Is Your Company Registered to ISO9001:2000? (4 Feb 2002 to 25 July 2003)

[RoxaneB]

Marc, you wanted to know what was meant by a lack of a process-based approach within our organization. While we have documentation (quite a superfluous amount, I sometimes think), we really don't have any means of showing how all of our processes tie into each other.

Within each department, we have our "Control Plan" which shows the mains steps within that department's process, but these Plans only faintly ressemble a process flow in our Production areas. Departments such as QA and Mtce. Engineering have processes where we have not clearly documented the sequence of tasks (although I question if it's feasible to do so for these departments).

Second to that, we do not have any formalized means of demonstrating how "inputs are transformed into outputs." We have no way of showing electrical inputs, raw material inputs, waste outputs, product outputs, etc. - nor do we show where, within our processes, monitoring/measuring techniques are applied.

My organization uses QSI software (System 9000) and we are currently attempting to cut-over to the new release of 5.7. This version is ISO 9001:2000 "friendly" and includes a new level of documentation called "Process Flow Documents". Using text or pictorial representation (i.e., flow charts), we can show the process, measuring/monitoring aspects, inputs, outputs, etc.

It does appear as if my organization is taking the same approach as many to this process-based approach by implementing flow charts or process maps. We plan to train our key Document Authors on process maps (i.e., how to develop, the benefits, how to use for continual improvement, etc.).

I'm hoping that this will allow to develop several "layers" of process maps. I'd like Figure 1 from ISO 9001:2000 (or something similar) to be our Top Management process map, which will show the overall system of the organization. And from there, have process maps that become more and more task specific as one moves down the layers of maps. That's the thought for now, though...and obviously subject to change.

 

[JMitchell]

ISO 2000 Certification

We are planning our implementation in the summer of 2003. A timeline has been developed and we have just started training new auditors on 2000, with the existing auditors going through training in March.

However, our Director of QA (also the MR), has moved on up to another position and now I'm a little worried about the transition. This thread and others have been very helpful!

 

[JMitchell]

Originally posted by RCBeyette
Second to that, we do not have any formalized means of demonstrating how "inputs are transformed into outputs." We have no way of showing electrical inputs, raw material inputs, waste outputs, product outputs, etc. - nor do we show where, within our processes, monitoring/measuring techniques are applied.

I'm not sure if this would satisfy the requirements in this case, but we have just started to use a Lean manufacturing techique - Value Stream Mapping. The goal of this is to track all inputs from taking orders to shipping product to customers. Although it does look different from a flow chart, it takes into account the influence of departments like sales and production control in the manufacturing process. However, it doesn't show the process detail such as quality checks, etc. Just thought this one might help in some way.

 

[Marc]

Originally posted by RCBeyette

Marc, you wanted to know what was meant by a lack of a process-based approach within our organization. While we have documentation (quite a superfluous amount, I sometimes think), we really don't have any means of showing how all of our processes tie into each other.

This I understand. Basically you're saying the processes exist but are not documented. I bring this up because I get 'upset' when I see this 'process approach' issue bandied about as if its something new and different. All companies have processes. Whether or not they are documented and consistent is another issue. Sounds like you're on the right track to documenting them.

I will say one thing. Don't go overboard with documentation. Sometimes a process is so evident that it doesn't need to be documented.

 

[Marc]

Energy,

I better understand your laugh in that other thread now that I've revisited the poll in this thread. I thought more people had gone through it. :thedeal:

 

[RoxaneB]

Thank you, JMitchell for you suggestion. Your idea is something to consider and potentially modify to suit my organization.

We've also talked about another possibility where instead of a process map we will take a to-scale drawing of our facility and document for each area the inputs, outputs, and quality checks.

I agree, Marc, that we need to watch the volume of our documentation. In fact, one of the "benefits" of transitioning to the ISO 9001:2000 is that I'm hoping our group of doc_authors will validate the need for their documents. If it's a job that is done day-in and day-out, is a common-sense task to our industry, and/or does not directly affect the quality of our process/product...well...I'd like it rendered obsolete.

When talking to employees about doc control, I always stress the fact that we need to draw the line somewhere with our documentation. Technically, everything affects quality - if someone forgets to shovel and sand the yard and, on my way into the building, I slip, fall, break my arm, and am unable to perform an audit scheduled for that day, "quality" has just been affected. However, we're not about to have a document on the process of shovelling snow and sanding ice. It's a ridiculous concept and, truth be told, all Canadians are born knowing how to do this.

With ISO 9001:2000 having fewer "shall's" for documents compared to ISO 9001:1994, this is some of the ammunition (don't like that choice of word, but coffee hasn't kicked in yet) that I'll be using to help convince people that a Work Instruction and/or Procedure is not always required. The attention will then shift from training personnel on documentation to assessing their competency. The analogy we use is "I have a driver's license, thus am a qualified driver. Am I competent driver, though? A license does not mean that I drive well."

Our next hurdle will then be how to assess the competency of an individual if there is no documentation on what they are to do (or what the expected results are). But that's a discussion for another day.....

 

[M Greenaway]

RC

Who are these people in your organisation for whom you dont know what they do, or what there expected results are ?

As a first step the competency needs of the individuals or functions must be defined - somehow. If it is not then you stop at that point and issue your corrective action.

 

[JodiB]

Martin,

I imagine RC's problem is the same as mine: trying to get the managers to write job descriptions for their staff. With no job descriptions, no authority matrices, no performance criteria and evaluation process, no formal training plans, it is pretty difficult to demonstrate competence.

I've harped on the subject but have gotten nowhere with it.

 

[energy]

No disrespect intended

Originally posted by Marc
Energy,
I better understand your laugh in that other thread now that I've revisited the poll in this thread. I thought more people had gone through it. :thedeal:

When we post and get a great response and idea, we must take into account the fact that the new standard has some unusual interpretations and so do we!

With the amount of talent from the members, we arrive at a popular consensus and go with it in our own domain.

I value all the opinions here in the Cove, but I wanted to follow up on Firegirl's inquiry. There was no response, so I imagined that there was quite a few of us struggling with implementation.

Cove Rules!!

 

[RoxaneB]

Lucinda, you're bang on with your explanation. My organization does not have job descriptions, per se, with the belief that "That's-Not-In-My-Job-Description" may become a popular phrase. We have thought of several ways around this, however, so it then comes down to supervisors and managers sitting down and actually developing formal job descriptions.

We do have training plans for each position, outlining which documents each individual is required to be trained on to be deemed "qualified" for his/her position. We do not, however, measure the effectiveness of our training...formally.

One could argue that our Performance Appraisals and Job Observations are tools used to assess competency (which is the route we are strongly leaning towards). The hitch here is that our Job Observations are for hourly staff and are primarily from a safety perspective (e.g., utilization of proper PPE, etc.). Performance Appraisals (salary staff) are geared more towards the soft skills such as communication, time management, dealing with people, etc.

I do believe that we have a system upon which to build a good competency evaluation programme....but we still have a long way to go before we can say (and demonstrate that we do) have qualified AND competent personnel working with the Organization.