I'm sure you guys can help my understanding on process measurement.

As we know the standard asks us to define our process, their sequence and interaction. It also asks us to measure the performance of our processes. Do we only measure the processes we define in our Quality Manual ?

For example we may define a process as 'manufacturing' but this process is made up of many seperate sub-process, some of which may not even inter-relate. Do we measure the performance of each sub-process, or just the main process defined in the Quality Manual ?

The measurement is how well you are meeting your goals and objectives set for the specific process (and how they support the overall goals/objectives of the QMS). There are going to be many different levels, to what degree you define them is up to you. The quality manual should identify all key processes used in the management system. Personally we're not listing all the sub-processes in the quality manual. We are putting together the key process outlines in which they refer to activities (which in some cases are sub-processes), but the objectives, goals and measureables are defined for the key process. In our case the process custodian has discretion of how to tract sub-process information so long as they can report on the key process measurables. If during review mgmt decides not enough information is being provided, they would get involved and may direct some sub-process metrics specifically.

Using your example of the manufacturing process -
QMS - Objective & Goal: Scrap Reduction (50% less than previous year avg)

Manufacturing processes -
Objective & Goal - 50% reduction in scrap CPU vs Forecast

Recently someone provided a good guideline for evaluating both process effectiveness and efficiency. I don't have time to search for it now, but will try later if it isn't already refered to by that time.

Catcha Later - Eileen

What do you want to do?

Martin,

IMHO if a process is critical to quality, then it makes sense to monitor and measure it. The standard allows flexibility in determining which processes to measure. Like gpainter says, "what do YOU want to do"? What will benefit your business?

Best Regards,
Hank
:)

Well I am kind of coming from the auditing angle again. If I walk into an area to audit and cannot see that the process has a direct measurment or monitoring going on is it non-compliant, or is it OK so long as there is a higher up measuring/monitoring going on ?

Cannot measure compliance if there have not been requirements made. It is possible for a sub-process to be go/no-go or visually measured and that is all. If the manufacturing process in question is a sub-process it should be identified as such in the Key mfg process. There should (IMO) have been a determination of what is to be measured and how it supports the objectives & goals of the master (key) process. You'll probably need to be interviewing the process manager not an operator to get this level of detail. The real answer really depends on the specific situation.

Possible questions for the operators:

Who is/are your customer(s)?
- whether internal or external not only for the product but for information as well

What objectives and goals are expected for the product/service?
- even if not documented personnel should be aware of them

How is this measured and communicated?
- I would follow this up with whomever the information is reported to in order to see how it is used.

We have key processes and then sub processes that are defined by the nature of our business (Electronics Manufacturing). The key process monitoring is referred to in our QMS and the sub process monitoring refered to in our work instructions.

As mentioned, some of these are critical to quality and if not performed correctly, can cause major issues later in the internal customer chain.

We measure and monitor nearly all of the sub processes anyway, because, the earlier we catch a problem, the cheaper it is.

By measuring process parameters, the operators or process owners can honestly answer the question "How well are you doing ??

Now you have defined your processes:
What is the impact of not measuring a certain process ??
What are the defect opportunities for each process or sub-process??

As I said before, earlier is cheaper

Regards,

Chris May

We have key processes and then sub processes that are defined by the nature of our business (Electronics Manufacturing). The key process monitoring is referred to in our QMS and the sub process monitoring refered to in our work instructions.

As mentioned, some of these are critical to quality and if not performed correctly, can cause major issues later in the internal customer chain.

We measure and monitor nearly all of the sub processes anyway, because, the earlier we catch a problem, the cheaper it is.

By measuring process parameters, the operators or process owners can honestly answer the question "How well are you doing ??

Now you have defined your processes:
What is the impact of not measuring a certain process ??
What are the defect opportunities for each process or sub-process??

As I said before, earlier is cheaper

Regards,

Chris May

Lets take maintenance for an example. Should I be able to see specific process measures for this activity, such as some analysis of breakdowns, or time lost due to maintenance, or is it good enough just to have the overall business measurement of on time delivery as it could be argued that the maintenance departments performance will affect this measure ?

M Greenaway said:

Lets take maintenance for an example. ...or is it good enough just to have the overall business measurement of on time delivery as it could be argued that the maintenance departments performance will affect this measure ?

That's my take. I've seen the posts suggesting that the standard wants goals and objectives for all processes. What's that? 50, 100, 200 goals and objectives? Bullfritters. (I like that, Randy).
You define the goals and the objectives that measure the effectiveness of the QMS. You don't nickel-dime everything sub-process unless you have the resources and the determination to do them all. You would end up with a pile of numbers that don't mean Jack****. Just something to beat a department supervisor over the head with. That's not to say key processes, like Shipping and Receiving, aren't subject to meeting the overall company goals and objectives regarding Supplier and Customer on-time deliveries. JMHO:p :ko: :smokin:

Processes do go out of control due to natural and special causes.

If you specify that you are monitoring the "shipping" process, thats fine, but the previous processes also require monitoring via control charts etc.
This is just good process engineering, not an ISO dependant thing.

If you end up with an out of control "shipping" process..and thats all you monitor, you would then have to do a whole cause & effect thing to find out why...whereas, if you monitor processes as a norm, you would know the answer even before the question crops up (preventive).

Resources, well, operators own their process and they should be monitoring them.

Measuring of processes using control charts etc; will even help predict when a "machine" is playing up, by showing a trend of attributes, therefore helping with maintenance, down time etc

Keep fingers on pulses.

Regards,

Chris May

Well if we think of maintenance activity as scheduled and planned activity that ensures breakdown doesnt happen between scheduled maintenance, then control charts of product variable data might tell us that something is wrong with the machine but doesnt in itself tell us the performance of the maintenance process, i.e. the machine will still have to be potentially stripped and serviced.

Martin,

Aren't you more interested in whether the maintenance process is effective as opposed to its performance ??

One way to look at maintenance is to "audit" your machines.

Keep records (much like MOT checklist for your car), when the next "audit" is due, review previous audits etc;

This would be your evidence of the maintenance process being effective as you would be analysing fault trends etc;

Machinery will always need servicing (as your car) and we tend to plan it in during dead-time or maybe weekends. May cost more for overtime, but it might be cheaper than stopping the line.

Regards,

Chris

Chris May said:

Processes do go out of control due to natural and special causes.

Measuring of processes using control charts etc; will even help predict when a "machine" is playing up, by showing a trend of attributes, therefore helping with maintenance, down time etc

Regards,

Chris May

Chris,

Of course I'm talking about all businesses. From a machine shop prospective, I totally agree with you. I'm talking about equipment requiring maintenance that isn't at the core of the business, used as required. For example, a Shot Blast Booth...Paint Booth....An Oven, a lathe, a drill press, a pipe threader, Fork Lifts, etc. Incidental for a particular function, when needed. Loss of any of this equipment for an extended period can cause you to miss a ship date and having to move employees to minimize down time.
You maintain this stuff per Manufacturer's recommendations with a card attached showing when last serviced, required check points and the due date for the next service. That's where I was coming from. Martin's post regarding measuring the process for this type of equipment prompted my opinion as given. If he were Auditing here, if I would even let him in:vfunny: , I would expect him to look at the machine history and make his own determination of the adequacy of our Preventive Maintenance process. I would maintain that my goal/objective is to have the equipment serviced on time and correctly. If he saw that the date of the required maintenance was later that that shown he could say we haven't met our objectives. I would then escort him to the coffee room and distract him while a fellow employee rounded up the gang who would usually take care of unruly auditors. ;) :ko: :smokin:

Kinda right energy.

I would also look at the breakdown history of your machines to see if your preventive maintenance was actually effective.

Then I would kick seven bells of **** out of you and your mates with one arm tied behind my back. I am a good auditor much a much better fighter, if thats what you prefer :vfunny:

M Greenaway said:

Kinda right energy.

I would also look at the breakdown history of your machines to see if your preventive maintenance was actually effective.

Then I would kick seven bells of **** out of you and your mates with one arm tied behind my back. I am a good auditor much a much better fighter, if thats what you prefer :vfunny:

I would expect the equipment failure history to come into play, if we bothered to record it for you. What, are we crazy?:p

As for fighting, you would go back to England wearing a dress, sporting a much higher voice and unable to sit down for a week.:ko: :smokin:

:vfunny:

http://16949.com/Forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=23841

M?

Jim, I'd be careful. There is no ocean separating you from this bad**s. He just might show up on your doostep with pocketbook in hand after visiting us. :vfunny:

:ko: :smokin:

Chris May said:

Processes do go out of control due to natural and special causes.

If you specify that you are monitoring the "shipping" process, thats fine, but the previous processes also require monitoring via control charts etc.
This is just good process engineering, not an ISO dependant thing.

If you end up with an out of control "shipping" process..and thats all you monitor, you would then have to do a whole cause & effect thing to find out why...whereas, if you monitor processes as a norm, you would know the answer even before the question crops up (preventive).

Regards,

Chris May

Chris,

Another example: The company has an goal/objective of meeting the Customer's due date or, earlier. There are weekly Production meetings which track the job. Shipping is aware of meeting or improving on the shipping date. The department supervisor attends the meetings. Everybody is aware of the Company's goals/objectives. There is absolutely no need for these supporting Departments to have individual goals/objectives. The Auditor looks at the jobs shipped, dates promised and actual shipping dates. Did you meet that goal? It can be as complicated as you want to make it. If one hand doesn't know what the other is doing, by all means make them accountable. If the company goals/objectives are communicated effectively, I feel, everyone recognizes their part in making it happen. Failing that, then focus on the "process" that continually causes you to fall short. If it's an isolated incident, yes, treat it as CA/PA. What really bothers me is coming up with measurable objectives just because somebody feels that the Standard demands it in all areas. I don't believe it. State goals that are achievable, realistic, here's that word again (Value Added) and measurable. Just wanted to get the thread back on track.:bonk: :ko: :smokin:

Good point energy - you understand what I am getting at.

Do the sub-processes need measurements, or just the understanding of how they contribute to a higher and wider company performance metric ?

Jim you are awful quiet - please jump in.

M Greenaway said:

Good point energy - you understand what I am getting at.

Do the sub-processes need measurements, or just the understanding of how they contribute to a higher and wider company performance metric ?

Jim you are awful quiet - please jump in.

You are probably closer to the action than most. Go with your instincts. As Jim said in his subsequent post, you get the opportunity to interpret what is meant. Judging by your posts, you're instincts are sound. Goals/objective measurements are tailored to the business and they will differ in respect to processes. I would imagine that once you see the stated measurable objectives presented to you, you will know which processes are involved and where the resuilts are coming from. Go for it!;) :ko: :smokin:

So taking this discussion in a slightly different direction....

Our company should have a set of performance metrics which tells it how well it is performing, or in other words how effective its processes are.

What then can an internal audit which attempts to address effectiveness bring to the party ?

As any audit should be conducted against objective evidence is it simply a matter of reading the company performance metrics ?

Surely not - please everyone give me your thoughts.

M Greenaway said:

As any audit should be conducted against objective evidence is it simply a matter of reading the company performance metrics ?

Surely not - please everyone give me your thoughts.

M,

Surely not?....not. That's what you have to work with. If it doesn't violate the standard requirements, that's what you have to work with. The company decides...not you or any other Auditor. Relax,. go with the flow and enjoy life. That's all we have. Don't make your job harder than it already is. Breathe the fresh air. Take up fishing.:agree: :smokin:

Martin, we have identified those things that will tell us if a process is working in the grand scheme of things. We call them the Criteria for Success. If we are failing to meet one of the criteria then the process is in trouble and we have identified a few ways that we will measure for these criteria. That was done for the each of the upper level processes that I identified and showed ya'll on that QMS continual improvement cycle. That is the big picture.

Then of course there are the Objectives (which haven't been finalized yet) and we will have smaller targets set for the departments and tasks that contribute to those objectives. And we will measure our performance to those.

As you are asking about whether or not each process has to be measured, then it all falls to how you have divided and defined your processes. Big or little. Our little subprocesses are only going to be measured against the targets that are set for them (if any) because of having to meet a Quality Objective. Which is what I think most posters are talking about here.

But our big overall processes (of which we only have a dozen or so) will be measured against our Criteria for Success as I described above and that measurement has nothing to do with any Quality Objective at all. We say that this process is working the way it should because X and Y and W have been looked at and they meet our criteria.

Is that what you're looking for?

I interpreted ISO 9K2K as needing this - over and beyond the process monitoring and measuring that would go on for demonstrating performance against the Q Objectives. Maybe I'm wrong, but hey, who cares? It can't hurt to do it. <shrug>

Jim Wade said:


Ah - the ineffable and effulgent eff-words!

Having effective processes is very important, but it is only part of the picture. The other part is efficiency.

A process is effective, IMO, if you get out of the process what you want to get out of it.

It's efficient if it uses resources (people, training, time, money, information, material, equipment, etc.) in a way and at a rate that you reckon is OK.

A process can be effective but inefficient.

So, for example, you get the job done, but it costs x% more than the competition. Or stuff is delivered on time but people are breaking their backs unnecesarily to get it out the door. Or the service is being delivered but nobody's learning from other people's mistakes.

So it's worth asking simply: "apart from its outputs (and the eventual outcomes it influences) how might we measure the success of this process, and what performance would we like to achieve?". The answers will give you a possible process measure and a possible objective to add to the others.

There's no need, IMO, to label any objective 'quality objective' - there's no such thing. All objectives are business objectives

ISO 9000 describes the eff-words well:

Effectiveness: "extent to which planned activities are realized and planned results achieved".

Efficiency: "relationship between the result achieved and the resources used".

End of ramble - early night for once.

rgds Jim

What the **** are you talking about? Maybe I read it too fast and will try again tomorrow. I know it's good. But, like you, I need a break. This post is, simply, a request for clarification of your rambling, incoherent, non-contributory, off the wall interpretation of the original post. You didn't think life was going to be that easy. Did you? It's late, see you tomorrow! Lay off that mood enhancer! :p

Okay, another day. I guess I was efficient reading your post but I wasn't effective. :ko: :smokin:

I'm also a little confused in process measurement. I've been put in charge of co-ordinating our upgrade to 2000, which basically involves getting everyone in our factory to re-write procedures for our processes.

Apart from being a little unsure of the standard, sometimes I think it's fairly straight forward (well it would be if we were actually organised)

Anyway, I've to write up procedures for calibration and Identification and Traceability.

Calibration I found straight forward, I've wrtitten a database to keep records on all our equipment and a flow chart on how to run the process, but I'm not sure what to measure. Would it be a simple as on time calibration of the equipment or do I need to monitor reject part connected if poorly calibrated equipment?

Identification and Traceability, I even struggle to see a process (to write a flowchart) but rather just will write a series of statements... Our parts all have unique numbers, manufactured parts use a signal card with ID and routing on it, as well as consuming location. Storage is all IDed too.
In our assembly line we use a form which the operators noted serial numbers of specific components such as motors, this enables tracebility for our product. But what do I monitor? Reports not completed? Locations with no ID?

Fraser

I would say that product identification and traceability is not a process !

As previously stated a process, in my opinion (from what I have gleaned), is something that transforms a physical input into a physical output.

Now you could say the input to a 'product identification and traceability' process is an unidentified product, the process might be the attachment of a label, and the output might be an identified product - but arent we stretching this a bit thin ?

As for calibration, again isnt the measure of this process tied up in wider business measures, like customer complaints (just one example). Would you just monitor complaints where the root cause was determined to be incorrect calibration, or innacuracy of measurement ?

Thanks for your replies guys, it gives me a bit of confidence when the dept. managers start asking me questions.

Unfortunately my factory is being forced to document these processes and others including inspection, infrastructue (Finance,HR, IT) and all our Manufacturing methods because the company wants to produce a Global Business management system rather than a QMS.

I've been trying to encourage the other people involved to create a process map to highlight inputs, activities, outputs and measurements, putting most of my emphasis on the latter as I feel this is what the new standard is demanding.

I had to say "re-write our procedures" because, some must conform to a new global procedure that's been written but mostly because we need to re-evaluate them. We don't do what we say we do in our current quality procedures (How we keep accreditation I don't know).

Overall I'm all for stripping procedures down to the minimum. I really like flow charts and want to get away with them where I can.

Thanks again for your input.