Are my Procedures Process Maps?

[Travis1]

This is my first time out the gate on this forum and but I have read a lot of useful information on here so far so I certainly appreciate the contributors. Thank you.

Now to the issue. I recently took over managing/maintaining the quality management system and during my first recert audit I was dinged for "The process for defining the processes and related measurables of the quality management system is not completely effective. - The overall process map is not complete/clear. Process interactions are not clear. (Process maps not been developed for core processes.)" - The Requirement cited in this situation is 4.1 of ISO/TS 16949:2009.

I satisfied the auditor by generating list of our core processes with a list below each of the supporting processes. Also, I added an annual review item to our management review checklist "prompt the review of current process maps and the associated interaction and sequences to determine adequacy and/or need for update."

I read somewhere on here that procedures are process maps. So, first is that true?

Second, our procedures are written and also have flow charts following the written portion. They also identify people with responsibilities in the procedure. They do not name a process owner and they do not define measurables. Are they sufficient the way they stand or do I have lots of work to do before my next audit?

Thank you in advance.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Welcome to the Cove.

First, there is no requirement in the standard for process maps, per se. When the auditor says "The overall process map is not complete/clear. Process interactions are not clear." It leads me to think that you have some sort of top-level diagram that was found difficult to decipher, and that descriptions of process interactions weren't clear. 4.1(b) requires that the processes of the QMS and their interactions be determined, and 4.2.2(c) requires "a description of the interaction between the processes of the quality management system" to be in the quality manual.

 

[AndyN]

Hi Travis - welcome to a fellow Michigander! Thanks for the comments - glad you felt it was time to post.

Well, the first bit is a "sticky" one - how did the auditor determine what you had isn't effective? You had the same thing before for your audits? They had no raised it previously? It's one thing to state it's in effective or lacks something, but what evidence did they cite?

Secondly, it's not always that a procedure is a process, but you can have a procedure as a way of performing a process. I'd always go for a simple map and add details to that, before I launched off into huge texts about how to do it.

All (core) processes should have objectives/goals and some appropriate measurable(s) attached to them. I wouldn't advocate that for everything, however. Not much sense in measurement for its own sake.

 

[Golfman25]

Travis, the way TS is going these days you need to make it "idiot" proof. I think the pressure is on the registrars to "ding" a lot more TS companies and thus auditors, imo, are getting lazy. So you have to lay it out and spoon feed it to them. And it has to be in the format they are used to seeing (I had an auditor ask me why we did it "differently" than everyone else).

So technically what you have may be perfectly fine for your organization, but in today's environment you may want to make it crystal clear. Good luck.

 

[Travis1]

Jim-Thank you and you are correct. It was our overall process map that he didn't like. So, I think I might be set then. I listed our core processes in sequential order and listed the supporting processes for each. Some of the supporting processes were other core processes and supporting processes were shared amongst multiple core processes so all together would make interaction clear...I hope. Now for that 4.2.2.c...need to get it in the manual.

Andy-I trust you are enjoying our break from the relentless cold .
He felt it wasn't clear how they interacted and he couldn't see were measurement took place. It was listed but not in the map "loop". My predecessor had been warned about it and kept promising he was working on it but it didn't happen and so now its my baby and I am trying to muddle my through this in rookie status.

So, during internal audits I don't have to have specific measurable and objectives for each process. As long as my auditees know what the and objectives are for the core process they are apart of, is good?

Golfman - I agree. I feel our system is well defined, our audits both internal and third party indicate everyone knows what they are doing and how it is done, we have low internal scrap, low PPM and we have excellent customer satisfaction. I say the evidence states clearly that what we have is working well.

That being said there is the standard and continual improvement I wouldn't bad mouth our auditors either, this is probably more of me learning the ropes and taking in some of what was let slide so I won't complain...yet .

 

[AndyN]

Yes, Travis, it's good to see the brown grass again!

If an auditor expresses their "feelings" that's not much use for anyone to go on. Maybe he had 1 too many Tim Hortons for breakfast?

Did he check to see what was actually going on? Was their confusion over what was to be measured? Were there conflicting process objectives (I found that during an audit) - just looking at the diagram and saying it needs work, doesn't sound much of a "finding" to me.

 

[John Broomfield]

Travis,

Your auditor thinks he is an editor. He did not do his job of gathering and examining evidence of conformity (which includes effectiveness).

Instead he expressed his feelings including his feeling that your management system documentation should be made such that it is "clear" to him as an esteemed auditor.

He then asked you to accept his concerns as findings. That word "clear" or "unclear" means that your auditor does not have evidence of a nonconformity. I would not have accepted such language in an Audit Report.

Just make sure that your processes have objectives that are understood by the process team members and that they are clear on what happens when their process interacts with another; usually to receive input or to deliver output.

Representing the documented part of a management system developed by your predecessor can be difficult and the auditor may have picked up on even a glimmer of your uncertainty.

Between now and your auditor's next visit (should you choose to accept him) please make sure you are ready to show how your management system helps the employees to determine and meet requirements effectively. Your confidence should stop further nonsense from your auditor.

Best wishes,

John

 

[Jim Wynne]

Travis,

Your auditor thinks he is an editor. He did not do his job of gathering and examining evidence of conformity (which includes effectiveness).

Instead he expressed his feelings including his feeling that your management system documentation should be made such that it is "clear" to him as an esteemed auditor.

He then asked you to accept his concerns as findings. That word "clear" or "unclear" means that your auditor does not have evidence of a nonconformity. I would not have accepted such language in an Audit Report.

Just make sure that your processes have objectives that are understood by the process team members and that they are clear on what happens when their process interacts with another; usually to receive input or to deliver output.

Representing the documented part of a management system developed by your predecessor can be difficult and the auditor may have picked up on even a glimmer of your uncertainty.

Between now and your auditor's next visit (should you choose to accept him) please make sure you are ready to show how your management system helps the employees to determine and meet requirements effectively. Your confidence should stop further nonsense from your auditor.

Best wishes,

John

I think you're assuming facts not in evidence. If the auditor found the OP's process map indecipherable (and many that I've seen are) and the interactions of the processes aren't clear, I think using the "reasonable person" theory is OK. If, in the auditor's judgment, a reasonable and knowledgeable person would have trouble interpreting the process map, satisfaction of the requirements of 4.1 should be deemed ineffective.

 

[John Broomfield]

I think you're assuming facts not in evidence. If the auditor found the OP's process map indecipherable (and many that I've seen are) and the interactions of the processes aren't clear, I think using the "reasonable person" theory is OK. If, in the auditor's judgment, a reasonable and knowledgeable person would have trouble interpreting the process map, satisfaction of the requirements of 4.1 should be deemed ineffective.

Jim,

Then the auditor should have reported to whom the maps were unclear. To count as verifiable evidence, this has to be a user of the documented part of the management system.

Right now the claimed lack of clarity is just another opinion.

John

 

[Jim Wynne]

Jim,

Then the auditor should have reported to whom the maps were unclear. To count as verifiable evidence, this has to be a user of the documented part of the management system.

Right now the claimed lack of clarity is just another opinion.

John

We can't see what the auditor saw, but in the words of the immortal Bob Dylan, you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. You might be correct, but we have no way of knowing.