The Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
Responsibilities in a Process Flowchart
UL - Underwriters Laboratories - Health Sciences
Responsibilities in a Process Flowchart
Responsibilities in a Process Flowchart
Responsibilities in a Process Flowchart
Responsibilities in a Process Flowchart
Responsibilities in a Process Flowchart
Responsibilities in a Process Flowchart
Responsibilities in a Process Flowchart
Responsibilities in a Process Flowchart
Responsibilities in a Process Flowchart
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > >
Forum Username

Elsmar Cove Forum Visitor Notice(s)

Wooden Line

Responsibilities in a Process Flowchart

Elsmar XML RSS Feed
Elsmar Cove Forum RSS Feed

Monitor the Elsmar Forum
Sponsor Links

Courtesy Quick Links

Links Elsmar Cove visitors will find useful in the quest for knowledge and support:

Jennifer Kirley's
Conway Business Services

International Quality Services

Marcelo Antunes'
SQR Consulting, and
Medical Devices Expert Forum

Bob Doering
Bob Doering's Blogs and,
Correct SPC - Precision Machining

Ajit Basrur
Claritas Consulting, LLC

International Standards Bodies - World Wide Standards Bodies

ASQ - American Society for Quality

International Organization for Standardization - ISO Standards and Information

NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook

IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors

SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers

Quality Digest

IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology

Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 4.50 average. Display Modes
  Post Number #1  
Old 26th April 2002, 03:46 PM

Total Posts: n/a
Question Responsibilities in a Process Flowchart

How important is it to show responsibilities (who) for functions on a process flow chart? Is it? If it is, how do you address this? Would the flow charts have to be tiered in such a way as to show who is responsible for a particular function?

Sponsored Links
  Post Number #2  
Old 26th April 2002, 04:03 PM
Michael T's Avatar
Michael T

Total Posts: 323

Hey Energy...

I think responsibility is important, in a general way.

We address this by having an Approval Chart that shows the individuals who are "approved" (through training & supervisor verification) to the procedure. Anyone who is "approved" to the procedure is ultimately responsible for the function. Individual responsibility (by job title) is not listed on the flowchart except in those instances where the procedure is specific to an individual's job description... For example: a Failure Analysis procedure - the only person authorized to conduct the FA is the FA Manager who has been specially trained in metallurgy, etc.

Hope this helps.

Have a great weekend... hope the fishies are bitin'
Sponsored Links

  Post Number #3  
Old 27th April 2002, 08:41 AM

Total Posts: n/a
Hehehe... Curious

Michael T.,

The text procedures always had a place for responsibilities and duties. I can envision showing an Auditor my beautiful flow chart and he/she asking, "Who does that?" or "Nice, but where does it show who are the key players?" Maybe it's just me, but I would ask it. "Is this done by your people or an outside source?" "How do I know who to question on this procedure?"
I understand how you have done it, but isn't there an easier way? Because we are talking about the new version of the standard, with the emphasis on process flows, the reference flow charts that I have been looking at, are devoid of responsibilities. I believe it's because they were mainly used as attachments, or overviews, of a text procedure where responsibilities were identified. Any other ideas out there from this talented group? Well, some of you are. Now you know I jus maka da funny joke, yes?
  Post Number #4  
Old 27th April 2002, 12:33 PM

Total Posts: n/a
Red Face Confusing

The "problem" came up when I was looking at Engineering's version of what used to be called Contract Review. The Engineering Manager crafted his flow chart in Visio with three sections identified. Vision a flowchart with two horizontal lines that divided the chart into three sections. In the left margin were the three groups responsible for the activities. All processes were connected with these demarcation lines running through them. All the other charts we have, (mine) are not designed that way. I want to remove the lines and make them uniform. Actually, I already did. The VP Engineering said ISO requires responsibilities, he thought. So, I started thinking. That's why I posted.

Jim, you say we only need 6 procedures. I've heard that before, I just don't believe it enough to fight an Auditor with your post or any others advocating this. I'm not a brilliant guy and wouldn't know where to begin. So, we will have flowcharts/procedures where we think they are needed. The driver is "could we do this process without having somebody remember what it is". Like, a new person coming in and being asked to perform it. Would it be helpful having it documented? Monday, we'll have some more input and see where it goes. Thanks.

  Post Number #5  
Old 27th April 2002, 02:54 PM
Kevin Mader's Avatar
Kevin Mader

Total Posts: 1,223

I am familiar with the Visio template that uses the sectioned areas to illustrate what function does what. To be honest, I found trying to use this template to difficult and created a muddled composition when trying to illustrate complex processes.

I personally believe that it is important to indicate responsibility if the flowchart is a stand-alone item. Jim raises an interesting point in regards the supplementary use of flowcharts in place of traditional practices. I believe that the use of flowcharts exclusively is probably not appropriate. I have used them mostly to illustrate the procedure's flow and to minimize the verbiage in the procedure.

  Post Number #6  
Old 27th April 2002, 03:33 PM
M Greenaway's Avatar
M Greenaway

Total Posts: 1,657
In a book I picked up a while ago called 'Process Management for Quality Improvement', which pre-dated ISO9001:2000 by some years, it spoke of process mapping (as opposed to flowcharting) where the process 'box' was split. In the top half was the process descrption and in the bottom half was named the responsibility.

Easy peasy.
  Post Number #7  
Old 27th April 2002, 07:32 PM

Total Posts: n/a
Re: Re: Confusing

Jim Wade said:

I said "In the six cases where we are required to have a documented procedure, or where we choose to have one ... ".

I'm not shouting....

And where we choose not to have procedures, responsibilities still need to be defined and we can do that any way that suits us.

rgds Jim
YO SCREAMER Okay, Let's suppose I decide to not have a procedure for Purchasing or Customer Supplied Product or any number of sections of the standard, that are not mandatory. What would an Auditor ask to verify if any of these sections have been addressed? Assume that I don't have a written anything for the two areas I mention above. Ask me. Martin, you too. Maybe I can get a feel for what I really need.

Kevin, you are absolutely correct on the muddled thing with the Visio template. That's why I do not want to do mine over. I really liked his chart, but I'm jammed for space as it is, and more important, I'm lazy. Maybe if had started from scratch, but they're done.

Last edited by energy; 27th April 2002 at 07:44 PM.
  Post Number #8  
Old 27th April 2002, 09:16 PM
Marc's Avatar

Total Posts: 25,950
Yin Yang

Jim Wade said:

And simply flowcharting a procedure does not give you a process description!
A 'simple' flow charting procedure may not be sufficient for a process description, however I have seen and done flow charts which are quite sufficient. I have even seen flow charts with appendixes in which details were laid out. I have also seen flow charted process where they did this in a face page.

You really have to ask how complex the process is which you want to flow chart and apply an appropriate covering methodology and format.

As far as responsibilities, I recommend every step be in a text block beside the step or in the step shape its self.

Don't over complicate it and don't under estimate what you can do with a flow chart. I have been a process mapping and flow charting fan for years. In fact, I address process mapping and give a methodology in my Implementing ISO file. One might say a process map is nothing more than a glorified flow chart but now we're into semantics related to total content, general intent and to some degree format. Basically both are linear representations of what occurs.

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > >


Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors (Members) and 1 Unregistered Guest Visitors)
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Forum Search
Display Modes Rate Thread Content
Rate Thread Content:

Forum Posting Settings
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Emoticons are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Discussion Threads
Discussion Thread Title Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post or Poll Vote
Flowchart for Health Canada Complaint Process katied Canada Medical Device Regulations 2 16th August 2011 12:18 PM
Drawing a Process Flowchart DAWELAH Process Maps, Process Mapping and Turtle Diagrams 3 12th August 2011 03:55 PM
Process Flowchart - Can the Flowchart of one Process have two END (Stop) Points D.Salman Process Maps, Process Mapping and Turtle Diagrams 5 13th October 2009 04:22 PM
Returns Process Flowchart Advice Crusader Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 2 16th February 2006 07:10 PM
The Process Approach: Is a process more than a procedure with a flowchart? Paul Simpson ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 56 13th June 2003 02:11 AM

The time now is 05:51 AM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.


NOTE: This forum uses "Cookies"