Process Approach Challenge - Please Define what the 'Process Approach' is

[dknox4]

In Reply to Parent Post by Jim Wynne

<snip> In order to implement a process approach, all of the disparate elements that combine to produce a product or service must be coordinated such that a smooth continuum of effort exists across department boundaries. This is what the standard refers to when it talks about processes and their interactions. If such a continuum does exist, it does so irrespective of documentation, the standard and CB auditors who want to "promote" things but don't understand what they want to promote.

I think you have wrapped it up pretty well here. Thanks.

[Marc]

In Reply to Parent Post by Jim Wynne

<snip> Not so for process approach, which is a rather murky idea that's related to the concept of "systems thinking." The consultant and author Allan Sayle claims credit for the idea, saying that he developed it in the 1970s. I have no evidence to dispute his claim, but I think the genesis goes back even further, and perhaps Sayle was the first to elucidate the idea in a general business setting and gave the idea the name we're talking about today.

Sayle came around here for a while. He didn't last long. I'd say more but my opinion of him is he's full of himself.

[Marc]

In Reply to Parent Post by Helmut Jilling

Significant differences - the element approach stopped at the edge of the element, and said, "the rest is someone else's responsibility. I don't know anything about the rest." Like a little kid who was not allowed to go beyond the edge of the street. He never sees the rest of the neighborhood. The process approach looks at the whole system, the series of activities to the final result, and considers what role each process plays in that outcome. <snip>

My first audit experiences were in the 1980's in defense electronics in the US. Since I have never seen auditing done any other way (we used to call it "holistic"), and I have *never* seen an ISO 9001 audit done any other way, I simply can not see a bit of difference. I have seen 'segmented' internal audits where, unlike a registration audit where they come in and audit the whole system while they're there, but even in those audits where segments of the system were audited at different times, if done properly internal audits would cover and overlap every aspect of the system.

Let's take a simple department or a simple line audit: The auditor doesn't go into the audit and only examine, for example, document control. One audits any part of the standard that area is subject to. Typical is document control and control of records, along with the non-conformance aspects as they apply to a department or the line operation. I have never seen an audit where an auditor "stopped at the edge of the element". Maybe over 20 years of auditing and being audited isn't a long enough time to have seen an audit where the auditor "stopped at the edge of the element".

I contend that "process audit" is nothing more than slapping a new name on the old buggy.

[Marc]

As an aside, from back in the 1990's when I did internal auditing training I taught what are being called process audits. I even cautioned against compliance audits. This is part of the training from the 1990's. It says 'Rendered in 2005' because that's the last time I printed it out for viewing on the web.

Auditing

Over 15 years ago I was teaching process auditing.

[Marc]

In Reply to Parent Post by DrM2u

<snip> ...has the 'black box' (where needs are being addressed) and outputs (satisfied needs). Within the 'black box' are a series of inter-related processes that transform the inputs into outputs in a systematic way.

Here's your 'Black Box' from over 15 years ago.

[WCHorn]

In Reply to Parent Post by Doug Tropf

As would Yogi Berra. Marc I think you have brought some much needed clarity to the process vs element discussion. I do not believe there are any substantial differences between the two.

I disagree, based on Section 6, Process Management, Introduction, of Juran's Handbook (Fifth Ed.). Unless process management (the process approach, I believe) unifies subprocesses (elements/functions), they "become obsolete, overextended, redundant, excessively costly, ill-defined, and not adaptable to the demands of a constantly changing environment."

Further, "a business process is the logical organization of people, materials, energy, equipment, and information to produce a required end result." Process quality is measured through effectiveness, efficiency and adaptability. (my emphasis).

I may be my obtuse nature, but when I have a question about quality management, I go to Juran first. I usually get clear answers I can use.

[JaneB]

In Reply to Parent Post by Marc

My first audit experiences were in the 1980's in defense electronics in the US. Since I have never seen auditing done any other way (we used to call it "holistic"), and I have *never* seen an ISO 9001 audit done any other way, I simply can not see a bit of difference.

I wish I could the same Marc, as far as never having seen ISO 9001 audits done 'any other way'. I too came from a process angle, long before it was in the Standard.

I've seen many external auditors at work. And oh yes, unfortunately I have on a few occasions, fortunately rare, seen auditors do clause-by-individual-clause compliance-type audits. I was gobsmacked the first time I saw it. It does occur, although only very rarely now in my experience (but I also take care to avoid such dinosauruses setting foot anywhere near clients).

Many companies (and auditors) do 'get' the process approach and do it - to them, it's just common business sense. They may or may not understand the term, but they do it. (For example, if an auditor asked them 'do you use a process approach?' they may not understand the question. But they certainly get it and do it.

[Marc]

In Reply to Parent Post by WCHorn

I disagree, based on Section 6, Process Management, Introduction, of Juran's Handbook (Fifth Ed.). Unless process management (the process approach, I believe) unifies subprocesses (elements/functions), they "become obsolete, overextended, redundant, excessively costly, ill-defined, and not adaptable to the demands of a constantly changing environment."

Further, "a business process is the logical organization of people, materials, energy, equipment, and information to produce a required end result." Process quality is measured through effectiveness, efficiency and adaptability. (my emphasis).

I may be my obtuse nature, but when I have a question about quality management, I go to Juran first. I usually get clear answers I can use.

I don't think you're disagreeing. Juran isn't saying anything I haven't. You highlight adaptability which is what every company must do. That is the point of why, in my auditing course, I heavily stressed they should be process audits. All Juran is adding is the company should *learn* from the audits and change their systems when appropriate. In short, nothing is static.

I say this because I very much enjoyed implementations because the companies *learned* (in *most* cases) where they had inefficient or other process issues. We looked at every process. We looked at *every* document and form:

Sweeps - The Discovery Phase
Document Mapping

This is the same information that should come out of internal audits and be an input into management review.

Internal audits should include things like 5 Whys - Not necessarily formally, but the auditor should be looking for things that could be improved, things that are outdated, etc. Questions should be asked not just about the specific process, but how the process integrates with other systems and whether it is important to the company or not. Some degree of questioning with the intent of assessing the need for changes (aka improvements). Over time, companies do change. Some processes come and go. Most processes change, some more frequently than other. The bottom line is internal audits, and other audits for that matter, only make sense if they are used in a holistic manner and used for improvement.

As I stressed in my auditing course, internal audits should have nothing to do with compliance to a standard. Auditing should be about processes, not simply compliance to a standard.