ISO 9000 Clause 4.2.2 - Interactions Between Processes - How do you satisfy this?

[Andrews]

interactions between the processes

Clause 4.2.2 of ISO9001-2000 requires a description of the interactions between the processes of the quality management system.

How are the ISO9001-2000 certfied companies satisying this requirement ? Are you showing the interactions department wise or only show a broad mapping of all processes without any reference to the departments?

 

[energy]

Re: Re: interactions between the processes

Jim Wade said:

2 However, registrars are allowing companies to show process interaction merely by attaching existing (departmental) procedures together. This is criminal, IMO

rgds Jim

Oh Jim,

You kill me! Let's put them all in jail because they do not share your vision. Pwew!

 

[energy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: interactions between the processes

Jim Wade said:

energy, if you have an opinion of your own on the subject, I'd be interested to hear it - and it would IMO help the debate more than your simply deriding my opinion.

rgds Jim

Jim,

Relax. Take a Pepto. I did give my opinion. Just not with as much flourish and pomposity as you. I don't think it's CRIMINAL for registars to allow companies to show process interaction merely by attaching existing (departmental) procedures together, if that's the case. But, then you know that. I don't. One has to assume, reading your posts, that this is a fact. One also has to assume that you are so much smarter than a lot of Registrars. And, you know how I feel about that. Yes, sometimes you kill me with that dry emotionless textbook (maybe) approach. Or, maybe, you would just like to. :truce:

 

[energy]

Uh Huh.

Jim Wade said:

Clause 4.2.2 of ISO9001-2000 requires a description of the interactions between the processes of the quality management system.

How are the ISO9001-2000 certfied companies satisying this requirement ? Are you showing the interactions department wise or only show a broad mapping of all processes without any reference to the departments?

I know you don't like my opinion. Fair enough. But at least I have an opinion on what the requirement to describe process interaction is all about.

I wondered if you have an opinion on that (as opposed to an opinion on the quality of my opinion)? If so, let's hear it.

rgds Jim

First, Jim I happen to agree with your interpretation.
Second, If a registrar doesn't agree with your interpretation, I don't think it's criminal behavior
Third, in your earlier post you refer to a "debate". You are the one who always turns a discussion into a "debate". I don't come here to debate. I come hear to hopefully learn something and participate in a "discussion". The debate mentality usually forces someone to win something. With debating in mind, people tend to use forceful tactics to persuade others to agree with them. Debates are designed to know there are people who disagree and intend to sway them. You enjoy debates. I do not, especially when the winner is only determined in our own heads. Okay?

 

[db]

Process interactions

1 Interactions between processes is defined largely by the identification of the 'stuff' that flows between them (the inputs that are transformed into outputs). Departments don't [necessarily] feature usefully in that description.

To add to Jim's comments, also include the information flow between the activities/processes. Analyze your processes to determine at what levels they interact. "Stuff" and information are just two aspects of this interaction. One way to analyze this is to use the CAED (fishbone) diagram for each process. Using the major heading of the CAED, ask how each level of the CAED interacts with other processes.

Also, Jim mentioned a "map". Process maps are not required, but may be the best way to describe the interaction. This could also be described through narration. Some organizations have used org charts, but I really can't see how that could work. Perhaps using the CAED could achieve the goal, but that would just be a different kind of map.

 

[Mike S.]

Re: Process interactions

db said:

Also, Jim mentioned a "map". Process maps are not required, but may be the best way to describe the interaction. This could also be described through narration.

Interesting, db, the narration idea -- another way to skin the cat. Might be a big help to those without good flowcharting/process mapping software - which to me is not Excel or Word despite those programs' rudimentary flowcharting capabilities. It may not the "best" or "fanciest" way, but at least I don't think it is "criminal".

Know of any good examples, anyone?

 

[energy]

Hoooda!

I'll drink to that. Maybe I'm thinking about televised debates meant to achieve gain. You know, those with the gift of gab that are perceived as "winners" by those inclined to think the same way. Doesn't matter if they are correct or not. Perception, again.

I would never "dis" a Registrar who cuts through the bull and shows an understanding of the Company's honest effort to comply with the standard. I "dis" those who hold to a narrow interpretation, and that's what it is, of any clause. Personally, that species would never get in the door for a face to face.

Go ahead, James. Let it fly! Tell me I want less for our money. Tell me I don't want to be the best I can be. Tell me a good bedtime story.

 

[Craig H.]

Andrews, we have been through a pre-assessment audit and this was one of our sticking points. What we have come up with was done by me on Excel. It looks clunky, but it shows what is needed. What we did was a simple process flow chart. Then, on the right inside of each box are initials for each group involved in making each step happen. On the left outside of each box, in green in the input from the last process, on the right in green is the output. Above each box, in red, is what is measured for that process (Ties into the continual improvement requirement). Below each box, in blue, are the interacting parties. For example our "Produce Product" step has "QA - Specs" in blue below it because I am ultimately responsible for making sure he right ones are in play.

So far, it seems to work, and should pass our audit.

Hope this has helped.

 

[Craig H.]

Jim: I am afraid of the repercussions here if I post the whole thing. I tried yesterday to extract only one box, to no avail. BTW, I misspoke, the chart is in Word, not Excel.

What I will do is recreate one of the boxes and post that - it should be enough to give an idea how we approached it.

 

[Craig H.]

OK, here is an example (Word file), with the legends at the bottom. As a warning, this has not been through an external audit yet, but I think it should work.

Also, as another warning, when you get several of these boxes on a page, it is very busy and takes a minute or 3 to start to "see" what is actually happening.

Hope it helps.