Systems Approach or Process Approach? Micro level of managing

[systems_thinker]

Nice to see another Goldratt / TOC fan joining in these discussions

I agree with most of your points in this thread - I just don't believe that the ISO standard is the issue but rather the implementation approach taken by many organizations. For me, ISO has been the leverage point (it is a customer requirement) I have used to get more and more of our management team educated on the systems approach and TOC concepts.

Goldratt, through TOC, offers a very powerful paradigm for managing systemically and TOC is a methodology I use in certain projects. I find TOC closely aligned with Lean thinking and practice. The measures and the tools may differ, but the underlying philosophies are closely aligned and both offer holistic approaches to management and improvement.

I would agree that the implementation approach to ISO may be an issue, if by implementation approach you mean how one interprets the standard and implements its requirements in order to satisfy registrars and gain certification. The evidence I have seen indicates that third-party auditors are not particularly well trained or experienced in a systems approach to management and difficulties can arise according to how they interpret the process approach.

Cheers,

systems_thinker

 

[Kevin Mader]

Hello All,

Great discussion folks!! Right up my alley as you all probably know (except you, systems thinker. Welcome aboard!!)

Wallace: don’t bother looking for your 4 Days with Dr. Deming as you probably recall you traded it for Profit Beyond Measure. I’m tickled to see you referencing the book!!

Systems thinker presents a very good point for discussion. There is an important distinction between viewing processes vs. viewing a system. Simply stated: a system is not the sum of it parts, it is the product of them. Peter Senge uses an example in the beginning of his book, The Fifth Discipline by using a broken mirror to dispel with the notion of breaking things down into little bits to deal with. When we do so, we lose sight of the whole (we see fragments of images in a broken mirror), thus opening ourselves up to a myriad of hidden issues and wrong decisions.

ISO has never seemed to get this right despite taking some steps toward Dr. Deming’s SoPK. ISO can have some value as a tool, but it is not a supplementary theory to management. Unfortunately though, I don’t think that the knell tolls. The reason for this is that systems thinkers are in the minority and the majority still view a QMS as a sum of its parts. This means more money and effort will be spent on suboptimization.

Regards,

 

[systems_thinker]

Hello All,

Great discussion folks!! Right up my alley as you all probably know (except you, systems thinker. Welcome aboard!!)

Wallace: don’t bother looking for your 4 Days with Dr. Deming as you probably recall you traded it for Profit Beyond Measure. I’m tickled to see you referencing the book!!

Systems thinker presents a very good point for discussion. There is an important distinction between viewing processes vs. viewing a system. Simply stated: a system is not the sum of it parts, it is the product of them. Peter Senge uses an example in the beginning of his book, The Fifth Discipline by using a broken mirror to dispel with the notion of breaking things down into little bits to deal with. When we do so, we lose sight of the whole (we see fragments of images in a broken mirror), thus opening ourselves up to a myriad of hidden issues and wrong decisions.

ISO has never seemed to get this right despite taking some steps toward Dr. Deming’s SoPK. ISO can have some value as a tool, but it is not a supplementary theory to management. Unfortunately though, I don’t think that the knell tolls. The reason for this is that systems thinkers are in the minority and the majority still view a QMS as a sum of its parts. This means more money and effort will be spent on suboptimization.

Regards,

Kevin, the reason I said the death knell tolls, and I realize I may be unduly pessimistic in saying it, is that at some point the goodwill has to wear out. This forum is testimony to the tremendous effort and commitment that is being made to improve and optimize through ISO. Will organizations continue indefinitely to sink this kind of investment and energy into, as you put it, "suboptimization". I don't think so.

At some point also, and it may have already begun, customers will begin questioning the value they are receiving from requiring suppliers to implement ISO. Already, we are seeing less mention of ISO on customer tenders and bids. Admittedly, certain industries may be more immune to this, i.e., the automotive industry.

The whole edifice rests on the fulcrum of value - value for the adopting supplier, value for the customer. Where lack of value is perceived and delivered, the interest will wane.

I realize that in this entire thread I have come across as manifestly anti-ISO. That was not my original intention in opening up this discussion. Is ISO all bad - no, provided it is used with discrimination and common sense, and applied for the right reasons in the right way. For example, ISO 9004:2000, Appendix A - Guidelines for self-assessment, offers an excellent first step towards improvement by allowing you to identify performance gaps in the current system. Admittedly, the scope is somewhat narrow, but the checklist at least allows you to identify areas of shortfall which could then be addressed by applying systems thinking, perhaps through the TOC thinking tools or Lean Value Stream Mapping, to identify what to change, what to change it to, and how to cause the change. I believe this approach would provide at least as much benefit, if not more, than the certification to ISO 9001:2000 requirements model pursued by most organizations.

Cheers,

systems_thinker

 

[Kevin Mader]

I'm happy that the trend is to move away from ISO as any kind of requirement to do business. I hope the trend gains momentum!

Yes, I believe that there are better tools than ISO to use, provided that they are in the toolbox to be used. Unfortunately, they are less widely promoted than ISO, which has been succesfully marketed. As the trend moves away from registering to ISO, hopefully folks will begin to recognize them and correctly apply them. As was stated earlier in this thread, tools in the wrong hands or wrongly applied can do great damage to a system.

Back to the group...

Kevin

 

[systems_thinker]

Systems thinker:

Hi, and what a thought provoking thread.

One point I would like to make about what I believe to be your main thesis. Using ISO 9001:2000 as a tool to help establish and maintain a quality system and systems thinking ARE NOT mutually exclusive - in fact one can help the other.

One of the main requirements of the new standards, often debated in these threads, is the overall process map. From here, if properly done, we can gain an overall picture of the system, and the larger subsystems.

I believe that, as you stated in one of your posts (the first?), your problem with ISO is in the execution by some companies. I agree, but that does not make the ISO 9001 approach necessarily bad...

Just MHO. With threads like this you are going to be a valuable member.

Craig

Added later: OK, I should have said that a process map is often used to satisfy the requirement for identifying the QMS processes, not that it is required per se. 3 whaps with the rolled up 9001.

Craig, not having done one, I'm not sure what an ISO process map shows or is supposed to show. The type of process mapping I have found useful is a Lean Value Stream Map where the flow of material and information through the production system is captured and mapped. A Lean Value Stream map begins with the customer, their specification of value, and proceeds to map the current state of the processes and the key process parameters (i.e., cycle time, uptime, changeover time, interval, etc.) in the value stream from raw materials to delivery. The purpose of value stream mapping is to highlight sources of non-value adding waste and eliminate them by implementing a future state that is optimized to support a chain of production based on continuous flow and/or pull so that customers get what they need when they need it.

Clearly, quality is a critical consideration when building the future state, since the presence of defects will destroy the material flow. Thus flow becomes the driving force for quality. Notice that in this model we do not consider quality in isolation from the production system - it is a necessary, but not sufficient, enabler of flow. Can we have flow without quality? No. Can we have quality without flow? Yes, and therein lies another reason why focusing on quality alone can lead to suboptimization of the total system.

Taking a value stream perspective means working on the big picture, not just individual processes, and then improving the whole and not just optimizing the parts.

Cheers,

systems_thinker

 

[David Hartman]

Thus flow becomes the driving force for quality. Notice that in this model we do not consider quality in isolation from the production system - it is a necessary, but not sufficient, enabler of flow. Can we have flow without quality? No. Can we have quality without flow? Yes, and therein lies another reason why focusing on quality alone can lead to suboptimization of the total system.

OK now that I see that you’re for real and are offering insight, and NOT just flaming ISO; I would like to apologize for my earlier tirade.

The above quote reminded me of an article I read a few years ago (well maybe it was more than a "few"). The article was about the implementation of JIT at Harley-Davidson and how THAT had been the main driver for many of the "improvements" in their products quality.

BTW: Welcome to the Cove.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Yes, I believe that there are better tools than ISO to use, provided that they are in the toolbox to be used. Unfortunately, they are less widely promoted than ISO, which has been succesfully marketed.

The ISO 9000 series is not an optimal tool. I think we all know that. It could be improved in all sorts of ways. Still, It has one priceless advantage over all alternatives I know of: Just like Kevin stated, it is widely spread and recognized as the international norm.

I would most certainly not like to revert back to the bad old days when every customer would fight windmills by demanding that their suppliers should use their particular standards or systems instead of todays internationally recognized standard. Does anyone by any chance remember the (rather useless) tons of documentation that resulted in? No? Well, today we don't have the manpower to produce it...

If I've learned one thing over the years it is this: A bent tool is usually very much better than no tools at all, just as long as you know it's bent and act accordingly. Ergo: Let's put what we have to the best possible use. Should we happen to get a new and better tool in our hands... Well, that's another story, right? We just need to be a bit creative, that's all.

Thus, with all its faults and shortcomings: Let's just do the best we can with it.

/Claes

 

[Sean Kelley]

Both!!

Great job of getting everyone to think and you have many excellent points.

In order to have a systems approach you must hace the process approach as well. They work together as one of the other post said the system approach is truly unmanageable if you work in a large company like I do. Over 1,000 employees in a fully integrated steel mill is very complex to maintain. You really must dig at local levels and truly know how they contribute to the system level. ISO92k did have one new and very useful tool for this that most companies have not realized how to address. Quality objectives - we have corporate level objectives and we have dept level objectives that must in some way influence a corporate level objective.

Example: On time delivery is a corporate level objective that can be directly or indirectly affected by dept level objectives. Individual production line downtimes can affect OTD. Productivity (ton/hr) can affect OTD.

ISO92k is certainly not perfect but if you fight it instead of using it you will certainly spend more time fighting than if you just embrace the essentials and adapt it to your needs.

One thing to highly consider is that ISO92k has a biggie called customer satisfaction that the 94 lacked. Our registrar will first come in and see how we are measuring customer satisfaction. if they see a negative trend then they begin to dig and identify problems. if they see a positive trend then that shows CI and keeping customers happy is what it is all about.

 

[systems_thinker]

OK now that I see that you’re for real and are offering insight, and NOT just flaming ISO; I would like to apologize for my earlier tirade.

The above quote reminded me of an article I read a few years ago (well maybe it was more than a "few"). The article was about the implementation of JIT at Harley-Davidson and how THAT had been the main driver for many of the "improvements" in their products quality.

BTW: Welcome to the Cove.

Think of it this way, David: as you squeeze variation closer to zero, your batch or lot size approaches one. i.e.,

V=0, LS=1

Thus the critical role of quality in enabling and supporting one-piece flow. That's why JIT environments MUST have defect-free production. Unfortunately, the equation doesn't hold in the reverse!

7.1.2 in ISO 9004:2000 stresses the need for the reduction of waste in production processes and one of the wastes we should address is overproduction, i.e., producing product when it is not needed by the customer. Overproduction leads to inventory, another waste. Flowing product in one-piece flow at the pull of the customer addresses these wastes, provided our system is configured to support that and the member processes have the inherent capability. Really, ISO 9004:2000 is a very powerful document - I just wish sometimes we could see a little more clearly its impact upon the total system beyond the narrow purview of quality. Thanks for the bigwave!

Cheers,

systems_thinker

 

[Craig H.]

Systems Thinker:

I have done a google search on Lean Value Stream Map and found lots of sites that want to sell me training and software, but none showing me an actual map. Maybe I'd steal it for my process?!?

Anyway, if you could provide a link or an example here, I would like to take a look.

Craig

Craig, this was the test I was talking about. When we went through Lean Mfg, they were your standard, simple flow charts. Energy.