WALLACE said:
Worry not Markasmith.
Allan J would be the man to address your interest, I'm really long winded when it comes to defining and explaining the Task process elements (TPE).
I will say this though, I look at the TPE out with the requirements of any standards, be it ISO or any other standard requirement or benchmark. Allan J's book Management audits can (I'm sure) be purchased at the ASQ web site
www.asg.org
If it's semantics between the ISO standard language and the language of Allan J's task process elements, step back and take a second look at your understanding.
Wallace.
Thank you Wallace for the reference and courtesy shown concerning my work on the Task Elements which was done in the early 1970s, as I believe I have explained earlier on the Cove.
By way of a correction, if anyone wants the book "Management Audits", the easiest source is "Quality Council of Indiana" (not the ASQ) I think their web is QCI.com. Though people do get the book from me, I am not a bookstore per se and cannot handle credit cards. Amazon and various other web stores are not supplied with my book by the publisher so it is not available from there as a new copy.
Though some on the Cove may be confused about the Task Elements, in fact all who have been on one of my training courses or carefully read about them in one of my books have found them easy to apply. The difference between the Task Element approach and the old Q Standard approach (of elements) is that in my approach (now generally called the "process approach") one looks at what is happening at the workplace and breaks it into constituent elements (listed by Wallace - who, incidentally, I have never yet had the pleasure of meeting). One then simply considers what is required to ensure that particular "element of the task" will be complete, correct for the job. Indeed, each of the elements has a simple set of sub-elements to consider, which are easily remembered. Thus, for a "Person" one would consider what training is required; what would make the person competent for the task; what might motivate/ demotivate the person; what type of identification would be used to be able to trace work to the person; and what attributes are reuired for the work (e.g. good eyesight, good hearing, honesty and so forth.)
Since the Task Elements are common to all types oif work, an auditor can soon audit all manner of "processes" as he/ she has a simple, logical way of looking at what is required. The Task Element can also be used for process planning. That is done by simply considering each element and its sub-elements and organizing to make sure they "arrive" at the workplace before the actual work starts. And, as each Task Element requires its own system to ensure it will be ready for the workplace, one can easily look through "systems". As an example, an assembly job would require various "ITEMS", that is materials, parts, components etc for the assembly. One can quickly trace through the system that conceives, designs, buys, makes and delivers any "item" to the assembly workplace. That also allows one to look at how a system might be ineffective, might be susceptible of improvement (very useful in Six Sigma etc).
In the old "Elemental" approach, the quality standards wrote in generalities that one was expected to interpret for whatever one was auditing or doing. It caused arguments and misunderstandings, especially as ordinary process owners often could not understand how to apply, say, Mil Q 9858A or CSA Z 299.1, or or BS 5750, or ASME VIII at their workplace. That was not especially conducive to effective "prcess control", in the sense we would use it today. It was called elemental since each standard consisted of a number of "prescriptive" clauses - commonly referred to as "elements of the standard. However, ordinary people do not work according to elements of a standard, but they do more easily comprehend "elements of their work process". THe Task Elements and their sub-elements are phrased in simple terms. As an example: a process owner will understand that "ITEMS" must be in the correct "CONDITION", that "EQUIPMENT" must have the right "CAPABILITY" to do the job. And so on.
When I formulated the Task Elements, I experimented with them on a number of audits etc first. I found ordinary ("blue-collar") people could rapidly and easily relate to them such that a meaningful dialogue occurred as well as a more efficient audit. Moreover, as the communications were vastly improved, it got their interest and involvement. It was easier to get their buy-in to corrective action and process improvement as I was talking "their language". For me, that was the acid test and I have used them ever since.
Though, as I explained in another thread, there was enormous resistance from various bodies, not least the "establishment" when ISO 9K and registration etc appeared years later on the scene, I guess a critical mass of about 10000 course/ seminar delegates and tens of thousands of people who bought my books and used the "Task Elements" had their effect. Whatever happened, it is nice to have made a contribution to one's profession's body of knowledge.
I do not provide training courses on a public basis except on very rare occasions: the last was in 1999. However, the ASQ has approached me to present
one more such course next year in St Louis and we are presently in discussions about that possibility.