IATF Process Maps/Turtles

[Laura Halleck]

I've attached an example of one of our turtle/process maps and our interactions map, but please note the following:

We just received response from our desk audit that we need to modify to meet compliance. We have process maps and we have a separate document that defines the system interactions.

The auditor noted the following: "The process map does not include all of the requirements of the ISO-9001:2015 & IATF-16949-2016 requirements. Must be fixed before the audit." I'm currently at a loss for what I'm missing from the requirements when the process maps and system interactions are both taken into account.

He noted in a separate area that we do not have process owners and yet, we have a RACI defined on each turtle diagram. (RACI defined as: R: Responsible/Process Owner; A: Approver/Accountable person; C: Consult; I: Informed)

I'm left wondering if the auditor doesn't understand our system and is sending me on a wild goose chase or if I am missing the requirements and am just not seeing what he is talking about.

My attached documentation may be of use, however until I have resolution to the issue at hand, I wouldn't suggest replication. Any feedback is appreciated.

Hi Lisa,

I don't know exactly what your auditor was referring to since they didn't provide sufficient information, but I did a quick comparison of your template against para. 4.4.1 of the standard and don't see your template addressing part d) determining the resources needed to perform the process. I would typically include Tools/Equipment/Materials as well as infrastructure requirements along with personnel needed to perform the process.

Regarding the statement about Process Owners, I think part of it comes down to how well you have defined the RACI in your system documentation, i.e. did you explain that the R was supposed to be the Process Owner. Further, the Process Owner should be a specific person / title, i.e. Quality Manager, not just a department or function.

I've attached an example of my process map template in response to the original question.

Laura

 

[AndyN]

Lisa:
How big is your organization? Looking at your audit schedule (which you are not required to have incidentally, it seems too complex, to me at least...

 

[Lisa Jacobs]

We are small. We have 23 people here, including the manufacturing floor. Our process defines the owners by department, but there are limited people in the organization so one per department for the most part. I don't like to put specific names on the process flow. So the ownership of each process would have limited resources to choose from when using the department, however the department as a whole shares the responsibility.

 

[Lisa Jacobs]

I started at this company in March. The organization and documentation here prior to me was based on more than 400 employees at one point in time. So I've done a lot of work in the last 9 months to minimize and "un" complicate things. I think the processes that are defined are more of the issue, as we are not that big anymore. (i.e. change management and APQP should be combined)

 

[tamvic1]

Thanks for sending an example. We are using Turtles so that discussion is not optional. I do believe there are some specific things related to the new standard that need to be on a process map (regardless of the format). I'm looking to understand what other people are doing- any examples are helpful!

 

[LaidBackGeorge]

We've recently completed our IATF16949:2016 certification audit, and received 3 minor nonconformances. We used turtle diagrams with great success. They also helped our internal auditors with the "process approach". IMO the issue could be that interaction map you've provided fails to address a number of the required "documented processes", e.g. employee motivation, error proofing.

 

[Sipes2]

we currently have process flow charts for each specific area.. such as record retention, design.. with that we have a box that shows owner, and the KPI... hoping this will cover several areas at once...

 

[AndyN]

We've recently completed our IATF16949:2016 certification audit, and received 3 minor nonconformances. We used turtle diagrams with great success. They also helped our internal auditors with the "process approach". IMO the issue could be that interaction map you've provided fails to address a number of the required "documented processes", e.g. employee motivation, error proofing.

What was the success? With the auditor? With your management? Can they describe their process using a Turtle? That's the only factor in "success"...