Process Interaction Model in ISO 9001 Standard

I know this issue has been discussed a lot but there is one aspect which I have not seen discussed much and that is the process interaction model in the ISO 9001 standard on page VI.

In the text discussing this its stated that:

"The model shown in Figure 1 covers all the requirements of this International Standard, but does not show processes at a detailed level."

One contributor to this forum has made the key point that process interaction is about key processes, not all processes. In order for a graphical process interaction tool to be useful to readers it would need to be:

easy for readers and users to grasp
easy for readers and users to follow
easy to apply in every day busienss

My question is why could we all not use the model in the standard as our own model? It should be universally applicable to all organsaitons should it not? It says that above.

Or....... have I missed the boat altogether?? :mg:

What do you think?

Re: Process Interation Model in ISO 9000 Standard

If you look at some of the many diagrams out there describing or purporting to describe processes in organsations, you'll find that many people do. And will argue vociferously for the benefit of so doing. Or even that it must be done like that.

But very few organisations actually envisage themselves in terms of this model (which I don't actually think is one of the clearest diagrams in existence!) and I don't see much value in encouraging or constraining them to do so. 'Universally applicable' is great in theory, but not always in practice.

Re: Process Interation Model in ISO 9000 Standard

kgott said:

My question is why could we all not use the model in the standard as our own model? It should be universally applicable to all organsaitons should it not? It says that above.
[/SIZE]

Click to expand...

Why not? Because it creates unnatural categories of processes, implies that ‘management responsibility’ is a process and suggests that measurement is a distinct process rather than, as is often the case, being an intrinsic part of other processes.

The figure shows a two-way information flow between customers and ‘management responsibility’. Nowhere in section 4 (management responsibility) is there any suggestion that top management communicates with customers. The only link shown from ‘management responsibility’ is into ‘resource management’.

The requirements stated under ‘management responsibility’ have an equal if not greater impact on ‘product realisation’ and on ‘measurement, analysis and improvement’. It would make more sense if ‘management responsibility’ was the label on the big circle in the background, with the top box labelled ‘planning and organising’.

For some reason ‘customer requirements’ are described as a ‘value-adding activity’, despite not being an activity at all, never mind one that adds value. The identification of a customer’s requirements may be the input or trigger for the organisation to provide goods or services, but it is the production processes that add value.

Why are only two information flows shown, and why are these flows only to and from customers? As the standard correctly states elsewhere, internal communication is equally important.

So to answer your question: "because it is not very good..."!

KGott - one of the (many) reasons why you shouldn't use this model is because it's about the 'application' of the QMS requirements and how they are supposed to be 'viewed' as working. If you do use it, you will have missed a vitally important step in the process of the creation of your own business's diagram.

From first hand experience, there's nothing more revealing than to gather your most senior management and process owners in a room and have them map the overall process of how their business takes customers inputs and turns them into a delivery...:mg:

I'd suggest that without them going through that event, any QMS is likely to always be 'someone else's' (possibly yours) to take care of.

AndyN said:

From first hand experience, there's nothing more revealing than to gather your most senior management and process owners in a room and have them map the overall process of how their business takes customers inputs and turns them into a delivery...:mg:

I'd suggest that without them going through that event, any QMS is likely to always be 'someone else's' (possibly yours) to take care of.

Click to expand...

Thoroughly agree with everything you say.

The process of 'getting there' is at least as important as the 'being there'. As Andy says, you won't get one (the soundly functioning system owned and driven by senior management) without the other (going through the process of defining it, clarifying it, revieweing it, improving it etc).

Just adopting the ISO 9001 model as is? Nope. Never have in any of my many systems implementations or systems improvements. Never will.

I agree Andy! You are very right.

kgott said:

I know this issue has been discussed a lot but there is one aspect which I have not seen discussed much and that is the process interaction model in the ISO 9001 standard on page VI.

In the text discussing this its stated that:

"The model shown in Figure 1 covers all the requirements of this International Standard, but does not show processes at a detailed level."

One contributor to this forum has made the key point that process interaction is about key processes, not all processes. In order for a graphical process interaction tool to be useful to readers it would need to be:

easy for readers and users to grasp
easy for readers and users to follow
easy to apply in every day busienss

My question is why could we all not use the model in the standard as our own model? It should be universally applicable to all organsaitons should it not? It says that above.

Or....... have I missed the boat altogether?? :mg:

What do you think?

Click to expand...

kgott,

And I thought central planning by the Kremlin was dead!

Every organization is unique once it is analyzed as a system and captured at a meaningful level.

I shall upload an example that helps the people working for the organization to understand its core process but is pretty much useless to any other organization.

I remember the bad old days of cutting and pasting FMEA submittals! Thankfully those days are behind us but I see the desire for copy and paste lives on.



John