OK…here I go again on my soapbox.

A few weeks ago I attended a 9K2K transitioning seminar sponsored by ASQ. The course included instruction materials including a copy of the book "ISO 9001:2000 Explained". As we worked our way through the material and referenced the book, I found it to be very helpful.

About halfway through the day, I happened to flip the book over to read a little about the authors. Here is what is says (no editing on my part, but not the full text)

"Charles A. Cianfrani is the U.S. Expert representative to ISO/TC/176/SC2/WG18, the Working Group that wrote ISO 9001/4:2000."

"Joseph J. Tsiakals is the medical device technical expert on the ISO/TC 176 writing team for ISO 9001:2000 and previously was the lead U.S. Expert representative for the development of ISO 9001:1994. Mr. Tsiakals is a member of the board of directors of the Registrar Accreditation Board."

"John E. (Jack) West is chairman of the U.S. Technical Advisory Group for ISO/TC 176 and Lead Delegate for the United States to the International Organization for Standardization committee responsible for the ISO 9000 family of quality management standards."

Well, yes….these guys are the experts, that is why the book is so helpful…..but I don't like it. Not one bit. Not only do they get to write the standard, they publish the book (ASQ Member Price: $36.00, List Price: $45.00) on how to understand it, and one of them is on the board of the RAB.

I am not so naïve not to understand this is how the real world operates. But how can integrity be bought?

OK….steam blown for the day. Thanks for listening!


:frust: :frust: :frust:

CarolX

I would think those who wrote it are the best people to explain it. You agree that the book is helpful.

Should they charge money for it?:confused: Well, why not?:confused:

But do they have a vested interest in making the standard vague and incomprehensible in order to be able to publish a book on the subject, or are they just milking the whole third party certification facade for what its worth ?

Is it wrong ?

IMHO - yes.

The ASQ ISO 9001:2000 Handbook was written by the three mentioned for $96.00. Seems like a conflict of interest. Both books are good reference books but do not tell all. I think most who bought the books figured that they would be a tell all. But, I guess the TC has to come to some type of agreement! Do not forget all the speeches, public and private instruction. Hey, someone has to make some $$$$ on ISO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's not forget that this version of the standard, once authored, went through several years of review and modification by a very LARGE committee (several countries of committees in-fact). So to blame the vagueness of the documents on the 3 men named here seems more than a little unfair. After all, do any of you know what their "original" draft looked like?

Perhaps the only way that these men feel that they can maintain their integrity is to provide books that include the details that they were forced to leave out (just a hypothesis, but just as valid as putting all of the blame for its' vagueness on them). And if they can make some money out of keeping their integrity, great for them - after all any of us could author similar books (many of you have written reams of text on the subject right here in the Cove). :)

I agree with M. Soemthing is wrong if a book has to be written to expalin a standard or specification. If those were the same people that authored the standard then why not incorporate those thiughts into the original.
IMO forget the self-help-books. The standard is rather easy to read and comprehend, at least easier than most. Implement it as you understand it and present it to your CB. If they do not agree, then each of you should present evidence of your interpretations and come to an agreement.

I would see a conflict of interest, and integrity problems, only if these guys purposefully made the standard more difficult to understand with the intention of making money off a "how-to" book. If someone can show me evidence this happened, then I have a problem with it. Otherwise, I don't. The standard could not have been made 100, 200, 300 pages long to include detailed explanations, examples, etc.

I asked myself, if I were the co-author of a standard on how to do the measurements that I do in my work, AND I wrote the standard as well as I possibly could, would I feel guilty if I later wrote a more in-depth book on the measurements for profit. I don't think so. I think this is fairly standard practice and do not see a problem with it. Why shouldn't I profit from my hard work and knowledge, just like we all do in our daily work? JMO.

Mike S. said:

I would see a conflict of interest, and integrity problems, only if these guys purposefully made the standard more difficult to understand with the intention of making money off a "how-to" book.

Who knows what evil lurks in the minds of ..........?

Mike S. said:

Why shouldn't I profit from my hard work and knowledge, just like we all do in our daily work? JMO.

You little prostitute, you!:biglaugh: :ko: :smokin:

Sam said:

I agree with M. Soemthing is wrong if a book has to be written to expalin a standard or specification. If those were the same people that authored the standard then why not incorporate those thiughts into the original.
IMO forget the self-help-books. The standard is rather easy to read and comprehend, at least easier than most. Implement it as you understand it and present it to your CB. If they do not agree, then each of you should present evidence of your interpretations and come to an agreement.

I agree with Sam, ISO 9K2K is very easy to understand and or interpret the way that best suits your organization and as long as your registrar/notified body agrees or accepts your reasoning that’s all that matters. Buying a book that explains 9K2K is a waste of money IMHO.

I would say no to conflict of interest. Should you buy the book again IMHO no, just read the standard and make it work for your company.

ISO GUY said:

I agree with Sam, ISO 9K2K is very easy to understand and or interpret the way that best suits your organization and as long as your registrar/notified body agrees or accepts your reasoning that’s all that matters. Buying a book that explains 9K2K is a waste of money IMHO.

I would say no to conflict of interest. Should you buy the book again IMHO no, just read the standard and make it work for your company.
Sam and Isoguy,

Y'all must be lots smarter than I am! Of course this was a foregone conclusion to many, but if it weren't for the Cove as a resource I'd have lots of questions on ISO issues that confuse ME, so I'd probably buy a book. But I gotta wonder, are ALL the people who ask questions on the Cove about ISO, and ALL the folks who do buy the books really dumb or are guys like Sam and Isoguy just really much smarter than the average bear? :confused:

Mike S. said:

Sam and Isoguy,

Y'all must be lots smarter than I am! Of course this was a foregone conclusion to many, but if it weren't for the Cove as a resource I'd have lots of questions on ISO issues that confuse ME, so I'd probably buy a book. But I gotta wonder, are ALL the people who ask questions on the Cove about ISO, and ALL the folks who do buy the books really dumb or are guys like Sam and Isoguy just really much smarter than the average bear? :confused:

Mike I am refraining from biting on your comments. As I stated it was my opinion that ISO 9K2K was easy to understand. :truce:

No problem. All I'm saying is that different people have different strengths and weaknesses, different levels of cognitive ability, different aptitudes. Some, like Isoguy and Sam, apparently have no problem understanding and applying ISO 9001-2000, and I think that's really great. Lordy, somebody has to understand it so they can write the books or do the training!

But not everyone is as able to understand and apply it as well as these guys, so they seek some help, either from a book, the Cove, friends and colleagues, etc. and I don't think they should be made to feel bad or dumb. They just have different strengths but the same need to understand and apply it.

Comments like "forget the self-help-books. The standard is rather easy to read and comprehend" and "buying a book that explains 9K2K is a waste of money" might make some people feel they must be dumb and are among a small minority who don't understand this easy thing called ISO (though I'm sure that was not your intention.) . I think the opposite is true -- that the majority need some help outside of just "read the standard", even if only to verify their own thoughts or to show their higher-ups who might disagree that their interpretations are correct. I submit that the use of the Cove and the high book sales supports my position. Not all who want to use ISO have a registrar/CB to speak with -- some are only aiming at compliance; some are in the "see what its all about" phase.

Of course all opinions are welcome -- I was just suggesting you consider trying to frame them in a way that doesn't intimidate newcomers or those who aren't as good as you at the job. Some people (I, for one) can wire-up a stereo system without looking at the instruction manual, but I would not suggest manufacturers stop printing the manual, or that people stop reading them. Peace.:truce: :agree:

Correct Mike. I never stopped to think of it that way, I would never want anyone to think I was saying they are dumb (save Enegry :vfunny: j/k guy) just becuase they don't understand it sometimes I need to be brought back to reality as I do tend to live in my own little world somtimes. :agree: :bonk:

Mike

Good points, but shouldnt the ISO9000 series of standards be pretty self explanatory ?

I mean you wouldnt expect a book on how to understand your stereo wiring manual would you ??

To my mind if ISO9000 needs further publications for it to be understood it has failed its mandate - JMHO as always.

M Greenaway said: To my mind if ISO9000 needs further publications for it to be understood it has failed its mandate - JMHO as always.

MG - you talk a lot of sense - for a Brit ;) -- but there's something that's more fundamentally wrong with ISO 9000 - closer I think to the root cause of how really silly it is. It pretends (or a small bit of it pretends) to be a standard for something that:

a) CANNOT be standardised
b) we definitely do not WANT to be standardised.

As a set of good management questions, it (ISO 9000 I mean not ISO 9001) is fine. As a pass/fail standard it's a joke. The best book to explain the joke is John Seddon's 'The Case Against ISO 9000'.

Tom

I am half Irish !!

PS Do I know you ?

What I find strange is that ISO publishes several self help/guidance documents. So, why other books? I have bought several to get ideas on how different people view the standard. As far as conflict of interest, I guess if ISO allows it there is none. How much revenue is raised from book sales? When will ISO want a piece of the pie? If not for ISO and standards, would the Cove exist?

Martin said "Good points, but shouldnt the ISO9000 series of standards be pretty self explanatory ?

I mean you wouldnt expect a book on how to understand your stereo wiring manual would you ??

To my mind if ISO9000 needs further publications for it to be understood it has failed its mandate - JMHO as always."
________________

Yes, I guess you're right, ideally they SHOULD be self-explanatory, but maybe it isn't practical to write it short enough to make it that way for, say, 95% of the readers. Don't know. I do know that when I first read it I had questions, and sometimes I still do depending on the situation I'm applying it to. And so do many thousands (millions?) of others who feel they need books, videos, courses, the Cove, and/or CONSULTANTS to help them with it.

As for the second question, it partly depends on how "deeply" I wanted to understand it, and if I wanted that knowledge to apply to other stereo systems. In such case, there are hundreds of books on just that, some on electronic theory in general, some targeted just to the audio side. For example, the manual might say to be sure to connect the + side of the speaker output to the + terminal on the speaker and same for the negative, but if I want to understand WHY this might be important I need more learnin'. If I have NO aptitude on this at all but want to get the MOST out of my system, I might need another book to help me understand what "bass" and "treble" really mean, and the difference between "loudness" and "volume," since many manuals don't explain this.

Whether or not it has failed its mandate could be its own thread!

Mike said,
"Y'all must be lots smarter than I am! Of course this was a foregone conclusion to many, but if it weren't for the Cove as a resource I'd have lots of questions on ISO issues that confuse ME,"

True, If not for the Cove WE would all be searching other sources for answers to OUR questions. But that wasn't the question. The question was related to "integrity" (or lack thereof) when writing a standard , then following up with a book (for profit) to explain it.

Mike also said,
so I'd probably buy a book. But I gotta wonder, are ALL the people who ask questions on the Cove about ISO, and ALL the folks who do buy the books really dumb or are guys like Sam and Isoguy just really much smarter than the average bear?"

I re-read my post and I didn't find where I inferred that anyone was dumb or that I was smarter then anyone else, However if you or anyone interprets it as such, then I apoligise.
My opinions are just that, MY opinions and are not meant to infer that anyone else is of lessor value or to demean anyones' character.

Mike

I used to have your fears, i didnt understand much of the standard. Experience has taught me that neither does anyone else, there are no rights or wrongs.

We have a publication over here called Quality World. Every month it asks representatives of the major certification bodies a certain issue relating to ISO9001 compliance. Every month you get different answers from each certification body !!

Sounds like you are doing yourself a dis-service, thinking you might be dumb, no Mike its the bleeding standard - a nuclear physicist couldnt make head nor tail of it !!! :biglaugh:

Mike:

Using your analagy, I'd think ISO 9004 would be our stereo manual. Fortunately written in English (The last one I had was in Japanese). If, however, we intend to operate the stereo in several vastly different environments (i.e. steam room, freezer, high dust, vibration) and we are stuck with just this one stereo, then it would be helpful to have the other books you mentioned to tell us how to modify the stereo SYSTEM to fit the needs of our environment.

Is there room for a conflict of interest? I guess so. I do not, however, think that the risk is large, because of the process used to formulate the standard. I also do not think it is happening now, FWIW.

M Greenaway said:

Sounds like you are doing yourself a dis-service, thinking you might be dumb, no Mike its the bleeding standard - a nuclear physicist couldnt make head nor tail of it !!! :biglaugh:

It's bleeding sure enough. But 'standard' it is not.

M Greenaway said:
Tom

I am half Irish !!

PS Do I know you ?

Don't fret, Martin -- no-one's perfect! I know your name via The Business Improvement Network, maybe we met at one of the workshops?

Sounds like you are doing yourself a dis-service, thinking you might be dumb, no Mike its the bleeding standard - a nuclear physicist couldnt make head nor tail of it !!!

Martin, I know that your statement was made in jest, but I would like to comment on it. 9K wasn't meant for a nuclear physicist. It was meant for a systems person. I think this is where most folks fail. They take their physicist, or their doctor, or their quality expert, and expect them to understand the standard. And guess what? They can't!!! Why not? ..... Because they are dumb! Well perhaps dumb is too harsh of a word. Perhaps, I should say they don't speak standardese. I grew up as an automechanic and could read a parts and labor guide or the interchange manual just as good as a Dilbert comic (perhaps they were written by the same person). Chances are, if I handed one to you, you would struggle.

The first time I picked up an ISO document (1987 version), I tossed it to the side and yelled that it was stupid. No, I was just standard dumb. I learned to read standardese, and now I understand it completely!

Soooooooo you have two choices. 1) is to become standard smart. 2) hire me to explain it to you. See how clear this can be? :rolleyes:

db said:
I learned to read standardese, and now I understand it completely!

Ah now, Dave - a man with complete understanding! Perhaps we could start a special thread for the flood of questions that will surely follow.

I have close to a thousand burning questions myself, but may I start with a pressing one?

9001 asks us to determine and to describe the interaction between the processes of the quality management system.

What exactly does that mean?

db

I thought the standard was written for all sorts of people, in all sorts of industries and all sorts of sectors - was i wrong ?

Also what is a 'systems person' ?

I always looked at it like what the Catholic church did with the Bible during the Middle Ages. The church didn't think the common man could possible understand the Bible so they kept it in Latin, limiting the reading to only the educated few. In other words, we are not to understand it, we are to apply it according to the enlightened understanding & translations of the Registration Bodies, Task Groups and customers! Ours is not to ask why it is to do or die!!!!!!!
:biglaugh:

Tom Harris said:

9001 asks us to determine and to describe the interaction between the processes of the quality management system.

What exactly does that mean?

Crap allmighty!!!! It's just a relationship thing where we show how processes are either inputs or outputs of other processes with regards to product realization to meeting or achieving customer satisfaction.

This crap ain't rocket science! I can say that because I've spend a great deal of time with real rocket scientists and this is not what they do. They do however, in the course of developing their systems (product) and achieving realization, develop ways to show how independent sub-systems effect or relate to the major system as a whole and make it work.

Break out of your group "Tunopia"!!!!!!!!

Randy,

I guess I'm part of the "group" you're lecturing, so allow me a comment:

You might be among the top 1% of people in the country in understanding ISO 9001, I don't know, but you seem quite knowledgable in it. That's great! We need guys like that. But IMO you ain't in the top 1% in interpersonal relationships. Is this how you usually treat your clients who ask a question that you think exhibits "tunopia"? Yeah, I know we're not paying -- is that the difference? Seems to me sometimes you exhibit a Jekyl and Hyde-type personality. No one tossed any insults toward you, so why the harsh tone? :confused:

Randy Stewart said:
In other words, we are not to understand it, we are to apply it according to the enlightened understanding & translations of the Registration Bodies, Task Groups and customers! Ours is not to ask why it is to do or die!!!!!!!
:biglaugh:

Wow, do you really feel that way? From my experience and for what it’s worth I have worked with a few different Registration Bodies and they were always willing to listen to our interpretation and accept or reject it based on the rationale we use. To be honest, never once have any of them rejected our interpretations, well I take that back, there was one, but they were a German based Registration Body with a bone to pick against US based companies. I have also done numerous registration/surveillance audits and do not consider my translation/interpretation of the standard as the be all end all.

Mike S. said:
Is this how you usually treat your clients who ask a question that you think exhibits "tunopia"? Yeah, I know we're not paying -- is that the difference? Seems to me sometimes you exhibit a Jekyl and Hyde-type personality. No one tossed any insults toward you, so why the harsh tone? :confused:

I'm the same in provate as I am here...totally honest and straightforward. Ask a couple of the folks that have met me (there are some that visit or regularly contribute). I may at times lack some in the tact department, but I never insult or demean people. My intent is to challenge people to "think" beyond what they are used to, to utilize the reasoning skills they have and to employ those skills by breaking down the artificial barriers they have built or have had built around them.

Too many times people get wrapped around the axle over POTAYTOE or POTAHTOE.

Randy stated, Too many times people get wrapped around the axle over POTAYTOE or POTAHTOE.

Unless your exVice-President Dan Quayle, then your'e around that axle over POTATO or POTATOE:D

Wow, do you really feel that way?
There has been more than 1 outside auditor that I have asked to leave the building and more than 1 I have reported and asked not to have back. Here's an example from ISO 14001-1996. Let me show you what an auditor did.
Under 4.4.5 it states ". . . for controlling all documents required . . .". In our Evac plan we gave the first responders a list of people in designated areas to look for, it wasn't in the doc ctrl and I we received a N/C. Interpretation was the letter of the law. Then under 4.5.1 para 3 it states that ". . . procedure for periodically evaluating compliance . . . ". It does not state what the periodicity should be set at, it doesn't state that I have to have one done. If I set my frequency to every 25 years so what. Well, we had had one done 2 years prior, I had a procedure that called out every 5 years or purchase of new buildings/property. We received a N/C because they felt 5 years was too long. Now we're talking spirit of the law. Then under 4.5.3 para 2 it states ". . . . Their retention times shall be established and recorded." I scheduled our evac pictorials (maps) as "when plan is updated" and took a hit for that as not having times established. We have masters that we print out on a plotter and they are fairly expensive to print, and if the plan hadn't changed in 2 years why add the expense? Once again, spirit of the law.
I've had plenty of experiences with good auditors, but just like the requirements of supplier development under QS there are a lot of questions. That is what I was talking about ISO GUY, and that is were we are placed under one persons interpretation.
:bonk: :frust: :ko:

Atul Khandekar said:

I would think those who wrote it are the best people to explain it. You agree that the book is helpful.

Should they charge money for it?:confused: Well, why not?:confused:

Atul,

Why not....because they loose integrity. I now see these men as in a very different light. In my opinion, this is a conflict of interest. Perhaps this is just a cultural difference here.


Martin said


But do they have a vested interest in making the standard vague and incomprehensible in order to be able to publish a book on the subject, or are they just milking the whole third party certification facade for what its worth ?


Agree completely. This situation has people lining their pockets from a multitude of sources.

In my early years in quality, the inspection department NEVER reported to anyone in manufacturing, and I am sure that condition is still required in many industries. This was to preclude a conflict of interest (i.e. making shipments).


Mike said

Y'all must be lots smarter than I am! Of course this was a foregone conclusion to many, but if it weren't for the Cove as a resource I'd have lots of questions on ISO issues that confuse ME, so I'd probably buy a book.

Not so, Mike. Many people, like myself, came out of industries that already had some "control" document", such as the military standards for defense contractors, or FDA regs for GMP. But many people are in the "commercial" field. That is why the Cove is so helpful, you get such a variety of opinions and ideas.

Randy Stewart said

I always looked at it like what the Catholic church did with the Bible during the Middle Ages.

I think that pretty much sums it up.


Great discussion!!!!


CarolX

Randy said:

Crap allmighty!!!! It's just a relationship thing where we show how processes are either inputs or outputs of other processes with regards to product realization to meeting or achieving customer satisfaction.

This was in answer to my question "what exactly does 'interaction between processes' mean?

I'm afraid I can't parse your sentence fully, Randy. The concept of a process being an input or an output of another process is interesting though. Surely that is a very rare case, like where the process in question is a process to design processes?

Looks like we really need Dave with his complete understanding of the standard to explain it to us. :)

This can get down to "Which came 1st, the chicken or the egg"?

Something had to originally get the ball rolling and that something was a process that became an input of another process.

You get hungry, what do you do? You get something to eat or make something to eat, whatever. Hunger is a process that initaites or is an input to finding/making food. Business processes are no different.

You start with an initiating action or requirement that is the beginning or input to reaching a fulfillment or satisfaction.

For believers of the "Big Bang", that initial action (process) was the basic input into everthing else that has happened. For those of us that believe in the "Creation", the opening of Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.....", it's the same thing. An initial process that become an input for another process.

Where do inputs, outputs and processes actually begin or end? Who knows.

Randy said:
You get hungry, what do you do? You get something to eat or make something to eat, whatever. Hunger is a process that initaites or is an input to finding/making food. Business processes are no different.

OK. So can you give a typical business example, rather than an analogy, of where a process is the input to a process (as opposed to a process creating the input to a process)?

If M Greenaway ever comes back here, he can apply IDEF0 to the problem for us. Oh heavens what fun we'll have then.

BTW I looked up IDEF0 (you'll recall it's IDEF-zero?). It's an acronym sure enough and it means I Draw Enormous Flowcharts for Zilch. It's true as I live and breathe!

Looks like we really need Dave with his complete understanding of the standard to explain it to us.

Okay Tom, let take my quote one step farther:

"Soooooooo you have two choices. 1) is to become standard smart. 2) hire me to explain it to you. See how clear this can be? "

Unless you sign the check, you don't get any help! :eek: If you sign the check, you might get a little bit more. :bonk:



Seriously, when looking at processes, you must also consider some are sequential, some are concurrent, and some are a combination. The better we understand our processes, the better we can control process variation. As far as interaction, if you change a process, how does that change affect other processes? If you do not know how your processes interact, you can't determine the impact of processes changes. Does that make it clearer?

db said:
As far as interaction, if you change a process, how does that change affect other processes? If you do not know how your processes interact, you can't determine the impact of processes changes. Does that make it clearer?

'Fraid not, Dave.

I understand and I agree with what you say, but it doesn't answer the question: what does ISO 9001 mean when it tells us we must "determine and describe the interaction between the processes of the quality management system"? What would such a description look like?

I guess I'll have to accept that you really do know the answer but are unwilling to share it with us unless paid. That's fair enough. If ever I get to understand what it means, I shall probably keep it close to my chest, too.

;)

I think it describes a situation where the company knows what it does and knows what one process will affect another process. Say the incoming inspection process might relate to the purchasing process. I believe there is abundant leeway for the company in that they have the say in cases of what action affect, or is related to another process.

You could have process flow charts the size of a barn wall and they could be meaningless unless they can be understood.

How about this;

Follow the general rules and have each procedure include a reference to any other procedures that may be affected and which part of the procedure affects a certain aspect of the other procedure.

If procedures are written correctly there are many aspects of the standards that are covered. And maybe a more important aspect could be the knowledge of the Management Rep. and his/her willingness to stand up for the company.

I understand and I agree with what you say, but it doesn't answer the question: what does ISO 9001 mean when it tells us we must "determine and describe the interaction between the processes of the quality management system"? What would such a description look like?

Tom, you never said you were going to let me off easy! :truce:


I think pancreas (Al?) and I are saying much the same thing but what you want is how it would be described in the QM. Okay, let me try.

There are two easy ways to show the interaction. One is through high-level process mapping. Listing the core processes and then show how supporting processes interact with each. Remember to include the QMS and information processes.

A second way is to develop a matrix showing your processes and indicating which they interact with.

The problem with either of those, is they may not adequately describe the interaction, they only show that there is interaction. I know there are some of you who feel that a graphic description is sufficient, and to you I say you may very well be right. If you can adequately describe the interaction of your processes through mapping, then great.

To describe the interaction narratively, you would need to describe the process, indicating other processes which it interacts with. You would also describe the nature of the interaction and the controls used in the interaction. This can be quite difficult. Imagine you are going to describe the interaction you (a process) has with your co-workers (other processes). I can describe some of the activities in which we interact, but how do I describe the interaction?

Well, I think I've told you enough for now, Tom. We've used up your dime. Now, you take a stab at it. You might find you know just about as much as I do on this subject. Of course, then you will try to bill me! :vfunny: :thedeal:

Start by looking at what each department has set up. I have found that each department knows what it will get from their internal supplier. They will set up checklists to ensure problems are found (the info just never seems to get to the supplier though). In other words each department seems to do some type of 1st piece inspection. From that info you can develop the desired inputs from one operation and the desired outputs of the the up stream operation.

Dave asked me to take a stab at answering the question "what does interaction of processes mean?" Here goes

Al says that process interaction can be handled by "following general rules" [what are those. Al?] and having procedures reference each other.

My reaction: no way - for several reasons, the most notable of which is that we can no longer presuppose the existence of [written] procedures. They are optional.


Dave says that you describe the interaction by describing the process, other processes it interacts with, and the nature of the interaction (including controls) and that this is difficult to do.

My reaction: he doesn't say how to describe the "nature of the interaction"


Stew says to start by looking at what each department has set up, and from that figure out the desired inputs and outputs.

My reaction: starting with departments seems to be counter to process thinking. But his reference to inputs and outputs is surely hitting the proverbial nail in the right place?

As has been said elsewhere in these forums: since a process is defined as transforming inputs into outputs, it follows that its interaction with other processes is defined not only by identifying those other processes but also by defining what is input to it and what is output from it.

That's my stab. Et tu Tom?

Tom you're right, I was thinking of the set up we have here. The departments are really product hand-off points or internal supplier/customers exchange areas. An example would be from the stamping operation to the fabrication ops, or from inspection to shipping, etc.
I trust it didn't cause any additional confusion.
:confused: :eek: