Business process map - Please Review my Process Map and Turtle Diagram

[Paul Simpson]

Replies always welcome

Cripes, when I asked for feedback I didn't expect both barrels.

Paul

Dare I ask... what do you see as the benefit of this sort of diagram? Why do you think that people produce them? Is it so that (i) employees can learn something about the organisation they didn't know before, (ii) it will help staff do their job better, or (iii) they can meet some (unexplained) requirement in ISO9001:2000?

Two benefits

1. It can help the top management understand ISO 9001 is about business processes - not just document control
2. It identifies the processes that run across the business - not departmental procedures - helps to change the perspective

It also satisfies a couple of 9k2k elements (4.1.1 & 4.2.2 c) - generally a good thing if you want that elusive certificate!

How many such pictures have you seen which add value to an organisation?

Depends how you quantify value add. Generally the thinking that happens way before adds the value - the "picture" just provides evidence of the outcome.

Just picking up a few points from your example (but similar comments could equally be applied to the vast majority of such maps - by the way, is it better to describe them as "system maps" rather than as "process maps", which as you know I think of as a flowchart of a process?)

I have heard them called a wide range of things - I really don't mind what they are called.

1 "Monitoring & Measuring" is often done as an intrinsic part of another process rather than as a separate process. Even if it is a separate process, it will (or should) affect the process(es) being monitored (otherwise why do it?) - so there should be an arrow going up as well.

My loop is a bit wider (for simplicity) to show that it goes through a management review and then may lead to the need for resources before it comes back to the core process - but I take your point, there has to be appropriate feedback to the process.

2 In the same way, "Research and Development" and "Planning and Logistics" may well have an impact on the "Provision of Resources", so there is another arrow or two needed.

Again the same logic applies - the Business Planning process should preplan these activities and any monitoring and measuring of Research and Development and Planning and Logistics would be part of a feedback loop

3 "Provision of Resources" may impact on "Monitoring & Measuring", so another arrow is needed.

The aim was that the Business Planning activity is a separate (managerial) process and would identify the need for all resources. I take the point - on Revision 2 I will have another box!

4 "Fulfilling repeat orders" may affect "Enquiry and Order receipt" if the production line can't cope and you have to quote longer delivery times...

Again monitoring and measuring will tell you this and feedback to the other processes

My concern is that at the one extreme the system map will have the sort of missing links I mention above, and at the other you will need an n-dimensional picture which is so complex that it would be unusable. I personally don't see any benefit in either, other than just to satisfy an external assessor, which cannot be a good reason for doing it.

Not sure I can agree the links are missing - as with all process interrelationships they have to be explained by the person who developed them (as we can see in this thread!). I understand about complexity - hence all my interrelationship diagrams start off simple and stay that way - constructive feedback notwithstanding.

In any organisation, "process interaction" is far more involved than this sort of picture can show in any sort of accurate and usable format, and the "sequence of processes" as it is usually depicted makes no reference to the fact that many instances of each process may be happening at the same time. If everything was linear, you probably wouldn't need managers, and certainly not managers who understand what is required for good process management.

Not sure I understand the argument here. Yes, all the processes are operating at the same time but - for one customer and one order - they are happening in a logical sequence. There is an argument you don't need managers on processes that are running effectively - hence the earlier efforts to delayer and process re-engineer. Whether you consider either to be a success I will leave to the individual!

An alternative approach? Our customers use a simple numbering system to define a small number of process groups ("2 Getting Work", "3 Doing Work" etc), and processes with each (eg "2-1 Respond to an Enquiry", "2-2 Prepare a Tender") which implies a logical sequence, and define the processes (using "process maps"!) which link to other processes from the relevant tasks. They only draw a picture if they have an unenlightend assessor.

Each to his / her own. Your system sounds pretty good to me - if only you weren't charging me so much to evaluate it I might be even more positive. But seriously whatever works, works. From an assessment point of view I would accept any style of addressing the standard element that the organization puts in front of me. .....Does that make me enlightened?

So ... grateful or not?!

Always grateful for your input, Peter.

 

[Peter Fraser]

Paul

Cripes, when I asked for feedback I didn't expect both barrels.

I admit to taking advantage of you since I knew that I could rely on a constructive and reasoned response(!)

Two benefits

1. It can help the top management understand ISO 9001 is about business processes - not just document control
2. It identifies the processes that run across the business - not departmental procedures - helps to change the perspective

1. 
   Oh dear - if that is needed for top mgt then they really need help! How do they manage?
   

It also satisfies a couple of 9k2k elements (4.1.1 & 4.2.2 c) - generally a good thing if you want that elusive certificate!

(4.1a/b?) That is my main point - I don't believe that many such pictures do anything of the kind - they merely regurgitate the "model" from the standard with a bit of twiddling added. Maybe it comes down to what folk believe is necessary for "process management" - I have always thought that drawing "maps" is only the first step of a long road.

Often, the most challenging aspect of management is to manage the concurrent operation of instances of a number of processes. Drawing a picture that says (eg) "we sell then we make then we deliver then we invoice" is so trivial that it is pointless. And folk put things like "Training" into a box which links into another box, which by implication means that Training doesn't impact on anything in any of their other "boxes". It doesn't give a true picture of how the processes act on each other, or on themselves ("interact").

I really wonder what the writers of the standard expected folk to do to satisfy the clauses. I would hope that it would be something along the lines "show that you plan and understand how your business operates, that you understand how any one process impacts on other processes and how other processes affect how it operates".

(I wish that I hadn't used "aspect" - that is a word which is going to cause even more confusion unless the draft of PAS99 is amended - but that is another subject altogether!)

Depends how you quantify value add. Generally the thinking that happens way before adds the value - the "picture" just provides evidence of the outcome.

So the "value" lies in helping to get the "badge"(?) - I was hoping that it would be of real value to staff and to the operation of the business.

I have heard them called a wide range of things - I really don't mind what they are called.

Same here - but I do get confused at times when someone uses the term in one way and I think that they mean the other. My argument is shot down anyway when you think about a "road map" - it is a "town map" with roads on it... English!

Not sure I can agree the links are missing - as with all process interrelationships they have to be explained by the person who developed them (as we can see in this thread!). I understand about complexity - hence all my interrelationship diagrams start off simple and stay that way - constructive feedback notwithstanding.

But you can't have a written description that needs someone standing there to explain what is missing?! I agree about the benefits of simplicity - but I doubt if it is possible to draw a useful picture that is both accurate and comprehensive.

Not sure I understand the argument here. Yes, all the processes are operating at the same time but - for one customer and one order - they are happening in a logical sequence.

... which is so obvious in most cases that no-one needs a picture to explain it???

Each to his / her own. Your system sounds pretty good to me - if only you weren't charging me so much to evaluate it I might be even more positive. But seriously whatever works, works. From an assessment point of view I would accept any style of addressing the standard element that the organization puts in front of me. .....Does that make me enlightened?

Dear Enlightened,
Free evaluation available - I'll even draw you a process map of how the evaluation and implementation process works...

Always grateful for your input, Peter.

And I for your reasoned responses!

 

[Paul Simpson]

Cross border co-operation

Without wanting to take over the thread with a mutual admiration society ...

Oh dear - if that is needed for top mgt then they really need help! How do they manage?

The problem is not necessarily one of top management, I find that the people holding these positions tend to have them through merit (not always but that is another thread) the problem is one of perception of ISO as a documentation standard when it isn't - it is about business processes and satisfying customers. The focus on business processes helps change that perception - or at least I think so!

(4.1a/b?) That is my main point - I don't believe that many such pictures do anything of the kind - they merely regurgitate the "model" from the standard with a bit of twiddling added. Maybe it comes down to what folk believe is necessary for "process management" - I have always thought that drawing "maps" is only the first step of a long road.

I have tried, with a simple model (hey, it was only 20 minutes), to identify how the interrelationship of core processes might be defined at the high level - obviously failed!:truce:

Often, the most challenging aspect of management is to manage the concurrent operation of instances of a number of processes. Drawing a picture that says (eg) "we sell then we make then we deliver then we invoice" is so trivial that it is pointless.

Again it is a simple model - sorry, I don't have a more complex one I can put up. We do disagree, then, about the challenging aspect. IMHO the most challenging aspect is for management not to over complicate simple processes and to merely sit back and allow the processes to run themselves and, only when the process measures tell them the process isn't working well, to intervene to bring things back on course.

And folk put things like "Training" into a box which links into another box, which by implication means that Training doesn't impact on anything in any of their other "boxes". It doesn't give a true picture of how the processes act on each other, or on themselves ("interact").

We agree again. I deliberately keep things like training, IT, accounts out of process interrelationships as they only exist to support the core processes and can broadly be covered under the management "Provision of resources" banner or "Business Planning" process.

I really wonder what the writers of the standard expected folk to do to satisfy the clauses. I would hope that it would be something along the lines "show that you plan and understand how your business operates, that you understand how any one process impacts on other processes and how other processes affect how it operates".

I think that is what they have tried to do with the 4.1.1 elements a - f. Or, to quote the great philosopher, Terry Wogan, "Is it me?"

So the "value" lies in helping to get the "badge"(?) - I was hoping that it would be of real value to staff and to the operation of the business.

Now I hope you are playing devil's advocate on this one. I originally said:

Depends how you quantify value add. Generally the thinking that happens way before adds the value - the "picture" just provides evidence of the outcome.

That says the value is in the organization sitting down and identifying its processes, sequence etc., measures, criteria (4.1.1 a - f again)

But you can't have a written description that needs someone standing there to explain what is missing?! I agree about the benefits of simplicity - but I doubt if it is possible to draw a useful picture that is both accurate and comprehensive.

Not necessarily standing there. It can be covered in text or more pictures (as we are doing now). As you said organizations are complex things and any description of the organization is going to be a bit simplistic.

... which is so obvious in most cases that no-one needs a picture to explain it???

Again. The process map is a representation of all the hard work (4.1.1 a - f again) that has gone into an organization understanding what it does, how it works and what is important to its continuing success. If this was all so easy then how come people are still struggling with it 6 years after the new standard was launched and ? years after people started talking about managing processes rather than departments.

Dear Enlightened,
Free evaluation available - I'll even draw you a process map of how the evaluation and implementation process works...

Love to see it - can you post it here?

 

[Helmut Jilling]

...the problem is one of perception of ISO as a documentation standard when it isn't - it is about business processes and satisfying customers. The focus on business processes helps change that perception - or at least I think so!

Very well put. I agree completely.

PS: to a previous post, the point is not just drawing trivial pictures, and "getting a badge"...


The key is management defining and understanding the important criteria in each process, and defining how you will measure and monitor the unique performance of those aspects of each process. Studying the results of that focused measuring is what leads to the improvement in the PDCA cycle.

 

[JJ H20]

Interrelationship diagrams (ID's) are more complex than a simple flow diagram. ID's show input/outputs, bottlenecks, dependant and independant functions. They help us see the "real" system and grasp the complexities.

 

[Anthonyl]

Sorry but I had difficulty following it. However, if it's clear to you and others that work with you then surely that's all that matters. An auditor just has to see the sign posts (and they appeared to be there), so to speak and takes a snapshot view to check that we do what we say we do and not something different. As long as we cover all the bases of the standard, how we define them is up to the individual company.
I sometimes think we get lost in our own ego and I used to worry that people would dislike the format of my work. However, as long as my customers (both internal and external) understand the maps, processes and instructions etc etc. they will get what they asked for. Which is all that is required by TS2 quality system and that to me, is all that the standard requires me to do anyway. I.e. supplying all customer needs and expectations with what they requested and on time.
Plus we together get customer satisfaction and repeat orders(hopefully). By that I mean that I feel that I am the customers' customer. After all, we go shopping for business instead of products don't we?

 

[JJ H20]

Anthony,

Interrelationship Diagrams (ID) are usually larger than 8.5 x 11 inch paper. We print ours on the engineering plotter. The ID is part of the 7 Management & Planning Tools. Its function is to identify relationships, bottlenecks, core processes; those that have lots of inputs and generate critical outputs. As such, it is the intent of the ISO/TS 16949 standard, though not many have made the jump. There are a few knowledgeable organizations that provide great background information as applied to ISO.

The process approach in the new standard is what we have discussed since Deming introduced the "system" concept back in the early 1980's. Though "graphic language" tools such as ID's have been around for a long time, they are finally entering the mainstream for those who choose to use them.

Joe

 

[Anthonyl]

Joe,
Thanks for that. As I said it only has to work for you and yours (and the auditor). I just tend to break my diagrams down by use of hyperlinks but I guess it has the same result and that is all that matters.

 

[Howard Atkins]

Interrelationship diagrams (ID's) are more complex than a simple flow diagram. ID's show input/outputs, bottlenecks, dependant and independant functions. They help us see the "real" system and grasp the complexities.

Please can you save it in another format as for some reason I cannot download the Smart Draw viewer.
I get a security alert!!!

 

[Anthonyl]

I Hope that the pdf's attached will give you an idea of the way we have set our manual and system up. Each of the attachments plus a further three others are hyperlinked along with the work instructions and forms. All linked to one aspect on the Quality Manual that was posted earlier. (Sorry could only link five to this)

Two hours ago I received our first TS2 certificate from the BSI, our auditing body, so it either works for them or we baffled them. One or the other. I like to think it works and our guage for that is the level of understanding, approval and commitment from the guys on the shop floor, my own immediate customers.