Auditing support and management processes

[rogerpenna]

So far, in our company internal audits, we audit areas/departments, instead of auditing processes. Probably because we have processes written as procedures, but unlike a process map, when writing, you can make a process less cross-sectional across departments. In the writing, it can focus on a single area/department.

I do intend to change this and be more process oriented, and audit processes

We do have mapped with low granularity our Core, Support and Management processes. (they are not modelled yet however, as they are only written as procedures. Also, from my perspective, it seems several SubProcesses were written as subtopics of the Procedures that represent macro Processes)

My question is... to what extent should non-core processes have KPIs created, have their inputs and outputs, etc, mapped and written?

And specially, to what extent should non-core processes be audited in ISO?

If ISO objective is the client, should audits spend time with processes which are not considered to add value to the client, as Core Processes do?

 

[John Broomfield]

So far, in our company internal audits, we audit areas/departments, instead of auditing processes. Probably because we have processes written as procedures, but unlike a process map, when writing, you can make a process less cross-sectional across departments. In the writing, it can focus on a single area/department.

I do intend to change this and be more process oriented, and audit processes

We do have mapped with low granularity our Core, Support and Management processes. (they are not modelled yet however, as they are only written as procedures. Also, from my perspective, it seems several SubProcesses were written as subtopics of the Procedures that represent macro Processes)

My question is... to what extent should non-core processes have KPIs created, have their inputs and outputs, etc, mapped and written?

And specially, to what extent should non-core processes be audited in ISO?

If ISO objective is the client, should audits spend time with processes which are not considered to add value to the client, as Core Processes do?

Roger,

Your system comprises processes that directly add value for your client and processes that enable these process to add value.

Recruiting and training is a good example of support processes that are essential to the effectiveness of your system.

So, both core and support processes should be audited for their effectiveness and conformity. Before they are audited processes are monitored and corrected as necessary and this means that the people responsible for these processes need to know what their processes are meant to achieve.

Process objectives are essential but starting with your core processes and core process objectives start with your organization’s or project’s mission.

Best wishes,

John

 

[rogerpenna]

can we leave anything out of auditing?

isn´t part of the manual defining the scope of the QMS?

if we must obviously include core processes... then support processes because these are essential for the core processes to function properly and add value to the client... and I would guess several management processes somehow either also help the business run (and thus add value to client) or basically are part of the ISO requirements themselves (like strategic planning, risk assesment, etc)........

... then what's the use of defining a scope for the QMS? It will always end up being 100% of the company's processes, won´t it?

 

[John Broomfield]

can we leave anything out of auditing?

isn´t part of the manual defining the scope of the QMS?

if we must obviously include core processes... then support processes because these are essential for the core processes to function properly and add value to the client... and I would guess several management processes somehow either also help the business run (and thus add value to client) or basically are part of the ISO requirements themselves (like strategic planning, risk assesment, etc)........

... then what's the use of defining a scope for the QMS? It will always end up being 100% of the company's processes, won´t it?

Roger,

In defining the scope of your management system what processes do you have in mind to omit from internal audit and why?

We may find these processes are completely unnecessary work.

Mind you, not every process may be subject to external audit and this is why many organizations have two scope statements.

Thanks,

John

 

[rogerpenna]

The question was more on the theoretical side... I mean, why define scope if everything is important?


And if a process not needing to be in the scope is useless, then it should be eliminated. But if it's eliminated, then again the scope will be 100% of the processes of the company.

IF I could, I would eliminate probably Accounting and some Financial processes. They are important but highly bureaucratic. They are mostly about doing the same stuff on time, not more efficiently. And as that, it's quite impossible to find relevant indicators... although maybe I am thinking more in terms of areas/departments here.

 

[AndyN]

The question was more on the theoretical side... I mean, why define scope if everything is important?


And if a process not needing to be in the scope is useless, then it should be eliminated. But if it's eliminated, then again the scope will be 100% of the processes of the company.

IF I could, I would eliminate probably Accounting and some Financial processes. They are important but highly bureaucratic. They are mostly about doing the same stuff on time, not more efficiently. And as that, it's quite impossible to find relevant indicators... although maybe I am thinking more in terms of areas/departments here.

When you audit a process, there are many, many supporting processes which also need to be present and checked during an audit. The purpose of a defined scope should include these things and at the same time provide for limits for the auditor to 1) enable to audit objective to be fulfilled and b) limit the extent to which these support activities are being audited.

It may be that you have a different way to do you audits, but for the past 30 years, having a scope is best practice to ensure a complete audit.

 

[John Broomfield]

The question was more on the theoretical side... I mean, why define scope if everything is important?


And if a process not needing to be in the scope is useless, then it should be eliminated. But if it's eliminated, then again the scope will be 100% of the processes of the company.

IF I could, I would eliminate probably Accounting and some Financial processes. They are important but highly bureaucratic. They are mostly about doing the same stuff on time, not more efficiently. And as that, it's quite impossible to find relevant indicators... although maybe I am thinking more in terms of areas/departments here.

Roger,

That is why I asked what processes (work) you'd like to exclude.

Accounting processes should ensure suppliers are paid only for conforming products and that your company is paid per the contract so it can invest in improvement. Accounting processes also provide management with information so they can avoid trading while insolvent. But you may also find that accounting already is audited for compliance with GAAP.

Your list of processes (in your separate post) mentions budgeting and this process interacts with cost accounting I would think.

Of course, you'll be ensuring that your processes are monitored and corrected (by those responsible) and audited (by someone who is more independent) according to each processes' importance, reliability and maturity. But we try to keep in the system only those processes that add value or enable value.

Please remember that processes are work carried out by animal, human, machine or a combination of any two or three of these. Using this definition you'll see that an area or department cannot be a process.

As to granularity we see activities or tasks that are parts of processes and that processes tend to be cross-functional.

I would question if an organization without a purpose and scope is really is able to work as a system.

Organizations used to exclude some business processes from their QMS but big-Q thinking exposed the fallacy of this and ISO 9001:2015 has finally caught up.

Best wishes,

John

 

[AMIT BALLAL]

As John mentioned, for example, If Accounting process has any risks associated to QMS (such as supplier won't supply next lot of material, unless payment of earlier material is made), then Accounting has to be included in scope of QMS and therefore has to be audited. Similarly, if IT process has a risk of loss of data/records related to QMS, then it also has to be included.
Standard doesn't give the freedom to exclude any process from auditing. But you can define frequency of audits based on importance or processes, as per the categorization already done by you.