Hi guys,

I defined our company's processes. Now, I need determine the interactions of that processes. I need a method of that work. How can I show the interactions any idea or example will be greatful.

Bye,

Try IDEF0 style process mapping.

A diagramatic technique of defining processes that show what the Inputs, Outputs, Controls and Mechanisms actually are, and the processes they feed or are fed by.

Abnoyan,

There are several examples of process maps showing how some Cove folks have shown the processes and their sequence and interaction. Do a search on "process maps" and you should find several posted this year with commentary by other Cove members. Let us know if this does not help.

Tom Harris said:

With total respect, abnoyan, I suspect there is a high probabability that you did no such thing.

Either you mean "our senior managers thrashed out the details of our company's processes" or you mean "I personally approximated a definition of our company's processes good enough to decorate the quality manual [what our semi-Mick friend MG calls a bland diagram] but with no value beyond that".

If I got that wrong in your particular case, I apologise in advance. You are the exception that proves the rule.


With no respect at all Tom, I think that your post was nothing but rude, and offerred no help whatsoever. I would hazard that everyone here knew exactly what Abnoyan was saying and asking - even without your sarcastic posting.

Abnoyan, Mike is right about there being lots of discussions and examples posted regarding interactions. Briefly, you can show interactions with arrows from the output of one process into the input of another; text description of your company's work with parenthetical references to numbered areas on your process maps; layered mapping (think of those old human body overlays in the encyclopedia); on each process map list the inputs and outputs and the other processes that interact with this one; and so many other things that can be done.

Does this give you any ideas?

Abnoyan,

Companies have many processes that interact with each other.

Maybe these:

How does the process for hiring personnel interact with the training process?

There are 3 manufacturing processes, how does the process of #1 relate to process #2? Recieving, loading, same SPC, shared gages, related documents, Commonality of specs????

Just some food for thought.

Al...

In mapping out the process to show the sequence and interaction.....the question is to what extend or detail we need to show?

Try doing it on a wheel and remember that it is the processes of the QMS not necessarily manufacturing processes, unless you make it that way.

johnnybegood said:

In mapping out the process to show the sequence and interaction.....the question is to what extend or detail we need to show?
Yep, a critical question IMO. I think that is up to you, your Management, and the registrar (if applicable). I believe that even the most detailed process map ever posted on the Cove does not truly capture ALL of the sequences and interactions in that company -- nor should it IMO because that would be a huge if not impossible task with little if any benefit.

Many people want an idea of how far "most people" or the "typical" process map goes or what "most registrars" require, then they can decide if they want to go further or not based on the perceived benefits. They want to see different ways of doing it as well. I think those are very valid questions, and there are a few QM's and PM's posted here, some "registrar approved", to give some ideas. Hopefully, over time, more will be posted showing different ways to skin the cat (or catfish).

gpainter

can you expand on your last post please ?

gpainter said:

Try doing it on a wheel and remember that it is the processes of the QMS not necessarily manufacturing processes, unless you make it that way.


IMHO I feel that the Process Approach is ultimately about the manufacturing processes. I was inducting a class of students yesterday and they said "What do we need a QA system for?" I said that the bottom line is, we have a certified system to ASSURE our customers that what they order is delivered the same everytime (or words to that effect). The customer doesn't really care about how we mapped out the QMS system. Documenting process maps is not going to make a better product. With the old QMS' you could be certified but not have a gauranteed product. The Auditors (or do you in the USA call them regsitrars) did not actually audit our product they audited our systems. The new system is trying to get us to have a better product and relate the quality to our customers not so much our paperwork.

My process maps start with material/product etc and end with a customer (it may be another process). I use process maps in lieu of written documents. I mainly use your basic flow chart symbols to map them out bacause a flow chart is a Process Map.

P.S If my thrid party auditor (registrar?) does not like the way we do something then they better have a pretty good reason, other than their personal interpretation of a clause, as to why they want me to change or add to it. I believe that they should be asked to prove their position before telling us what to do. I am not confrontational but it annoys me that so many of them try to laud it over us mere mortals.

Sorry but I tend to waffle on a bit. I'll try and post some maps up here soon.

Greg B

Greg B. I like the attitude. Better yet I promote the attitude:thedeal:

Abnoyan,
Bottom line is to make it work for you. Set up how one operations output is the input to the next. That's all you need to do. I would have to think that most departments have an idea of what they expect to see from their internal suppliers. That's what you need to capture and document. Ensure it's at a level that can be controlled: that is defined and have evidence of actually happening. Don't do this for the auditors benefit but for the benefit of the operation.
On a Continuous Improvement Agenda:
Look at what feeds each operation (internal supplier) and how each internal customer defines a quality event (desired output). Those are the items that need to be defined in terms of characteristics that the operation can control. If it hasn't been done before, you could be very surprised at what the supplying department thinks is a "good" part.

This may help a bit.

Marc,

Thanks. These look similar to some of the stuff I am doing. I'll sign off now so I can review them better.

Hope you a had a good Easter.

Greg B

Hi all,

I thought I might put one of my proposed training packages on the site to get all of your expert opinions. I am prepared for the barrage and I expect it. I have placed the presentation here so you can help me expand and refine it. This package is for our new and not so new managers and supervisors. As stated before in these forums my company is 9K2K accredited and we are in the middle of streamlining the system. We have revamped all of our 150 plus Work Instructions into smaller, more user friendly, better controlled and presented documents (flow charts, pictures, colour, dot points etc. We are rewriting the Quality Manual so that people can better understand it and our systems. The next step is changing our Procedures. These are all 1994 vintage and very wordy and unfriendly. Their titles are even linked to the 1994 clauses. Anyway, We are going to look at the ENTIRE company and map our processes in each department. The powerpoint presentation is a tool to get everyone started. Feedback please...

You know Queenslander...

I'd give that one high marks: A clear and no-nonsense explanation that conveys the facts in a very good way. :agree: Would you mind if I nicked it?;)

Incidentally: I used to have a lot of powerpoint presentations too, but I have transferred all that stuff to our intranet. (That way I never need to dish out any paper copies... I use the intranet whenever I do any teaching, and the info will be there for anyone who wants to access it later.

/Claes

I like it Greg. Very well stated. Some times things seem so simple, is it that we muck them up and make them more complicated than they need to be?????
I think you have made a good start. Now if we could just get over that Quality Manual stuff . . . . . . .
:vfunny:

Claes and Randy,

I'd give that one high marks: A clear and no-nonsense explanation that conveys the facts in a very good way. Would you mind if I nicked it?

Yes Claes you may use the presentation. I'd be honoured.

I like it Greg. Very well stated. Some times things seem so simple, is it that we muck them up and make them more complicated than they need to be?????

Thanks for the support guys. Do you have anything to add to the presentation itself?

Randy

Now if we could just get over that Quality Manual stuff . . . . . . .

What do you mean about the Quality Manual? Personnaly, I hate the thing. Most of them are a duplication of the bloody Standard anyway. The one that I have taken over is bigger than a set of Funk and Wagnells. I have to have one so I have to rewrite it. YUK!

Greg B

Originally posted by Jim Wade
Remember the ideal, short and suits-everyone QM. Goes like this:

QMS scope & exclusions: see here.
Documented procedures: see here, here and here.
Process description: see here.

There's no business purpose - and therefore no need - to put everything literally in one place.

rgds Jim

Where are the missing links? I mean, are the links missing? Or, are you the missing link? Right HERE!:vfunny: :smokin:

Originally posted by Jim Wade
Remember the ideal, short and suits-everyone QM. Goes like this:

QMS scope & exclusions: see here.
Documented procedures: see here, here and here.
Process description: see here.

There's no business purpose - and therefore no need - to put everything literally in one place.

rgds Jim

Thanks Jim,

I like this approach. I've seen one Manual that was actually a one page topographical map of the company and each of the rooms and areas had an explanation and reference, in them, directing you to the process etc.
I'll run this by the rest of the management team tomorrow and I bet they will all agree with it. I'll send it to our certfication auditor just to keep him up to speed before the triennial audit in November. I'll let you know what happens.

Greg B

Originally posted by Jim Wade
Can't put in links, Bill, 'cos they would differ for each system; they would point to wherever we want them to point. They don't have to be hyperlinks of course - could just be references.
rgds Jim

My mistake. They appeared to be links to some reference material you were providing. I thought maybe there was a glitch in the new setup. Oops!:smokin:

I work with small (8-15 employees) suppliers to the major oil drilling companies in South Louisiana doing 2K9K and API Q1 implementation. During my first two implementations I went to no small effort to present the sequence and interactions of processes in the true sense of the context of the requirement. During the certification audits the Registrar Auditor spent about 30 seconds with it and then went on to the next question. I decided then to present just a simple flow chart of operations from raw material receipt through shipping to the customer. The Registrar Auditor spent about 30 seconds with it and then went on to the next question. The small companies understand their process whether graphically displayed or not. Obviously large companies find it more difficult. Due to this experience and several implementations since then, if this is the acceptable extent of the requirement in the eyes of the Registrars then I don't see the point in carrying this requirement to extremes. Should an auditor require more detail I'm sure he/she will tell me and I will be more than happy to comply. Just relating my experiences with this subject. Thanks.

Also see:

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4902 - A 'Quickie'

and

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5324 - This thread has 200+ posts. A lot of thoughts and details.

We've also come up against the interaction of processes, and have decided that we'll only show links where it works with our logical production flow e.g. "Agree production plan" links to "buy raw materials" links to "make the product" links to "despatch the product to customer". We do this 'cos it helps it feel logical in using the process map as a tool with all our staff and customers.

For all the other interactions, when asked, we point to a box on the process map that says in suitable speak "management team decides". By this we mean, for example, if something screws up whilst we're making something, the management team will decide to invoke the non-conforming product process (procedure of course because we're good little ISO9001 citizens - although it looks remarkably like a flowchart). Thus we describe the majority of our interactions of processes as being understood and performed by trained and competent people.

It's worked so far in the registration of 9 areas and stops us having process maps that are composed in multi-dimensional space !

Cheers, Al.

To mapping a interaction of precesses diferents ways may by used: IDEF0, diagrams or maps. Look at internet.
Best regards.
FG