I have a question, I have been searching for an answer throughout the site and can't find it but this thread seems close.

Our Quality Manual has a Process Map, there are, maybe, 14 processes identified. I have read that having a map isn't necessary, but because we have one, shouldn't "order desk" and "shipping" be in that map seeing as they're core processes?
Is this an oversight by everyone, including our registrar and even me? *hangs head*

The simple reply is yes, if your process maps (or whatever else defines your processes) misses what you would call a core process then yes they are severely lacking.

It may however simply be that what you see as a process, and what you call a process, is within the existing maps just that the author has perhaps created a higher level abstraction of the processes and bundled them up into something else - maybe !

I have a question, I have been searching for an answer throughout the site and can't find it but this thread seems close.

Our Quality Manual has a Process Map, there are, maybe, 14 processes identified. I have read that having a map isn't necessary, but because we have one, shouldn't "order desk" and "shipping" be in that map seeing as they're core processes?
Is this an oversight by everyone, including our registrar and even me? *hangs head*

The requirement is to
a. define your processes, and
b. describe the sequence and interactions.

The standard allows you to decide the best method to do that. Many people choose to make a high level process map to describe the overview of those processes. But there are many different ways that could be done.

However, to your question, if you have defined certain processes, like "order desk" and "shipping," then yes, they should be on your map. You can't define them as processes and then leave them out.

Whether past auditors have missed that is not a criterion. (Clause 4.1 discusses this a little bit more).

I went ahead and split this question into it's own thread. I think it's a good question, and hopefully the action will minimize confusion with the other thread.

ss Map, there are, maybe, 14 processes identified. I have read that having a map isn't necessary, but because we have one, shouldn't "order desk" and "shipping" be in that map seeing as they're core processes?


I'll go out on a limb again here. :D

Order Desk and Shipping aren't core processes in their own right. They are both part of a core process that is "satisfying the customer requirements" or something similar.

I'll go out on a limb again here. :D

Order Desk and Shipping aren't core processes in their own right. They are both part of a core process that is "satisfying the customer requirements" or something similar.

I may go out on a limb too (note: this is with a little apprehension as you have 20 years on me Paul!)

I don't agree, as I have just come off of a TS auditing course and we discussed core processes, and it seems to me that these are both core processes of any Manufacturing organisation.

I am assuming that "Order Desk" is Purchasing and Shipping is "Logistics". I see those as must have core processes and I think the "satisfying the customer requirements" thing is just stepping it up one notch. You could go even higher and say the main core business process is Making ££££ ($$$$!) and this is supported by "satisfying the customer requirements". The resolution you use to define your processes is debatable, but in a Capitalist environment, even if you are a charity or government agency, customer satisfaction is almost a given to achieving your objectives.

IMO of course!

I may go out on a limb too (note: this is with a little apprehension as you have 20 years on me Paul!) I always tell people it is not the age that counts - just the mileage on the clock. :lol:

I don't agree, as I have just come off of a TS auditing course and we discussed core processes, and it seems to me that these are both core processes of any Manufacturing organisation. Who ran the course - just for my information. My point that has been aired many times on the Cove is that if you start off defining processes at the micro level you end up sub-optimizing the system as a whole. Start off at the high level and only when achieving the objective requires it cascade down to the lower levels.

I am assuming that "Order Desk" is Purchasing and Shipping is "Logistics".I think order desk is probably sales order processing. So these core processes are all part of one process - where the customer starts off by defining their requirements all the way through the business to the product arriving at their facility.

If you "allow" Sales and Logisitics to have their own core processes you end up with the same old same old "over the wall" management where sales hit their own targets for processing orders, logistics theirs for time to despatch production orders and the customer is dissatisfied because the goods don't arrive in the time they asked for.
I see those as must have core processes and I think the "satisfying the customer requirements" thing is just stepping it up one notch. As above: unless the process as a whole is the one everyone in the business focuses on satisfying then you end up with silo thinking and a lack of customer focus.
You could go even higher and say the main core business process is Making ££££ ($$$$!) and this is supported by "satisfying the customer requirements". The resolution you use to define your processes is debatable, but in a Capitalist environment, even if you are a charity or government agency, customer satisfaction is almost a given to achieving your objectives.

IMO of course! A valid opinion. I tend to fight shy of putting financial measures in a quality system but there are others who disagree! ;)

P.S. Good luck for Wednesday!

Who ran the course - just for my information. My point that has been aired many times on the Cove is that if you start off defining processes at the micro level you end up sub-optimizing the system as a whole. Start off at the high level and only when achieving the objective requires it cascade down to the lower levels.

I think order desk is probably sales order processing. So these core processes are all part of one process - where the customer starts off by defining their requirements all the way through the business to the product arriving at their facility.


If you "allow" Sales and Logisitics to have their own core processes you end up with the same old same old "over the wall" management where sales hit their own targets for processing orders, logistics theirs for time to despatch production orders and the customer is dissatisfied because the goods don't arrive in the time they asked for.

As above: unless the process as a whole is the one everyone in the business focuses on satisfying then you end up with silo thinking and a lack of customer focus.

I am afraid it is 18:00 and I am tired and hungry and still at work!!!! So I will take your thoughts on board and maybe come back to them.

I understand what you are saying, in that "not my area" tends to creep in, but I do believe that functions of the organisation can have valid objectives that are customer focused even if you define their functional area separately from others. It is also very hard for people, no matter how hard you try, to think of the bigger picture, but hey maybe that is part of your "whole" training regime!

Valid points well made Paul, thank you.

A valid opinion. I tend to fight shy of putting financial measures in a quality system but there are others who disagree! ;)

Just one thing that I am hearing more and more here in the Cove and on my training, this is not a Quality Management System and is a Business Management System, and the main measure any management team will be interested in is the money!!!!! At the end of the day and all that........

P.S. Good luck for Wednesday!

Thanks, I am very nervous, but hey a 6th European Cup would be very nice indeed and would make my YEAR.

...and the main measure any management team will be interested in is the money!!!!! .....


Of course, making money is a main measure of any business. However, the intent of the process approach is to optimize processes by measuring each and every process, as to how it performs against the stated criteria for effectiveness. Not just company wide money related metrics.

If all the processes make their (correctly) defined metrics and objectives, then satisfying the customer (and making money) becomes pretty straightforward.

I am assuming that "Order Desk" is Purchasing and Shipping is "Logistics". I see those as must have core processes and I think the "satisfying the customer requirements" thing is just stepping it up one notch. You could go even higher and say the main core business process is Making ££££ ($$$$!) and this is supported by "satisfying the customer requirements". The resolution you use to define your processes is debatable, but in a Capitalist environment, even if you are a charity or government agency, customer satisfaction is almost a given to achieving your objectives.

IMO of course!



Yes, how you view this is how I am seeing it also. And like the others have pointed out, a hierarchy of Customer Satisfaction for these process could fulfill but I don't think that was the intent. I think it was missed, since most every possible activitiy that goes on is defined in that map.
I could ask any member of managment to "please show me where the shipping process is defined in this map." and not have anyone point to the customer satisfaction, not before the day is up, at least. (would this be considered a sneaky auditing method? :notme: )

To me, every processes hierachy is customer satisfaction and customer satisfaction is the input to every business and the output is profit. I think you said that too.


I really don't know how to approach management with this question, since the answer seems to be debatable. I just know that they should be able to confidently give one of those answer during an Audit.

Yes, how you view this is how I am seeing it also. And like the others have pointed out, a hierarchy of Customer Satisfaction for these process could fulfill but I don't think that was the intent. I think it was missed, since most every possible activitiy that goes on is defined in that map.
I could ask any member of managment to "please show me where the shipping process is defined in this map." and not have anyone point to the customer satisfaction, not before the day is up, at least. (would this be considered a sneaky auditing method? :notme: )

To me, every processes hierachy is customer satisfaction and customer satisfaction is the input to every business and the output is profit. I think you said that too.


I really don't know how to approach management with this question, since the answer seems to be debatable. I just know that they should be able to confidently give one of those answer during an Audit.


A process is an activity or function. Shipping or Logistics is clearly an activity or function. Customer satisfaction and making money is an overall goal or objective of the company, not a process or an input to a process. I think you are mixing the two together.

Communication is an amazing process .... you think you have everything in a post as clear as can be and the responses keep coming back looking at the post in a completely different way. Here are my thoughts again:

Start your "process map" at the highest level possible
Processes should cover all department from customer all the way through the organization to the customer again
Set your objectives and targets at this highest level
Make peole at every stage of the process aware that the important bit is not their bit but the overall objective
If you have to set objectives for different stages of the process you have missed the point



Customer satisfaction is a red herring. When I suggested:

"They are both part of a core process that is "satisfying the customer requirements" or something similar."

It was so that the core process doesn't have a title like "Delivering customer orders" or "Making the goods" that would encourage people to pigeonhole the end to end process in a particular department. You can of course call any process what you want.

On the subject of making money - yes, by and large all our organizations are in business to do this. A QMS is not there specifically to focus on finance. It deals with the processes and, if they work well, the end result is the organization makes money.

Lean thinking does this stuff very well.

Map the value streams
Put measures in place for the end to end processes (RFT, FTT, OEE)
Concentrate on the process not just the end result

I completely agree that about mapping from the top and including everyone in various processes whether they be core or support processes. Think the important thing is that your maps do indeed help individual departments understand how their processes effect the overall objectives of the organisation. This is critical and is all about the motivation and empowerment of members of the organisation. The members are more likely to take real ownership of their processes if they know it is important to the goals of the organisation, even if that does not directly equate to making money!

This kind of motivation and empowerment (sorry gobbling up TS terms!, but hey that's what it's there for and shows I know at least something!) can help drive continual improvement and effective and efficient processes throughout the organisation.

If management don't understand how purchasing/SOP fit into your organisation, how can they understand how these departments can effect the objectives of the company? Its important to have the complete picture!