Hello!
I appreciate your help reviewing my turtle maps.
I have created them based on the information that I have gotten from my company processes, I will present them to management for their review and want to know your opinion.

There are several tabs on the spread sheet.
Thanks for your help.
:cfingers:
Anerol C

Anerol

Looks fairly comprehensive to me. Couple of points though. Where is the overall map i.e. interactions and also it might be better to have one process owner per process.

Good Luck...

Normally, I would not recommend that anyone use turtles, but you asked for feedback:-

Some of your diagrams are not processes. Management & Leadership isn't a process. Neither is Measurement Analysis. Don't force fit requirements into a turtle. The problem you will have is that your management will approve them, because they won't tell you they don't understand them etc. Long term they are not valuable

To get the maximum benefit from a quality management system, you should draw up process maps. Don't give your management a turtle. That's an external auditor tool, but not for documenting your system. You have problems with your system today, I'm guessing. But I also bet you can't point show where it is on a turtle. So how are you going to show improvement?

You've done a lot of work, but before you go any further down the wrong road, you might do better to ask the people who 'run' these processes if they can use your diagrams.....

Normally, I would not recommend that anyone use turtles, but you asked for feedback:-

Some of your diagrams are not processes. Management & Leadership isn't a process. Neither is Measurement Analysis. Don't force fit requirements into a turtle. The problem you will have is that your management will approve them, because they won't tell you they don't understand them etc. Long term they are not valuable

To get the maximum benefit from a quality management system, you should draw up process maps. Don't give your management a turtle. That's an external auditor tool, but not for documenting your system. You have problems with your system today, I'm guessing. But I also bet you can't point show where it is on a turtle. So how are you going to show improvement?

You've done a lot of work, but before you go any further down the wrong road, you might do better to ask the people who 'run' these processes if they can use your diagrams.....


I usually agree with Andy, but I would differ on 2 points.

1. Many companies define Management, Top Management, leadership, or something like that, as a Supporting Process. I think it makes a lot of sense, because these activities are where many of the problems occur. Thus, it is a central activity (process) at most companies. The other process succeed or fail based on how effective this one is.

2. Turtles are good, clear, simple diagrams that help a novice manager understand the basics of what his process looks like. It shows the things ISO requires a manager to define about his process. But it is a simple diagram, and specifically does not show the sequence of a process steps (as required by cl 4.1.b). It can show the other requirements in cl 4.1 pretty well. Thus, I encourage clients to make them, for understanding and to facilitate management review and internal audits.

I would agree with Andy, that I would make flowcharts for those processes which really are sequential in nature. But, for non-engineers, it is easier to develop a Turtle first, then advance to the flowchart.

If done correctly, the Turtles, or Flowcharts, laid end to end, should align and show the sequence of the whole organization. Most people do that on a single, high level diagram.

I personally reserve flowcharts for those processes that benefit from the extra detail and complexity.

Thanks, Helmut. Maybe I should also clarify for our other readers (Hi Coury!) that a review of many of the inputs etc of these turtles are, in fact, simply ISO requirements and not the actual business inputs/outputs.

The OP is missing a great opportunity to focus the management teams and give them a chance to show how they run the business effectively, through the use of a well defined and documented QMS.

A turtle simply doesn't show anything about where problems in a process actually lay. They are, IMHO, the road to ruin. Their use is a palliative and nothing else! And I'm not even getting heated about it yet........:lol:

And I'm not even getting heated about it yet........:lol:

Heated?...Nah.

I would personally use a Process Flow Chart of the processes and their interaction on how the fit within the Organization's Business/Quality Management System.

As for the Turtles...They identify certain processes (Input + Output = Process) and identify their owners.

The choice really is the company's on how they want to show the Processes. If the Turtles work for the company, and everyone understands the interaction, then so be it, in my opinion.

I'm including the process and interactions related with turtle maps, the original process names were more related with ISO 9000 Model, but I needed to align the original process model to Corporate Processes so this is how they are better aligned. We are in process to implement ISO 9000. Let me know your opinion?

I decided to create turtle maps, based in my past experience (1year) in another company, the external auditors always used turtle maps for the audit, they reviewed always the metrics stated in the turtles and they pointed the audit on those metrics that were lower.

AndyN;
Could you explain a little bit more about how I can address or show improvement?
"" You have problems with your system today, I'm guessing. But I also bet you can't point show where it is on a turtle. So how are you going to show improvement?"""

By the other hand I originally used ISO 9000 model of process, that model has Management Responsibility and Measurment Analysis and improvement as processes, Am I interpreting wrong the ISO model? My understanding is that those are processes.:confused:
I appreciate all your comments and recommendations.
AnerolC

By the other hand I originally used ISO 9000 model of process, that model has Management Responsibility and Measurement Analysis and improvement as processes, Am I interpreting wrong the ISO model? My understanding is that those are processes.:confused:
I appreciate all your comments and recommendations.
AnerolC

Hello Anerol,

"Management responsibility" as depicted in the "ISO" model can be viewed as a series of processes that management typically engages in such as business planning, strategizing, holding management reviews, overseeing the operation, etc. Just take a look at your management team and list the main activities they perform. Then take it from there.

Stijloor.

AnerolC:

Yes, I'll be happy to. In most organizations, the processes have problems with them. The process takes too long, there's hold ups, information isn't complete and work doesn't go smoothly. All these issues (and more, like no-value added activities e.g checking twice) can be discovered if you use process maps. You must, however, get the people together to help you map the process to discover these opportunities. Once you have a real 'picture' of what's happening, it will be clear where the process can be improved.:D

Also, there are many side benefits which will help now and in the future. Ownership, involvement, realization/awareness are all likely to be outcomes of such an approach.:yes:

So, you see, one person can draw up a turtle and many people will tell you "that's great" and you will get registered to ISO, but one of the most important benefits for doing 'ISO' will have been lost.:mg:

Do you want that to happen?

Well.. I certainly am not Andy (which will become apparent with my answer :lol:)

Process is a dynamic activity. If you have ever lost your keys and someone has helped you find it, they had to identify your process. "OK, you left the room and went to the kitchen. Did you go to the kids room? Are you sure?..." and so on. Why do most people do that? Because that process identification works. So many times if you don't identify the processes, you have a hidden factory of sorts.

OK, everyone can rib me; that's fine. Yours were the first turtle diagrams I have seen. I did not know what they were (where did I get my CQE??). So see?? All of us learn everyday. So, I really can't comment on your turtle diagrams. They really look nice, and should probably make up one component of your toolset.

I would submit a good, dynamic process flow chart will help you identify more places where variance can occur, and improvement is possible. Are you sure the actual decisions made are the same as the decisions you think are made? What actually occurs may be different than what management thinks is occurring. Your process map can pick this up. Then, a QMS can be used by management to develop a standardized process they would like to be utilized.

:rolleyes:Yours were the first turtle diagrams I have seen. I did not know what they were (where did I get my CQE??). So see?? All of us learn everyday. So, I really can't comment on your turtle diagrams. They really look nice, and should probably make up one component of your toolset.



Brad:

Turtles were 'invented' by Phil Crosby, in the 'good old days' of TQM. In recent years, Plexus Training has resurrected them as a tool to help in retraining disadvantaged QS-9000 (read element based) external auditors to prepare and think 'Process', as required to do a TS audit. IMHO, they didn't realize that the 'silver bullet' for TS implementors is to use the same diagram to 'make it easy' for the auditor (it's a game, right?). So lots of folks have used the turtle. I would point out that the IATF have been 'de-emphasizing' the use of turtles recently............:rolleyes:

Hello,

To use an assembly analogy.....

A turtle diagram can be viewed as an "assembly drawing" of a process. It shows the components of each individual process
A flow chart shows the dynamics and sequence of the components.
A system diagram (interaction of all processes) shows how all processes interact that make up your system.
A process matrix is what I call the "Bill of Material." It lists all processes that make up the system, process owners, inputs, outputs, objectives, measurements, etc.

Hope this helps a little,

Stijloor.

:rolleyes:

Brad:

Turtles were 'invented' by Phil Crosby, in the 'good old days' of TQM. In recent years, Plexus Training has resurrected them as a tool to help in retraining disadvantaged QS-9000 (read element based) external auditors to prepare and think 'Process', as required to do a TS audit. IMHO, they didn't realize that the 'silver bullet' for TS implementors is to use the same diagram to 'make it easy' for the auditor (it's a game, right?). So lots of folks have used the turtle. I would point out that the IATF have been 'de-emphasizing' the use of turtles recently............:rolleyes:

From Crosby to Plexus......

Went to train-the-trainer for the Crosby QES program in 1983.
Saw the revived model when I went for ISO/TS auditor training....

Here they are....side by side...

Stijloor.

Thanks, Helmut. Maybe I should also clarify for our other readers (Hi Coury!) that a review of many of the inputs etc of these turtles are, in fact, simply ISO requirements and not the actual business inputs/outputs.

The OP is missing a great opportunity to focus the management teams and give them a chance to show how they run the business effectively, through the use of a well defined and documented QMS.

A turtle simply doesn't show anything about where problems in a process actually lay. They are, IMHO, the road to ruin. Their use is a palliative and nothing else! And I'm not even getting heated about it yet........:lol:


Well, I know I won't persuade you on turtles. But, to be honest, Andy, at your level, I agree a turtle does not provide much value. Turtles are simpler diagrams, more suitable to regular, non-technical managers. Regular managers are often much clearer on the process approach and how their piece fits the puzzle after they see a turtle of it. However, Engineers can deal with more sophisticated diagrams.

I say, select the tool appropriate for the audience. I am weary of managers who have concocted a poorly done flowchart of a process that is not sequential in nature. They clearly don't understand it, and did it because the Mgt. Rep told them every process has to be flowcharted. Countless hours have been wasted on these. Yet, when we scribble a basic Turtle, their eyes light up.

Let the tool be appropriate for the audience and the need. PS: We agree the turtles are not enough by themselves.

Thanks for all your comments,
I got what you mean.

Any way, please take a look at the turtles and let me know your feedback.

Regards,
AC

Thanks for all your comments,
I got what you mean.

Any way, please take a look at the turtles and let me know your feedback.

Regards,
AC

What else are you looking for?:confused:

I say, select the tool appropriate for the audience. I am weary of managers who have concocted a poorly done flowchart of a process that is not sequential in nature. They clearly don't understand it, and did it because the Mgt. Rep told them every process has to be flowcharted. Countless hours have been wasted on these.

Amen to that.

But it's the Mgt. Rep's failure for not helping them to understand how to use the tools.

Yet, when we scribble a basic Turtle, their eyes light up.


That's good, but they don't have (or can't articulate) full understanding at that point. Which means they are not really as well equipped as they could be for diagnosing problems and making decisions. Someone needs to teach them how to diagram sequence and flow.

This whole turtle thing drives me to distraction. The plain fact is that they're not a complete process description. They are primarily a way to consider some aspects and (control) influences of a process to help auditors who haven't been used to working that way...........

To truely understand a process, it has to be studied and diagrammed (mapped, flowed, spaghetti charted, etc) to see what actually happens. Without this diagramming, using just a 'turtle' to depict the (whole) process is a corruption and the organization will not realize the fullest benefit from the activity of documenting its processes. Furthermore, waste reduction and similar improvement opportunities will not be 'seen' from using turtles and the resulting audit will be reduced to simple compliance and not seen as much value to the organization.

I've recently performed (internal) audits of an organization with turtles as their QMS documentation. The audit revealed plenty of waste and inefficiencies (not blowing my own trumpet - they were known to the management team) but the turtles didn't show anything. Even the TS auditor hadn't made issues, since the organization was 'in compliance'.

It's been my experience that to use audits to keep looking for ways to correct/improve a badly designed (i.e documented) QMS is just as bad as putting QC at the end of the line and expect product design to get better.....

This whole turtle thing drives me to distraction. The plain fact is that they're not a complete process description. They are primarily a way to consider some aspects and (control) influences of a process to help auditors who haven't been used to working that way.....

:yes:

:2cents:

I agree. The turtle does not show the complete description of process. It shows the basic anatomy of a process.

There are companies that are transitioning to process approach. They are trying to leap from 1970's QA to ISO9k2k....Turtle charts help those companies start the migration to process approach. Such companies have difficulty understanding even Turtles charts. Forget about the rest of techniques….

Many years ago, I attended Crosby’s quality management school. In the first session, the instructor asked individual to list their top three responsibilities and describe what happens if these responsibilities are not fulfilled. Students took this as a challenge to glorify their existence and contributions, missing the mark. Turtles can stop many from engaging in pseudo intellectual glorification...

In my experience, the most difficult part of filling a turtle chart for people is the performance standard. Basically, people are not sure what is expected from them. They all come to work wanting to do their best. Turtle helps them understand why they should anticipate customer's expectation. Recently, I dealt with an R&D manager who could not fill out the performance measurement section of turtle. He is a very intelligent and innovative individual who was moved to management without management training.

Also, I have noticed people have difficulty identifying their internal and external customer and suppliers. Once again, turtle chart opens a dialogue between employees.

I believe an elementary turtle is a transition tool for understanding a process and useless for macro processes....

Friends,

All (process) tools are useful. One size does not fit all. Some are more useful than others. Select wisely. To pit one against the other is similar to comparing a pair of pliers with a visegrip. We sometimes get too wrapped up in turtles and octopuses (makes it a zoo). All tools must be judged in the proper context.

But I do understand some of my Fellow Covers' frustrations....;)

Stijloor.

Hello!
I appreciate your help reviewing my turtle maps.
I have created them based on the information that I have gotten from my company processes, I will present them to management for their review and want to know your opinion.

There are several tabs on the spread sheet.
Thanks for your help.
:cfingers:
Anerol C

I am currently following all Turtles with flow charts of the process that better answer the standards req. It is better to use a detailed process map on all key process's takes a little time but shows the relationship between key process's better than anything I have tried

Hi gtekno,
Could you provide me one of your process as example?
Thanks in advance,
Lorena

This is not complete but you should get the idea I am currently scrambling to complete all key process's with Turtles and detailed process maps, any process's that are not a key process will have a normal flow chart, thought the detailed maps would show better interrelations to key process's