Do you have a Turtle Diagram for each Core Process? Turtle Diagram Question

[ascorch]

We have been working with our Consultant on turtle diagrams this passed week. I see the value in them and they seem to be an important audit tool. My question is, how many are you guys coming up with? Do you have a diagram for each core process, or just a small subset of them? I'm just not sure what the CB's will be looking for when they come for an audit.

 

[Hodgepodge]

Re: Turtle Diagram Question

You don't need any. It is a tool you can use to help your company identify the inputs and outputs of processes. You can justify the presence of such tools if they are helpful in your audit process. They can certainly be helpful when training internal auditors, but there isn't a requirement for them.

 

[db]

Re: Turtle Diagram Question

First of all, welcome to the Cove!

Turtle diagrams are not required at all, but they are a great tool for understanding processes. When I work with a company, we do a process analysis of every process, core and support. We use a modified turtle to accomplish this. There are other ways to analyze your processes, but most would agree that the turtle is best. Don't develop turtles for the registrar. Develop turtles so you fully understand your processes and how they interact.

 

[ascorch]

Re: Turtle Diagram Question

We attempted to go to Rev. C during out previous certification audit and eventually aborted and went back to Rev. B certification. The main issue was due to these turtle diagrams. The auditor we had was hung up on the fact that we did not have any in place and was not interested in our procedures which clearly outline our processes. The auditor was intent on seeing these diagrams.

 

[AndyN]

Re: Turtle Diagram Question

We attempted to go to Rev. C during out previous certification audit and eventually aborted and went back to Rev. B certification. The main issue was due to these turtle diagrams. The auditor we had was hung up on the fact that we did not have any in place and was not interested in our procedures which clearly outline our processes. The auditor was intent on seeing these diagrams.

It seems to be a trend that auditors (who don't know how to audit a process before) now they've seen them, think this is the ONLY way to do things, and as such, have been inventing reasons to have a client do them!

Here's a perfectly good alternative: Internal Audits – Auditing a Process Based QMS By Andy Nichols, NQA Regional Sales Manager

 

[dsanabria]

We have been working with our Consultant on turtle diagrams this passed week. I see the value in them and they seem to be an important audit tool. My question is, how many are you guys coming up with? Do you have a diagram for each core process, or just a small subset of them? I'm just not sure what the CB's will be looking for when they come for an audit.

See attachment

 

[Peter Fraser]

Re: Turtle Diagram Question

It seems to be a trend that auditors (who don't know how to audit a process before) now they've seen them, think this is the ONLY way to do things, and as such, have been inventing reasons to have a client do them!

Here's a perfectly good alternative: Internal Audits – Auditing a Process Based QMS By Andy Nichols, NQA Regional Sales Manager

Andy

Do you not think that both the turtle approach and the diagram in your article risk giving a reader a simplified (and often false) idea that the inputs all go in at the start, and the outputs (and other outcomes) all come out at the end of a process?

In practice, some inputs may go in almost at the end of a process and, in the same way, some outputs may appear very shortly after the process gets under way.

And it is interesting that you say that "Most business processes have some form of goal or objective..." - I would hope that they all do, otherwise people are wasting their time following them... But it is interesting (and worrying?) that the ISO definition doesn't mention the idea of an objective at all!

 

[AndyN]

Re: Turtle Diagram Question

Andy

Do you not think that both the turtle approach and the diagram in your article risk giving a reader a simplified (and often false) idea that the inputs all go in at the start, and the outputs (and other outcomes) all come out at the end of a process?

In practice, some inputs may go in almost at the end of a process and, in the same way, some outputs may appear very shortly after the process gets under way.

And it is interesting that you say that "Most business processes have some form of goal or objective..." - I would hope that they all do, otherwise people are wasting their time following them... But it is interesting (and worrying?) that the ISO definition doesn't mention the idea of an objective at all!

Possibly, Peter, but since no tool is correct for all tasks, it's a lot easier to find one which works for most cases, than worrying about all the possibilities for all situations and end up with nothing...

I have tried turtles - and not found them too helpful - and have spent 15 years teaching auditors using something akin to the football. Apparently, it works! It's worked for me as an auditor and it worked for others, too. Mine takes care of the interaction of other processes, which I don't believe the turtle does, it just 'lumps them into a bucket', not giving consideration to when they might influence the process.

Give me some examples of inputs which come later in the process? What's your solution to that? It might be just the way you're looking at the diagram...

 

[michellemmm]

Re: Turtle Diagram Question

I have tried turtles - and not found them too helpful - and have spent 15 years teaching auditors using something akin to the football. Apparently, it works! It's worked for me as an auditor and it worked for others, too. Mine takes care of the interaction of other processes, which I don't believe the turtle does, it just 'lumps them into a bucket', not giving consideration to when they might influence the process.

Andy,

Excellent article.

What is the difference between a "Turtle Chart" and a "Fish-bone"?

If you recall, fish-bone used to be called 4M. Fish-bone became 6M, 8M... and then some mixed it with 5 Why....

Your "football" follows the same path of evolution and growth of turtle.

A turtle was initially designed for small scope processes by Phillip Crosby. A Product Realization turtle is useless, but processing customer complaint turtle is more useful. The smaller the scope of a process that needs to be defined, the more value you get out of turtle. Similarly, a fish-bone for "soldering defects" is useless. But, a fish-bone for "solder ball" for a particular material, product and/or process setting is very useful.

 

[qusys]

We have been working with our Consultant on turtle diagrams this passed week. I see the value in them and they seem to be an important audit tool. My question is, how many are you guys coming up with? Do you have a diagram for each core process, or just a small subset of them? I'm just not sure what the CB's will be looking for when they come for an audit.

They can help but they are not a requirements.
We have used SIPOC diagram to map out processes , including level 1, in order to improve our process and identify disconnects.

Turle diagram are useful to explain to the auditor how your processes work, but it is no clear the trigger point as well as concluding event . Besides , input and output are not identified in terms of suppliers ( who immediately before give an input to the mapped process) as well as customers ( who is fed and whit what clear output).