Is a Procedure generally understood as 'Documented Procedure'

[JaneB]

Re: Is a Procedure always understood as 'Documented Procedure'

How about an objective to reduce the number of documented procedures of the company for an MR ... ?

IF those procedures are not required, there's little/no evidence to indicate that they're needed and thus they are not providing value, very good idea.

I saw a so-called quality system recently which had FOUR HUNDRED pages of documentation ... for a 5-person firm. They had more written procedures than you could believe. The biggest problem of all: of that 400 pages, all but about 2 pages were completely useless - many procedures didn't even apply to their operations! (A bad case of 'rent-a-consultant-who-implemented-the-standard-horrible-canned-system' methinks). So yes, in that case, it's a worthwhile objective.

 

[JaneB]

Hi,
The documented procedures are mandatory only for the above 6 mentioned procedures.

Thanks,
Quality6

Not really correct. As Randy points out, mandatory procedures are required in 6 areas. (And no, they do not have to be individual procedures, you could have 1 or 3 or 5 or 6, depending on what YOU choose, as long as you do cover off requirements for those procedures).

But to say this is incorrect:

The remaining procedures shall be documented, if the organization has specifically mentioned in their QM stating that they would be maintaining a documented procedure.

It has nothing to do with whether someone has 'specifically mentioned' this in their QM or not. The whole point is to have the documents that are, as the Standard says:

determined by the organization to be necessary to ensure the effective planning, operation and control of its processes

Whether those documents are procedures or checklists, or documented processes, flowcharts, process charts/maps, or records or any other kind of document doesn't matter. What is important is that the organisation has decided it needs them in order to do one or all of its planning, operations or control of its processes.

An example: imagine a medium-sized recruitment firm that sources and supplies suitably qualified candidates to corporate clients. Imagine they have a QM with only 6 documented procedures (they chose to do 1 procedure for each of the mandatory requirements). Imagine they have made NO reference in their QM to having any other procedures.

Now, as a potential customer (never mind an auditor!), surely you'd be wondering... how on earth do they control how they screen and select job candidates? Check references and requirements? Make sure that different recruiters follow a similar process with similar criteria?

 

[DrM2u]

pro·ce·dure
noun \prə-ˈsē-jər\

Definition of PROCEDURE

1
a : a particular way of accomplishing something or of acting
b : a step in a procedure

2
a : a series of steps followed in a regular definite order <legal procedure> <a surgical procedure>
b : a set of instructions for a computer that has a name by which it can be called into action

3
a : a traditional or established way of doing things
b : protocol 3a

I researched Webster's Dictionary for the definiton of PROCEDURE and no where does it say or imply that it is a document. So, unless I see 'documented procedure' then it is just 'procedure' to me.

 

[JaneB]

I researched Webster's Dictionary for the definiton of PROCEDURE and no where does it say or imply that it is a document. So, unless I see 'documented procedure' then it is just 'procedure' to me.

Well, yes of course.

Mais, naturellement.

But I'd rather quote from ISO 9000 (Fundamentals and Vocab) which has a definition for procedure, including a note that points out procedures can be documented or not. And why various of the Standards are careful to specify documented /written procedure when they require same.

 

[Paul Simpson]

FWIW I voted no but wasn't sure because of the 'generally understood' bit. Here's my . I understand procedure as being a defined way of doing things that may or may not be documented. So I have a procedure for making a cup of tea (typically British, don't you know!). There is no way I am going to write that down, even I'm not that sad!

There are instances when I am not in familiar surroundings when a documented procedure might help (to find the tea bags and other ingredients etc.) but again generally I am happy working it out for myself (in a hotel room for example).

Back to the 'generally understood' - there are still people out there (locked into the 'say what you do, do what you say' mantra ) that can't get their heads around the idea of 'if it's not documented it's either wrong or can't happen' and so would require the 'tea making' procedure to be documented.

As an example: in a company dear to my heart we are deleting the management review procedure (and the term management review as it happens). The company has a strategic planning process that links into the budget process and a quarterly board meeting where I have a presentation 'slot' I am making sure that over a 12 month period we cover all the inputs to 5.6 and any 'output' decisions are documented and go into 'my' plans for the systems and are considered for the strategy and budget.

Hey presto procedure in place, requirements met and no documented procedures in sight (and no ISO jargon). Quarterly records available and system monitoring and improvement available for all to see!

 

[somashekar]

Back to the 'generally understood' - there are still people out there (locked into the 'say what you do, do what you say' mantra ) that can't get their heads around the idea of 'if it's not documented it's either wrong or can't happen' and so would require the 'tea making' procedure to be documented.

And the poll stands evidence to this so far ... close to 50% on the YES and NO.

 

[Paul Simpson]

And the poll stands evidence to this so far ... close to 50% on the YES and NO.

A sad indictment, wouldn't you say?

 

[AndyN]

I researched Webster's Dictionary for the definiton of PROCEDURE and no where does it say or imply that it is a document. So, unless I see 'documented procedure' then it is just 'procedure' to me.

Sadly, Webster's isn't the 'normative reference' defined in ISO 9001! That's why ISO 9000 is a 'must have' document, to ensure we all understand the same (intended) terminology...

 

[Jen Kirley]

A sad indictment, wouldn't you say?

I am not surprised by such a poll result. Here's why:

1) The English language includes many words that can be used in more than one way. I once read that an editor claimed to have made a list of 99 ways to use the word "run."

2) The TS16949:2009(E) standard does not include either terms in its Definition section. However, it does list a need for "documented work instructions" in 7.5.1.2.

3) ISO 14001:2004(E) says, in 3.19 (Terms and definitions) that a procedure is a specified way to carry out an activity or process; in Note 1 the standard specifies "Procedures can be documented or not." ISO 18001:2007 gives very similar definition; both cite ISO 9000:2005, which by now has been superceded.

4) ANSI/ISO/IEC 17025 says, in 4.2.1, that the management system shall document its policies, systems, programmes, procedures and instruction to the extent necessary...

With all of this variation in definition and approach to the term, I don't wonder at all about the uncertainty in how to apply it - especially among different cultural backgrounds, education types and levels, and English as a second language.

To help make it easier for my people, I encourage them to think of processes as the things we do, and procedures as documentation of the things we do. The ISO/TS 16949 Answer Book by Smith, Munro and Bowen gives similar direction on page 19.

 

[Paul Simpson]

I am not surprised by such a poll result. Here's why:

1) The English language includes many words that can be used in more than one way. I once read that an editor claimed to have made a list of 99 ways to use the word "run."

Thanks, Jennifer. I appreciate the problems the English language can create and when working with ISO have often been called in as the only 'native English speaker' to try to shed light. With my poor grasp of the mother tongue!

But that's the interesting thing for me. Even though there is a normative reference to ISO 9000 (more later) and in 9000 it specifically states

NOTE 1 Procedures can be documented or not.

we still have around 50% of people answering a poll who believe 'procedure' means 'documented procedure.'

Even more so when ISO 9001 takes the trouble to specify exactly the (count 'em) 6 instances when procedures have to be documented.

2) The TS16949:2009(E) standard does not include either terms in its Definition section. However, it does list a need for "documented work instructions" in 7.5.1.2.

I don't have a copy of 16949 to hand but again the IATF aren't allowed to change the requirements of 9001 but are allowed to add to them - hence they have added in a whole lot of additional 'documented procedure' and 'documented work instruction' stuff - oh and for 'work instruction' you can read 'procedure'.

3) ISO 14001:2004(E) says, in 3.19 (Terms and definitions) that a procedure is a specified way to carry out an activity or process; in Note 1 the standard specifies "Procedures can be documented or not." ISO 18001:2007 gives very similar definition; both cite ISO 9000:2005, which by now has been superceded.

Both ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 I believe use the ISO 9000 term. I know ISO 9000 is being worked on as we speak but the 2005 edition is still current. The latest definition for 'procedure' is unchanged in Working Draft 1.

4) ANSI/ISO/IEC 17025 says, in 4.2.1, that the management system shall document its policies, systems, programmes, procedures and instruction to the extent necessary...

Again the same principle - procedures may be documented or not.

With all of this variation in definition and approach to the term, I don't wonder at all about the uncertainty in how to apply it - especially among different cultural backgrounds, education types and levels, and English as a second language.

I think the definition is consistent and the explanatory note actually does what it says on the tin, it explains. Documented or not. But for some reason 50% of those that responded don't believe that to be the case.

To help make it easier for my people, I encourage them to think of processes as the things we do, and procedures as documentation of the things we do. The ISO/TS 16949 Answer Book by Smith, Munro and Bowen gives similar direction on page 19.

Again I don't have access to the book you have mentioned but am happy with my distinction:

• process - the things we do
• procedure - specified way to carry out an activity
• documented procedure - specified way to carry out an activity, but written down