ISO 9001:2000 Process Approach - What is it? Is it 'Real'?

[Marc]

Originally posted by Laura M

Here's a poll question...If you or a client was ISO9000:1994 since 1998, and is considering QS9000 because of one automotive customer, what would you recommend? ISO9000 2000 as a step to TS or QS9000 as a step to TS? I'll reserve my opinion till I hear from others.

Why don't you start a New Topic and put in a Poll where you can really get people to 'vote' on the options you want opinions on? The Poll feature is kinda neat. Well, it is in my opinion... :thedeal:

I'd also like to keep this thread somewhat focused. By the way, if you have a client considering QS, you really should make sure they recognize QS is on its way out by the end of 2003 and ensure they communicate that to the customer requiring QS so they don't do something stupid like register to QS since TS has been acepted by the 'big 3'.

 

[Laura M]

Thanks

Hopefully I did it right. I edited message above to keep thread focused.

 

[Marc]

Re: Thanks

Originally posted by Laura M

Hopefully I did it right. I edited message above to keep thread focused.

You didn't have to edit the post, Laura! We stray off topic all the time. You've been visiting here long enought to know it's routine! I just really thought it was a good topic for a poll. You can add one whenever you start a new 'Topic' (thread). I wasn't trying to be bitchy...

Sorry if I came across that way...

 

[Laura M]

Nope - not at all

Actually, in my haste to get the job done, I left a short (but sweet ) message, which made it sound like I was bitchy. It will keep posts where the belong however.

You'll find I don't offend easily - sometimes I don't even get it when people are trying to piss me off!

 

[Henriqued]

Process Approach

Good Idea, Marc. This is an interesting topic for me, as you may have noticed already and I just voted on this poll.

Unfortunately, I am not (yet) in the premium group of members and I do not have access to the premium directory.
What is (or will be) really your "upgraded" document on this subject?...

My views so far are that the new ISO certainly recommends a process approach but is not entirely successful in clearing explaining how to actually do it:

- The figure representing the process (the continuous improvement cycle) is indeed very interesting and we are now seeing it in every new ISO literature, but is only the start of the matter, a view in a broad perspective; when it comes to really implementing the system we face some questions for which ISO 9001 does not have clear answers. For instance:
How many processes? How many procedures? Which processes? Which procedures?
- Of course, we know that ISO only claims for 6 documented procedures but...how many of us have other kind of procedures? And how many of us have in fact only 6 procedures?...

- My personal opinion is that we should strive to keep the processes as few as possible, in order to avoid an "inflation" of processes and therefore, consider only one or two main processes in each of the groups other than Product Realization, i.e., identify one or two processes in clauses 5, 6 and 8 and of course some more in clause 7, but the total not exceeding a dozen or so.

- Then, we are faced with the need to document those 6 required procedures and must put ourselves the question: Did we include them already as processes or not? - If yes, no problem, but if not, then comes another question: Should we include them as processes as well or we can just considder them as "independent" activities and portrait them in separated or combined procedures, without any concern of having a corresponding process?
In fact, I believe we should answer "Yes" to both questions, because it will be very difficult in the case of those (6) requirements or at least some of them (e.g. Control of documents; Control of records) to illustrate them in a flowchart (as we should do with any process) and perhaps even more difficult to show their interaction, as ISO recommends, since they are "crossing-system" processes and therefore common to other clauses and phases within the system.

These are my views at present, but we are always changing and I hope yours and perhaps some other views will continue adding good value to this interesting and certainly controversial subject!

Henrique (formerly Henrique DaSilva, but I changed my E-mail address and the only way I found of having it right was to change my nickname as well...)

 

[Marc]

> Henrique (formerly Henrique DaSilva, but I changed my
> E-mail address and the only way I found of having it right
> was to change my nickname as well...)

See https://elsmar.com/elsmarqualityforum/threads/3746/ for information about changing your e-mail address.

> Unfortunately, I am not (yet) in the premium group of
> members and I do not have access to the premium directory.
> What is (or will be) really your "upgraded" document on
> this subject?...

At this point I'm putting the files in the Premium directory. They're changing every day and as of right now don't expect to finish them before Monday - I'm running behind. One day next week I'll probably post the file set for sale as an individual file set.

What will be in it? Contents currently include the main powerpoint file, a 'mini-gap analysis' spread sheet and a few other files. I may do a preview, but if I do it will be limited. I have - as most folks know - stopped giving away everything for free. Sorry...

 

[Marc]

> - The figure representing the process (the continuous
> improvement cycle) is indeed very interesting and we are
> now seeing it in every new ISO literature, but is only the
> start of the matter, a view in a broad perspective; when
> it comes to really implementing the system we face some
> questions for which ISO 9001 does not have clear answers.

Some years back - I think about 1988, there was a program for the Mac called Stella. It was neat. It was basically process software where you could put in variables. Then, after you designed the process (any process, mind you, not just manufacturing processes...) you could run it. You could put in many factors including % of workers who would be absent (you had to have certain historical data or make 'predictions' on some of the factors), process times - all sorts of fators. And - being Macintosh - it was all graphical. You could see 'tanks' fill up and empty. You could spot bottle necks - easy as watching the run.

This all came about - this thread - because as I have been deeply reading the spec and I keep seeing this process approach thing. I continue to be amazed - as amazed as I was when I first saw ISO 9001 back in - what - 1991. That diagram is a simple top level system flow that all businesses follow with the possible exception that some here may argue about the continuous improvement box.

I got to the point where I see what I think are two distinctions.

First is their rational for changing the structure of the standard was to re-frame it in a 'Process Approach' model. Ok. So big deal. They did that. I personally don't believe that was necessary and will only be an expense to many, many companies.

Second is they are saying companies should take a process approach.

From 0.2 Process approach:

> The model of a process-based quality management system
> shown in Figure 1 illustrates the process linkages
> presented in clauses 4 to 8. This illustration shows that
> customers play a significant role in defining requirements
> as inputs. Monitoring of customer satisfaction requires
> the evaluation of information relating to customer
> perception as to whether the organization has met the
> customer requirements. The model shown in Figure 1 covers
> all the requirements of this International Standard, but
> does not show processes at a detailed level.

Well, la-t-da. Tell me something new. All businesses operate this way and have for centuries. First, remember my major was biology - chemistry and anthropology were my minors. I was NOT a business or engineering student by any means. These are things I learned in college in a Cultural Anthropology course as we discussed the development of trade. As a simple, but clear, example -- As long as there has been barter or trade there has been customer feedback. Think about it. I bought your clay pot and it leaked. And heck - the pyramids weren't built without defined (and I bet documented) work instructions and specifications. You can also bet your bottom dollar there was feedback to 'engineering' from 'production' from time to time.

For those of you out there who want to stone me at this point for not addressing that 'continuous improvement' thing - heck... Why do we have TVs and tiny computers and laser surgery? From the point of view of an anthropologist and biologist I have to say that it is because man (and companies) is(are) always continuously improving on what currently is. Watch the Discovery Channel (or similar) and you may happenstance upon a program telling of the improvements in spear points made of flint over thousands of years. This is also evident plainly in the fact that each successive pyramid built used increasingly complex designs and building methodologies. Nothing less than continuous improvement. ISO may mandate continuous improvement, but it's really a given.

> For instance: How many processes? How many procedures?
> Which processes? Which procedures? - Of course, we know
> that ISO only claims for 6 documented procedures but...how
> many of us have other kind of procedures? And how many of
> us have in fact only 6 procedures?...

With ISO, the problem that comes into play is that each business is so different. That's why consultants can help. A lot of it is understanding the relationship of the words in the standard to what you do and how you do it. The level you have to go to depends entirely upon your specific type of business, processes, customer requirements, etc., etc. Most of this is disussed in my ISO package - but there is no absolute answer there. You have to look at your company and decide what you need and where. Then the auditor asks you about your rationalization(s).

In these forums you can get the most precise detail because you can post more and more details of your specific company and processes for people to consider and comment on.

Or - more to the point but isn't free - get a consultant to come in and take a look and talk to you about your situation. An assessment by a good consultant is typically worth the money.

 

[SteelMaiden]

You ever have one of those moments when something changes the whole way you think? (paradigm shift)

I've been looking at this poll, and thinking "that's really simple." But, today it just kind of kicked in and hit me in the face. Even though we've been talking about processes, their inter-relationships etc., we are still managing functionally. I have been on a crusade the past several months to move us out of "start-up" mentality into continuous improvement. i.e. we need to do more with our time than put out the fires, we need to prevent them. I was talking with our CFO, who is actually my biggest champion in the quality management arena, when this happened. I was telling him that I wanted to get some process teams started using a variety of people from different levels and departments to look at what we have and where we are going, to find ways to quantify it all, and to spread the word on process inter-relationships. One of the problems that we have encountered is a department that sees themselves as slightly autonomous and unable to understand why their input into customer service issues and resolution is important.

Anyway, it suddenly dawned on me that the manager in question was managing a function, and not relating to the process. The more I looked at what we are doing, and what most of the companies I am familiar with are doing, we truly do need to shift into a process oriented methodology. Up until now, I just kind of looked at the new revision as a way to justify the standard, registrations etc. Now I see it as a chance to change the way we think and see things.

Does anyone care to share how your companies are shifting management techniques from functions to processes, or even if you are? Actually, it's even ok if you say, duh, where has your head been through this whole transition.

 

[Russ]

We've been registered for 4 years and management is just now starting to see how continuous improvement is not a thing of itself but something everyone can contribute to. They have just recently moved to require ideas from everyone monthly in order to spur the process and get people involved. I say harrah for that, gee I've been telling them that now for almost a year! Oh well at least they are starting to move in the right direction now. My job is to try and speed up the process, and to make sure all the employees know just where this is headed.

 

[E Wall]

Approach

Our company merged with a competitor 1.5 years ago. There wasn't (IMHO) a good 'merge plan' in place and with economic trends of the past year (spcifically May-Dec 201) we've had problem after problem. After about a year after the merger they started looking at 'Process' systems and what should be done to eliminate redundancy accross the company as much as possible as well as eliminate the sources of waste at each facility. We are using Lean Manufacturing as a tool to achieve this.

When I first was to start my transition I kept telling the Managers here that the 'Lean' effort would work hand-in-hand with the ISO transition. What I kept hearing from them was "No, it's toatally different...this has nothing to do with Quality!" . Rather than beat my head against the wall , I took a more patient approach (very uncommon for me!). Now - I can sit back and laugh because after my participation in some training at our site and in a recent Kaizen event, I was able to really show the parallels...which, by the way, has served to get some major buy-in at our facility for our transition project which officially kicks off on Feb 1.