceptually, however, the "High-level" map that I refer to only has about 12 to 15 processes in it and it does, in fact, capture the entire organization. I like your idea of looking at the company from 5000 feet up...but I think that our basic difference is that I'm looking from an altitude of about 10,000 feet, where you can't see all the sub-processes, but you can still see the interaction between the Key processes.

Patricia

Hi again, hjilling,

I think we are agreeing conceptually, however, the "High-level" map that I refer to only has about 12 to 15 processes in it and it does, in fact, capture the entire organization. I like your idea of looking at the company from 5000 feet up...but I think that our basic difference is that I'm looking from an altitude of about 10,000 feet, where you can't see all the sub-processes, but you can still see the interaction between the Key processes.

Patricia

"Sub-processes" would by definition be a sub part of a whole process. For example, a process called "Manufacturing" might be made up of subprocesses - stamping, welding, painting, assembly. I agree the subprocesses would not be on the high level map.

However, if you mean the administrative "Supporting" processes, for example, Management, Calibration, Maintenance, Training, etc., I feel these belong on the high level map. Else, you would need your "10,000" foot level view, and my "5,000" foot level view. Not sure I would want both.

One overview map, showing how the whole organization interacts, coupled with a more detailed document for each process, seems to work very well, and is easy for the team to work with.

I don't know if this helps, but I've attached a sample key processes list that represents a typical "Management System"... I think they pretty much align with what you just stated...

These are the Procedures which I believe need to be utilized and visible in a "sequence and interaction" map.

Patricia

I don't know if this helps, but I've attached a sample key processes list that represents a typical "Management System"... I think they pretty much align with what you just stated...

These are the Procedures which I believe need to be utilized and visible in a "sequence and interaction" map.

Patricia


Yes, that is reather elegant. I like it. At first glance I can see that it could cover all the activitiies of the company.

I tend to select process names more closely aligned to how the organization is accustomed to calling them (Engineering, Purchasing, Mgt., etc.), but that is up to each organization to decide.

Further detail then, on lower documents, must show sequences, interactions, etc.

Nicely done.

I think the lower documents, by default, will detail the sequence and interaction, but we're back to my original point...

4.1 a) and b) still ask for the identification, sequence and interacton of these Key processes.

However, I will concede, that it doesn't say that you don't have to demonstrate it all in one map.

I think your methodology meets the intent, and I think that's what is most important, it's just a little different than what I perceive to be required. The creation of a Key Process Map with sequence and interaction defines how the whole "Operating System Works", and not just one Key Process at a time. Most employees understand the individual processes, what they don't get is the "Big Picture", ergo, the need for the "Map".
Patricia

I think the lower documents, by default, will detail the sequence and interaction, but we're back to my original point...

4.1 a) and b) still ask for the identification, sequence and interacton of these Key processes.
However, I will concede, that it doesn't say that you don't have to demonstrate it all in one map.

I think your methodology meets the intent, and I think that's what is most important, it's just a little different than what I perceive to be required. The creation of a Key Process Map with sequence and interaction defines how the whole "Operating System Works", and not just one Key Process at a time. Most employees understand the individual processes, what they don't get is the "Big Picture", ergo, the need for the "Map".
Patricia

Essentially, I came to the conclusion that trying to show everything in one map is too complex. The results are always so unwieldy that the regular folks don't get much value from it. So, showing the detail on a process by process series of documents allows the clear defining of all the required details. The high level map just shows how it fits together. Almost, a simple, visual table of contents.

However, since we are on this theme, I think the magic happens in cl 4.1.c. By defining the correct criteria for each process, it allows everyone to understand what is vital. These criteria should be reached by discussion and debate between customer and supplier for each internal process. When these parties can agree what the imporatnt criteria are, then everyone can focus and measure the important few variables for each process interaction. This must be done on the process level - process to process - not just the overall company metrics. This is where the alignment happens. And, alignment brings improved effectiveness.

...Don't think I need to add to that. You're always so eloquent and concise (and one of the few authors that I regularly read on the Cove)... Thanks for sharing your knowledge and ideas with me/us.:thanx:

Patricia

...Don't think I need to add to that. You're always so eloquent and concise (and one of the few authors that I regularly read on the Cove)... Thanks for sharing your knowledge and ideas with me/us.:thanx:

Patricia


Why thank you, you are very kind...

Hi Hjilling,

In Response to your discussion with Patricia, for a desirable process/ procedure management system; the system she describes is at the correct altitude.

This system, in our opinion, works & can be done as we are in the process of implementing and updating this logical - not dis-jointed, (as are text only based); user, (employee & management), friendly system which encompasses, links and identifies responsibility, activity, direction to sub-processes, work instructions, and [process documentation and resources in the input & outputs of activities]; (see the flowcharts).

This is acheived; without searching through piles of documentation or varied & disjointed computer applications; up front in the 12-15 Key Process methodology & Process/Procedures Flowcharts. The system clearly, including during creation and deployment identifies key processes and their interactions, system metrics, policy, ISO/TS standard, customer and QMS manual requirements.

We submit that the roadmap of this system is clear, acheivable and is a good logical upgrade from our last system in QS and in transition system, (improving system), for ISO:2000/ TS practices. A sample process/procedure pdf could be forwarded if desired from our perspective.

From: your average steel processor, (senior management & Quality manager), viewpoint!

Is there an example wherein the outsourced process can be included in the Business Process Map? Is there someone who could share their business process map?
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Raffy:cool:

Is there an example wherein the outsourced process can be included in the Business Process Map? Is there someone who could share their business process map?
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Raffy:cool:

You could have a mfg process which:

Machine Metal Parts -- Weld Assembly --- Heat-Treat (outsourced) -- Receiving Inspection from heat treat -- Paint -- Warehouse -- Shipping

Hi hjilling,
Thank you for the immediate reply.
Some of our outsource process is assembly, I just don't know where I could link the outsource process, :frust:
Best regards,
Raffy:cool:

Niel,
I am having difficulties getting the files off the thread. I am relatively new to this forum, is there something special that needs to be done to download a file?

U hv to right click, then "save target as" to a folder on your C drive.
It works all the time