I've been searching/reading about various people discussing Process Maps. The consensus I've found was that a lot of people, including me, are/were having difficulty preparing a process map. According to ISO/TC 176/SC 2/N 525R Guidance on the Documentation Requirements of ISO 9001:2000 page 5, "documenting the processes to the extent necessary to assure their effective operation and control. (It may be appropriate to document the processes using process map. It is emphasized, however, that documented process maps are not a requirement of ISO 9001:2000.)"

However, according to the standard section 4.2.2 Quality Manual c) The organization shall establish and maintain a quality manual that includes "a description of the interaction between the processes of the quality management system." In most cases, using a process map would work well to satisfy that clause. But what other alternatives are there?

A flow chart or a turtle diagram are two methods that come to mind.

A flow chart or a turtle diagram are two methods that come to mind.

Agreed. There would also be nothing against using a simple text narrative describing the processes and their interaction. We use a process "map" to outline the entire system and turtles to "map" the individual processes.

Dave

Yup in our documentation we have used a high level process map (flow chart), but in this case as long as the interactions are defined and individuals using it understand and you can explain this to the auditor. It is after all your documentaion.

You can create some sort of a process matrix (in excel), or create one in word document. You can create another sort of hyperlinks on your electronic document and pop-up menu for definitions and explainations. Or create a c++ program for your processes and still another have a relational database..

:cool:

A flow chart or a turtle diagram are two methods that come to mind.



Hi:
I have been lurking for a loooooong time and learned a lot from all contributors. Thanks to all.

Regarding process maps, I cannot imagine how anyone can examine a system without a process map. Flow charts seem to be activity oriented and is an excellent tool for micro managers. Process maps serve a different purpose. They should be done at a macro level. It is a wonderful method of structuring a system. I personally hate Turtle charts. I know they are powerful tools. It is like filling a form and forms restrict creativity. For this reason, I use IPOM (Input-Process-Output-Map).

I just finished my process map for Sales and Marketing. I have never worked in Sales or Marketing and only have an idea about their objectives. Please review and give me feedback.

Thanks,
Michelle

Welcome to the cove Michelle.

A very nice post as a first one!!

I like the approach in the examples you gave, especially the visualisation of the combination of IPOM and PDCA.

Excellent post.

Best regards,

Antoine

A very nice post as a first one!!Absolutley. :agree1:

I have been lurking for a loooooong time and learned a lot from all contributors.Welcome among the posters then. I'm glad you decided to quit lurking and join the fray. :bigwave: Keep posting.

/Claes

In most cases, using a process map would work well to satisfy that clause. But what other alternatives are there?

I agree with the posts above that a process map is a handy thing to have (and should not be that difficult if you have a clear picture of your processes and interactions). The alternatives to a process map are endless because the ISO 9001 never tells you what things should look like.

You can make a video explaining how your processes interact, write a 600-page book about it, you can write a play about it and have it performed in the canteen daily at lunchtime, you can paint big arrows on the floor of office/plant with text in them describing input and output from one physical department to another.

You are only really limited to your own imagination. The easiest way is probably a process map though :lol: .

Hi:
I have been lurking for a loooooong time and learned a lot from all contributors. Thanks to all.

Regarding process maps, I cannot imagine how anyone can examine a system without a process map. Flow charts seem to be activity oriented and is an excellent tool for micro managers. Process maps serve a different purpose. They should be done at a macro level. It is a wonderful method of structuring a system. I personally hate Turtle charts. I know they are powerful tools. It is like filling a form and forms restrict creativity. For this reason, I use IPOM (Input-Process-Output-Map).

I just finished my process map for Sales and Marketing. I have never worked in Sales or Marketing and only have an idea about their objectives. Please review and give me feedback.

Thanks,
Michelle

Michelle,

I think they are beautifully crafted. You definitely have an eye for style. They do a nice job of aligning with PDCA.

However, at the same time, I am not sure how useful this format will be to the actual users, outside of making a nice splash with auditors. Where do the criteria and metrics get reviewed? What are the current and long term performance objectives. These would be bread an butter useful features. If you do add that, please let me see a copy?

Thanks,

Michelle,

I think they are beautifully crafted. You definitely have an eye for style. They do a nice job of aligning with PDCA.

However, at the same time, I am not sure how useful this format will be to the actual users, outside of making a nice splash with auditors. Where do the criteria and metrics get reviewed? What are the current and long term performance objectives. These would be bread an butter useful features. If you do add that, please let me see a copy?

Thanks,

Thanks for the feedback. :thanks: I really appreciate it.

I was aiming for more than just splash of color impact…..LOL :lmao:
Color helps me focus when I perform self assessment.:magic:

I try to structure my IPOMs with minimum of two distinct check points.

1. VERIFICATION (exactly like verifying a design).

I include verification in the "DO" phase. Verification is like inspecting a subassembly per quality plan for CTQ verification. The types of measurement reports (colorful pie charts, bar charts, etc) should help to assess the effectiveness of tactical plan.

2. VALIDATION is the second check point. This step is embedded in "Check" phase of PDCA for Core Processes. Validation occurs when I compare the "Product" (in this case, the result of tactical plan,) against the original "requirements". The original requirements are outlined in the "Hoshin Kanri Customer Focus Alignment" attachment. The Metrics are identified in the bottom section.

The metrics on the Hoshin Kanri Alignment Chart are uniform for company and suppliers that are inline with current customer requirements and anticipation of future customer needs and expectations. eg, how would customer measure my system, and how do I measure my suppliers.

I followed ISO Management Principle of creating a constancy of the purpose through out the organization.

Validation can be performed during Internal Audit and Management Review to assess the effectiveness of the original strategic plan.

My personal Validation of this IPOM comes from checking to make sure all eight management principles are embedded (and implied) in this IPOM.

Normally, I have two columns for IPOMs for responsibility. One is after INPUT and one is after PROCESS. In this case, since all these processes are performed by one group, I deleted the responsibility column and will add a process owner block.

Please let me know if my explanations are sufficient. Do I still need to add to the IPOM?

Thanks,
Michelle

Thanks for the feedback. :thanks: I really appreciate it.

I was aiming for more than just splash of color impact…..LOL :lmao:
Color helps me focus when I perform self assessment.:magic:

I try to structure my IPOMs with minimum of two distinct check points.

1. VERIFICATION (exactly like verifying a design).

I include verification in the "DO" phase. Verification is like inspecting a subassembly per quality plan for CTQ verification. The types of measurement reports (colorful pie charts, bar charts, etc) should help to assess the effectiveness of tactical plan.

2. VALIDATION is the second check point. This step is embedded in "Check" phase of PDCA for Core Processes. Validation occurs when I compare the "Product" (in this case, the result of tactical plan,) against the original "requirements". The original requirements are outlined in the "Hoshin Kanri Customer Focus Alignment" attachment. The Metrics are identified in the bottom section.

The metrics on the Hoshin Kanri Alignment Chart are uniform for company and suppliers that are inline with current customer requirements and anticipation of future customer needs and expectations. eg, how would customer measure my system, and how do I measure my suppliers.

I followed ISO Management Principle of creating a constancy of the purpose through out the organization.

Validation can be performed during Internal Audit and Management Review to assess the effectiveness of the original strategic plan.

My personal Validation of this IPOM comes from checking to make sure all eight management principles are embedded (and implied) in this IPOM.

Normally, I have two columns for IPOMs for responsibility. One is after INPUT and one is after PROCESS. In this case, since all these processes are performed by one group, I deleted the responsibility column and will add a process owner block.

Please let me know if my explanations are sufficient. Do I still need to add to the IPOM?

Thanks,
Michelle


They are indeed more than just a splash of color. They are in fact very attractive. Perhaps the most elegant appearance I have seen yet. That part I think hits a home run.

My concern is that while you have done an incredible job of capturing every ISO nuance that they would ask, I am less concerned that PDCA and Verification/Validation are performed, etc. An ISP expert could get lost in this like a beautiful symphony. It is deep. I really am impressed by how stylishly everything is woven in.

I am more concerned however, that the users who do not know ISO, who are going to work this process, can use this as a useful tool. My concern woudl be that it makes a beautiful PowerPoint, that it is fondly remembered, but that it does not help the user run the process effectively.

I tend to prefer simple screwdrivers to fancy computer driven tools. Yet, there is a place for both. I would be honored to show these in a training session, but would not want to do that unless I could simplify and make them more obvious and clear. Most people do not want to sit still long enough to learn a compex system. Alas.

Yes, beautifully done graphically. But I tend to agree with hjilling:

I am more concerned however, that the users who do not know ISO, who are going to work this process, can use this as a useful tool. My concern woudl be that it makes a beautiful PowerPoint, that it is fondly remembered, but that it does not help the user run the process effectively.

I tend to prefer simple screwdrivers to fancy computer driven tools.

I looked at the first one (the complex matrix with lots of little Xs) and while I could see that presumably a lot of thought had gone into it, I had no idea of how useful (or indeed used) it would be. What's it for? WHo uses it? When and why would they? Apart from anything else, centred text running vertically contradicts every just about every usability rule there is.

And the second one... I spent some time looking at it & remain confused. I couldn't see the average sales person I've had experience of getting past the first box or two. Definitely passes my graphically OK test, but not the practicality and useful one.

Here is an alternative view. This is from a few years ago when I was helping a software development organisation. They used something similar in their sales presentation so I just adapted it and stuck it in the quality manual.

Hi:
I have been lurking for a loooooong time and learned a lot from all contributors. Thanks to all.

Regarding process maps, I cannot imagine how anyone can examine a system without a process map. Flow charts seem to be activity oriented and is an excellent tool for micro managers. Process maps serve a different purpose. They should be done at a macro level. It is a wonderful method of structuring a system. I personally hate Turtle charts. I know they are powerful tools. It is like filling a form and forms restrict creativity. For this reason, I use IPOM (Input-Process-Output-Map).

I just finished my process map for Sales and Marketing. I have never worked in Sales or Marketing and only have an idea about their objectives. Please review and give me feedback.

Thanks,
Michelle

Thanks a lot Michelle for sharing your process map and the matrix.They are
in a class by itself!!

:applause:

I just finished my process map for Sales and Marketing. I have never worked in Sales or Marketing and only have an idea about their objectives. Please review and give me feedback.



There is an "O" in Customer. :)

(sales1.pdf)

They are indeed more than just a splash of color. They are in fact very attractive. Perhaps the most elegant appearance I have seen yet. That part I think hits a home run.

My concern is that while you have done an incredible job of capturing every ISO nuance that they would ask, I am less concerned that PDCA and Verification/Validation are performed, etc. An ISP expert could get lost in this like a beautiful symphony. It is deep. I really am impressed by how stylishly everything is woven in.

I am more concerned however, that the users who do not know ISO, who are going to work this process, can use this as a useful tool. My concern woudl be that it makes a beautiful PowerPoint, that it is fondly remembered, but that it does not help the user run the process effectively.

I tend to prefer simple screwdrivers to fancy computer driven tools. Yet, there is a place for both. I would be honored to show these in a training session, but would not want to do that unless I could simplify and make them more obvious and clear. Most people do not want to sit still long enough to learn a compex system. Alas.

Thanks Hjilling;:)
Let me give you a little background to this situation.

The user of this process map is the president of the small company that is growing fast.

The intent of this map is to set a strategic direction and not the work instruction...I did not feel like spelling out in such manner as:
1- Pick up your shoes
2- Open the shoe laces
3- ....etc...

The purpose of this map was:
1- Align customer/market-organization-suppliers...
-i.e. what is the current market?
- What does the organization offer currently?
- What should the organization do to capture a larger share of market?

- How does a customer measure the organization?
- How does the organization measure suppliers?
- How should the organization perform self assessment?

2- Provide a Strategic direction for marketing (working closely with sales) to establish their connectivity plan to new or existing customer,

3- Establish a system for sales to design an approach for conversion of lead to sales

4- Learn from mistakes and improve.

I don't believe a bicycle ( or a screw driver)would serve in this case....that's why I went with the Rolls...

I tried to build the spirit of quality in the system...rather than detect it

How does one audit the spirit of quality? I believe this map will make the organization look deeper at their sales and marketing effort and focus on building a better road for continual improvement. Do I have the answer to optimal sales and marketing technique...absolutely not. But, I will personally try and learn from my mistakes...

Thanks for your feedback.:cool:
Michelle

There is an "O" in Customer. :)

(sales1.pdf)

John:
Thanks for correction...

Engineers can't spell ;) :lmao:

Michelle