F
florin pirvulescu
I guess there are a few reasons for confusion in the 9001:2001 standard. I am QM. I designed and implemented a QMS in our company. The major problem I faced was the looking for: 1. Identification of processes; 2 a method to describe the interrelation between processes.
As most of the quality people I met the first suggestion about the QMS processes we found in the Note of 4.1 clause. The processes recommended are almost the same as chapter 5 - 8 of the standard. “Almost” because the name of the processes in the Note are slightly different then the name of chapters. The matching of the processes in the Note with the chapters is suggested also by the figure 1. So we have all the reasons to believe that processes of the QMS are actually the chapters 5 to 8 of the standard. But I wouldn’t consider “Management responsibility” a process. Inputs, outputs of an activity and measurable criteria define a process. I see chapter 5 as a requirements clause to comply with. Of course we can find inputs, outputs and measurable for management commitment but it would be forced. Unfortunately are a lot of consultants and auditors seeing things that way.
I think the idea is different then it looks in the standard. I think what is interesting is expanding the 7th Chapter (product realization). Why? As long as we are aloud to consider exclusions limited to requirements within clause 7, it means the other chapters (processes) should look the same in all organizations in the world. So why should we bother to represent them in a map (or some other method)? I found later on in www.bin.co.uk the Process Classification Framework. I like it very much and it seems to be inspired from the real business world. I found also on the Internet a very challenging point of view regarding what I am concerned. The figure 1 represents the linkages between chapters of the standard not the processes. I guess is right. If this is also the ISO’s point of view it means the representation in figure 1 and the Note of 4.1 are not the best solutions. I found a large variety of QMS processes maps. On the Internet the most often found solution for identification of processes and map representation is the Figure 1 of the standard expanded in a deeper detail.
If we consider the chapters as processes it means:
1.to define inputs and outputs for every subclause 2. To define measurable criteria for every subclause. 3. To evaluate them against the established criteria.
Besides 9004 is mentioning about key processes and support processes.
I can’t imagine the amount of work and loss of time. And time is money. If we would do that the spirit of standard is getting far from business and it would become a purpose in it self, not a management tool.
Can you comment?
Thanks,
Florin Pirvulescu, Romania
As most of the quality people I met the first suggestion about the QMS processes we found in the Note of 4.1 clause. The processes recommended are almost the same as chapter 5 - 8 of the standard. “Almost” because the name of the processes in the Note are slightly different then the name of chapters. The matching of the processes in the Note with the chapters is suggested also by the figure 1. So we have all the reasons to believe that processes of the QMS are actually the chapters 5 to 8 of the standard. But I wouldn’t consider “Management responsibility” a process. Inputs, outputs of an activity and measurable criteria define a process. I see chapter 5 as a requirements clause to comply with. Of course we can find inputs, outputs and measurable for management commitment but it would be forced. Unfortunately are a lot of consultants and auditors seeing things that way.
I think the idea is different then it looks in the standard. I think what is interesting is expanding the 7th Chapter (product realization). Why? As long as we are aloud to consider exclusions limited to requirements within clause 7, it means the other chapters (processes) should look the same in all organizations in the world. So why should we bother to represent them in a map (or some other method)? I found later on in www.bin.co.uk the Process Classification Framework. I like it very much and it seems to be inspired from the real business world. I found also on the Internet a very challenging point of view regarding what I am concerned. The figure 1 represents the linkages between chapters of the standard not the processes. I guess is right. If this is also the ISO’s point of view it means the representation in figure 1 and the Note of 4.1 are not the best solutions. I found a large variety of QMS processes maps. On the Internet the most often found solution for identification of processes and map representation is the Figure 1 of the standard expanded in a deeper detail.
If we consider the chapters as processes it means:
1.to define inputs and outputs for every subclause 2. To define measurable criteria for every subclause. 3. To evaluate them against the established criteria.
Besides 9004 is mentioning about key processes and support processes.
I can’t imagine the amount of work and loss of time. And time is money. If we would do that the spirit of standard is getting far from business and it would become a purpose in it self, not a management tool.
Can you comment?
Thanks,
Florin Pirvulescu, Romania
