Turtle maps and Flowcharts - How is everyone approaching Turtle maps and flowcharts?
Wanted to get an idea on how everyone ia approaching this. The great debate as we know it is do we need process maps. In some other threads I notice people are using turtle diagrams. Here where I work we are using Flowcharts with our input/output/owner/measurements listed on the chart.
What has everyone done to meet this requirement. the input is greatly appreciated.
You might want to try a forum Search - and enter the search word 'turtle' and specify 'Titles Only' for some preliminary info on how people visiting here are addressing the issues.
I don't see flow charts and turtle diagrams as equivalent. I can use a flow chart as a work instruction, but I have never seen a turtle diagram used as a work instruction.
Wanted to get an idea on how everyone ia approaching this. The great debate as we know it is do we need process maps. In some other threads I notice people are using turtle diagrams. Here where I work we are using Flowcharts with our input/output/owner/measurements listed on the chart.
What has everyone done to meet this requirement. the input is greatly appreciated.
We are only going for 9001 and not 16949, but thought I would share how we are using the turtle. We are using it as an audit tool to show what we have observed during the process audit (see attachment).
Doug
Thank You to Douglas E. Purdy for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
As is my usual pattern, I have been monitoring these discussion threads and thinking in a different way. ISOPete's original question was
Quote:
The great debate as we know it is do we need process maps?
The requirement for and the creation of turtles and other diagrams have been discussed in the threads noted by Marc. Most participants have provided examples of how to do the diagrams. My thought process has been what is the purpose of the diagram? If the only reason is that it is perceived to be (or actually) mandated by the TS16949 standard that does not mean that it provides value to your organization.
I know that process diagrams can be useful and I am not arguing that they are wasteful. But sometimes we spend a lot of time on the style and format of the drawings and it is not adding anything to improving the process.
Wanted to get an idea on how everyone ia approaching this. The great debate as we know it is do we need process maps. In some other threads I notice people are using turtle diagrams. Here where I work we are using Flowcharts with our input/output/owner/measurements listed on the chart.
What has everyone done to meet this requirement. the input is greatly appreciated.
The only requirement by the specification is that the organization identify its processes, their application, and linkages. How we do that is up to us. The process charts as described could work very well. It is my intent to develop a modified turtle diagram that's a little easier to follow.
I just went through the Lead Auditor training last week at AIAG and they hammered on the Turtle Diagrams pretty hard. We spent the better part of two long days learning the principles and practicing turtles through detailed exercises. The turtle exercise was also a pretty significant part of the test on the last day.
This is the way the IATF is requiring that 3rd party auditors be trained so it makes sense to me to follow somewhat of a turtle diagram plan in defining processes in order to expedite the audit process.
One of the instructors said that a well annotated flow chart would work just fine.
This is the way the IATF is requiring that 3rd party auditors be trained so it makes sense to me to follow somewhat of a turtle diagram plan in defining processes in order to expedite the audit process.
One of the instructors said that a well annotated flow chart would work just fine.
Are you saying that the only reason for doing turtle diagrams is to make life easier for an auditor?
Are you saying that the only reason for doing turtle diagrams is to make life easier for an auditor?
Bill Pflanz
Not at all, you have to document your processes anyway. Why not use this method to have a continuity in internal and 3rd party audits.
The automotive industry is mandating that if you wish to do business with them, you will perform process audits. While I personally believe that you can conduct effective and efficient elemental audits, the automotive process audit models do have positive characteristics that can be beneficial. Initially, the process audits forces those of us who have done mostly elemental audits to look at our businesses from a little different perspective.
It has been my experience that if you and your 3rd party auditor are both speaking the same language (automotive process models or turtles) it makes the life of the management rep a bit easier come surveillance audit time.
This is the way the IATF is requiring that 3rd party auditors be trained so it makes sense to me to follow somewhat of a turtle diagram plan in defining processes in order to expedite the audit process.
TWallace,
The operative word here is "plan"...organizations should use the turtle diagram to PLAN how your process will be layed out. The problem is, many companies, misguided by their Certification Bodies, AND AIAG training, for that matter, have generated almost useless, cryptic models, that no one can possibly follow to implement a process. The process model should be a self-explanatory model, which, in the absence of the document champion, should be implementable and auditable by company employees at large.
I have seen processes defined by a single "Macro turtle" which does not constitute a process. In fact if we must use this "misleading" turtle analogy, it's really a convoy of turtles...that is, several linked activites, each with individual inputs, outputs, responsibilities...etc and finally, not fixed but potentially changing associated metrics or measurables, which must be assessed and reviewed for continued suitability at regular intervals.
I'm digressing from the original topic, but...to finish my thought... once processes are capable and stable, you can discontinue monitoring, or change the measurable which you are monitoring. For this reason, I don't include the metrics in my "process flows", or as part of the "turtle". They're managed through a "Metrics Dashboard" database (copyrighted P. Ravanello) which is Management's repository and access portal to all "performance gauges" in the company. Because they are subject to change, I don't want to include them in my Process Flow Charts, which would require that they be subject to potential frequent revision. I just reference the "Metrics Dashboard" in my Flow Charts.
AIAG needs to re-think their training...and upgrade it to include some "best-in-practice" models which they should solicit from the Certification bodies (with the approval of the authors, of course).
Patricia Ravanello
Last edited by Marc; 27th November 2005 at 09:38 PM.
Reason: released in error - incomplete
Turtle maps and Flowcharts - How is everyone approaching Turtle maps and flowcharts?
In some other threads I notice people are using turtle diagrams. Here where I work we are using Flowcharts with our input/output/owner/measurements listed on the chart.
Linear Mode
