After attending internal auditor class we realized that our exisitng process map was based on the diagram in the front of the TS16949 Specification and any real thought process had not been applied. We are in the stage now of redefining processes and would like your opinions of our new process map.

After attending internal auditor class we realized that our exisitng process map was based on the diagram in the front of the TS16949 Specification and any real thought process had not been applied. We are in the stage now of redefining processes and would like your opinions of our new process map.

Hi Svance, I see that the thread you started has been viewed 14 times without any comments. I am sure the experts will get to you soon and will have good advice for you.

I am not an auditor but am a quality manager at a small manufacturing facility in Detroit. I thought it was funny when I saw your process map because I noticed the focus that must have been put on you at your audit training for COP's MOP's and SOP's. There has been many discussion threads about the over exageration placed on these terms at audit training.

It is my belief that a process map should show these processes (mops, cops, sops) and there interaction throughout the manufacturing process and support processes. Process maps should be easy to follow and show the controls over these processes.

I have attached the 2 process maps that I use in my quality manual for your review. One is a depiction of the interaction of processes, and the other is a depiction of the product realization (manufacturing) process.

I look forward to any comments or suggestions that the experts may have for us here.

Good luck to you in the development of your QMS.

Rich G.

Hi Svance, I see that the thread you started has been viewed 14 times without any comments. I am sure the experts will get to you soon and will have good advice for you.

I am not an auditor but am a quality manager at a small manufacturing facility in Detroit. I thought it was funny when I saw your process map because I noticed the focus that must have been put on you at your audit training for COP's MOP's and SOP's. There has been many discussion threads about the over exageration placed on these terms at audit training.

It is my belief that a process map should show these processes (mops, cops, sops) and there interaction throughout the manufacturing process and support processes. Process maps should be easy to follow and show the controls over these processes.

I have attached the 2 process maps that I use in my quality manual for your review. One is a depiction of the interaction of processes, and the other is a depiction of the product realization (manufacturing) process.

I look forward to any comments or suggestions that the experts may have for us here.

Good luck to you in the development of your QMS.

Rich G.


I have some concerns with "Page 7." It has a bunch of information, but the few boxes that attempt to identify your processes seems to get lost in the clutter. It also does not seem that those few actually address everything you do.

If you just took a piece of paper and drew a line of boxes, could you show me what your company does?

For example,

SALES -- ENGINEERING -- PURCHASING -- MANUFACTURING -- SHIPPING.

Would those core processes (COPs) describe your business? Then, what administrative supporting processes do you do to help support those (Training, Management, Calibration, etc.)?

I think it serves better to keep the high level simple, and put all the details of documents and records, inputs/outputs, metrics, etc., in the underlying procedures or flowcharts for each process. Much simpler and easier to use. Also, easier to see if you covered all your processes and activities.

After attending internal auditor class we realized that our exisitng process map was based on the diagram in the front of the TS16949 Specification and any real thought process had not been applied. We are in the stage now of redefining processes and would like your opinions of our new process map.

Please note the same comments I made in post #3. I would apply them to yours as well. It appears you may have gotten lost in the exercise, and not ended up with a clear picture of what happens at your company.

Just wondering why I have had 104 to view and only 2 to reply. Are those viewing trying to find a solution just as I am or is it that you can not make a judgment call on processes that you have never seen or know.

I am confident of one thing and that is that we are able to call our processes as we see them and really there is no right or wrong way to name your processes as long as you can define, show and explain them to an auditor.

As an internal auditor I just want to make sure that we do not leave ourselves open to receive any non conformances from our 3rd party auditors because internal audits did not recognize a gap in our system.

Thanks for your inputs.

Just wondering why I have had 104 to view and only 2 to reply. Are those viewing trying to find a solution just as I am or is it that you can not make a judgment call on processes that you have never seen or know.

I am confident of one thing and that is that we are able to call our processes as we see them and really there is no right or wrong way to name your processes as long as you can define, show and explain them to an auditor.

As an internal auditor I just want to make sure that we do not leave ourselves open to receive any non conformances from our 3rd party auditors because internal audits did not recognize a gap in our system.

Thanks for your inputs.

Can't say for sure, but I think your model would require a lot of discussion, and many times people don't want to tackle that big a review. You might want to refer to my post #3.

You are correct that an organization may select an process "names" they wish. However, it helps if they clearly reprsent the system. I had a lot of difficulty reviewing your diagram. In my opinion, it does not show the processes clearly and easily. Does it cover everything? I don't know. It is difficult to determine.

At a minimum, it must address all the activities, and show the sequences and the interactions (inputs/outputs) between processes. How you do that, is up to you.

However, the primary focus of a well implemented process approach is to benefit the company. Avoiding nonconformances should be a secondary goal. Whether you choose to agree with my views is of course up to you. However, the absence of replies might reinforce that viewpoint. Best wishes with whatever you decide, however.

I agree with Helmut, way too much detail - keep it simple.

If I were auditing svance post #1, I would not know where to begin. The "process inputs" themselves, IMO, need inputs/outputs defined. Are the outputs listed for the COP process (product realization)?. Management review by itself has TS mandated inputs & outputs. If this is to be a high level overview, I'm still confused.:(

Again, this is just my opinion.

Just wondering why I have had 104 to view and only 2 to reply. Are those viewing trying to find a solution just as I am or is it that you can not make a judgment call on processes that you have never seen or know.

I am confident of one thing and that is that we are able to call our processes as we see them and really there is no right or wrong way to name your processes as long as you can define, show and explain them to an auditor.

As an internal auditor I just want to make sure that we do not leave ourselves open to receive any non conformances from our 3rd party auditors because internal audits did not recognize a gap in our system.

Thanks for your inputs.

Hi Svance,

When it comes to this type of discussion people are afraid to show their documents for 2 reasons. One is that they are considered proprietary and two they are afraid of criticism.

I on the other hand am happy to share my work with those who can use it and am happy to hear the criticism. I respect Helmut Jilling's opinion since we have been involved in other discussion topics. I will certainly think hard on what he has said and decide how and if I want to apply his suggestions.

My auditors like my flow charts and I have been complimented on them but that means nothing. If there is room for improvement I am willing to make the improvements. This is "my" quality system not my auditors.

Hang tight, this is a good topic of conversation and you will be getting plenty of opinions here.

Rich G.

One last point: I am of the opinion that unless you are a certified TS auditor you should not be performing internal audits. I took a one week auditors class and when it was said and done I did not feel I was qualified to perform a good audit. I source my internal audits to a 3rd party "certified" Ts auditor. That way I am not sugar coating any areas that I might be prejudiced about. It has been our experiance that if we pay to have our own people trained in auditing they come away with out the skills required and they quit shortly after. So we prefer to spend the money on more effective audits.

After attending internal auditor class we realized that our exisitng process map was based on the diagram in the front of the TS16949 Specification and any real thought process had not been applied. We are in the stage now of redefining processes and would like your opinions of our new process map.

Svance. I was one of those who viewed and didn't post. After reading this thread - and there are many others which are similar here at the Cove - it's very difficult to give any real substantive comments. We can give many ideas, but most people who reply want to head you in the 'right' direction. To try to capture that much information and type it here is a significant task. So please forgive us if we're not 'all over it like a rash'!!

As my friend Helmut has said, it's best to address this as a simple map. One of the best things you can do is to get your management to review the current one and see if they can describe how you operate as a business, from the map. Get a couple of minutes at the end of a bigger meeting. Tell them what you want to accomplish and why - they are supposed to be able to 'talk' to the diagram - and stand back!

You'll get the answer you're looking for.....

As my friend Helmut has said, it's best to address this as a simple map. One of the best things you can do is to get your management to review the current one and see if they can describe how you operate as a business, from the map. Get a couple of minutes at the end of a bigger meeting. Tell them what you want to accomplish and why - they are supposed to be able to 'talk' to the diagram - and stand back!

You'll get the answer you're looking for.....

Great advice, I have found that using sticky notes works well for having this discussion. You can right all of your processes on a sticky note and move them around as you see fit.

Just wondering why I have had 104 to view and only 2 to reply. Are those viewing trying to find a solution just as I am or is it that you can not make a judgment call on processes that you have never seen or know.


I'll admit, I was one of the 104 and I kept scratching my head trying to figure out a constructive response. It seems the discussion drifted away from discussing your process map to a critique of QAMAN's maps. I believe this happened because, in my mind, there's more 'meat' in his - tangible things that most can understand and comment on. It showed real inputs (not process docs), real activities (not generalizations), and real outputs (not process analysis results).

When I reviewed your process map, I kept trying to understand who the audience was and what the added value was. Maybe it's useful in understanding process level interactions but I don't see how it could be used in process improvements.

Like you said, there is no right or wrong. I don't understand your business so I can't say whether this is useful. If this is useful for you / your company, then by all means keep it. Consider, though, QAMAN's maps (along with all the excellent commentary!) and the detail / content and see if something like that could be used to document your processes and be useful in improvements.

Hi Svance,

When it comes to this type of discussion people are afraid to show their documents for 2 reasons. One is that they are considered proprietary and two they are afraid of criticism.

Hi Svance (and anyone else interested),

One of the reasons I got involved in this thread was because I had never actually seen a good depiction of the interaction of the Q.M.S. processes.

I have been contacted by one of the contributors to the cove who reviewed my flow charts and had some constructive suggestions. Through some e-mail communication and finally a phone conversation (I called her to thank her for sending such a wonderful Q.M.S. model) I decided I needed to share this valuable resource.

I am not authorized to post her power point presentation but it is the best process map I have ever seen. It shows all of the interactions of the required processes through animation. After spending about an hour on the phone with her I came to the conclusion that if I were going to hire someone to come in and “consult” (she hates the word), I would be calling her in.

I don’t want to turn this into an advertisement but more as a recommendation. I think that Svance and/or anyone else who has questions or would like their process maps reviewed should contact Patricia Ravanello (http://elsmar.com/Forums/member.php?u=8090) through the cove forum.

Send her an e-mail and I am sure she will be happy to assist you. If you are nice to her she may even send you the model she sent me which I will spend a lot of time reviewing when it comes time to re-write mine (the time is now).

kindest regards,

Rich G.

If the document you showed is intended to address the TS requirement for a quality manual to include "a description of the interaction between the processes of the quality management system," then it has some distance to go. It does show a lot more effort that copying the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle. Keep working on it. Your organization will benefit.

If you are nice to her she may even send you the model she sent me which I will spend a lot of time reviewing when it comes time to re-write mine (the time is now). Too bad she won't share it with us all here in the open forum.

Just wondering why I have had 104 to view and only 2 to reply. Are those viewing trying to find a solution just as I am or is it that you can not make a judgment call on processes that you have never seen or know.




I think you posted an interesting query, here. First, there are lots of people viewing threads. Many of them are moderators, saying, we are constantly (and I do mean we) viewing threads for appropriate content, misdirected posts, problems, etc. Marc and four others may have viewed things and found them OK. However, I and three other moderators view the thread just to assure everything is OK. So that's nine viewings, make sense?

Also, I might read a post and have very little to offer. For example, in this situation, you have more figured out than I, so I would be wasting your time contributing.

Lastly, and most important, the posts you already received are quite helpful. I would contribute nothing to the cause, other than agreeing with the previous posters.:yes:

I just didn't want you to think that people don't care about your situation. Many people do care, they just might not know any more to do beyond what you have received.:)

Thank all of you for your comments. I realize that unless you have seen our processes then it is hard for a judgment to be made on our process map. Since I began this thread we have revised our Key processes down to 3 which are Mfg. of POD Products, Mfg. of Incandescant Products and Mfg. Of Halogen Products. Thanks again for your comments.