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

[Alf Gulford]

Morning, Eileen,

I think your post may strike a chord with a lot of people who's companies are trying the Lean Manufacturing path.

Any chance you could expand on this a little? Give some specific examples of how you drew parallels and where you were able to make the most effective points?

I've used some of your contributions to my advantage before, and I wouldn't hesitate to steal more of your ideas.

Thanks.

Alf

 

[E Wall]

Parallels

Yes, I'd be happy to but am unable to take the time until Monday afternoon. I'll do it then

Stroking my ego just awarded you 5 brownie points!
ROFL

Eileen

 

[John Finn]

Process Orientation

Happy New Year to everyone and my hopes for a happier time for everyone (including the Red Sox)!

I believe that, unfortunately, the problem with convincing people in management that focus should be on improving processes, not functions or people, is not one of logic, but rather one of psychology. Processes in business, by their nature, tend to be cross-functional. If you have a process orientation, and the process is not operating effectively, then the cause of the problem and responsibility for resolution, rests with those who have cross-functional authority, namely top management. This concept of being part of the problem is not palatable to many managers.

If your thinking is functional, or if you emphasize individual responsibility, then management's job becomes easier (psychologically). If things are going badly, then you simply need to reorganize or fire someone! Much easier to do, and it creates the illusion of action.

That's my opinion, anyway.

 

[Michael T]

Re: Process Orientation

Originally posted by John Finn
Happy New Year to everyone and my hopes for a happier time for everyone (including the Red Sox)!

I believe that, unfortunately, the problem with convincing people in management that focus should be on improving processes, not functions or people, is not one of logic, but rather one of psychology. Processes in business, by their nature, tend to be cross-functional. If you have a process orientation, and the process is not operating effectively, then the cause of the problem and responsibility for resolution, rests with those who have cross-functional authority, namely top management. This concept of being part of the problem is not palatable to many managers.

If your thinking is functional, or if you emphasize individual responsibility, then management's job becomes easier (psychologically). If things are going badly, then you simply need to reorganize or fire someone! Much easier to do, and it creates the illusion of action.

That's my opinion, anyway.

Hi John,

In my opinion, you are very correct in your opinion...

Unfortunately, those little "empires" that most managers (upper & middle) like to build preclude the novel concept that they may be responsible for something that is "outside" their immediate sphere of influence. All these "go getters" aren't really getting anything - all they are really doing is wasting time trying to keep to themselves the tiny fiefdom they've managed to gain while trying to figure out how to screw someone else out of theirs. If they would only realize that by sharing what they know, everyone benefits...

What is more unfortunate is that this very thing (functional responsibility) is being taught in our colleges and being held as the standard in a vast majority of businesses. I'm starting my first semester as an adjunct professor at a local university teaching Supervison & Labor Relations. One of the texts I have to use (being new - I don't have the luxury of choosing my own text... yet ... ) still touts MBO as one of the best and preferred management tools available. When I read that I nearly choked on my Wheaties. And this is a new book.... YIKES!!!

While I have to use the texts given, I don't have to teach to them... The students are going to get a huge dose of Deming, Senge, Scholtes among others, regardless of what has been perscribed.

Cheers!!!

 

[John Finn]

MBO

Michael,

I like the picture of your (I assume) son; very cute.

"Seek simplicity and distrust it." - Alfred North Whitehead

"For every complex question there is a simple answer, and it is wrong." - H. L. Mencken

MBO is the simple answer.

 

[Craig H.]

Process Approach?

Where I see the "Process Approach" is in the structure. You have goals that are set and monitored by upper management. These overall goals should drive improvement all the way to the bottom of the organization. The process is the manner in which these goals are monitored and formulated, both on a company-wide basis, as well as making sure that the lower-tier goals are in line with the overall strategy. The process cycle is completed with the periodic reviews and subsequent adjustments.

Although this seems to be an obvious way of doing things, it is most certainly not the norm, in my experience.

 

[Michael T]

Re: MBO

Originally posted by John Finn
Michael,

I like the picture of your (I assume) son; very cute.

"Seek simplicity and distrust it." - Alfred North Whitehead

"For every complex question there is a simple answer, and it is wrong." - H. L. Mencken

MBO is the simple answer.

Thanks John - - yep, he's my son *proudgrinz*

MBO is the simple answer -- I just wish people would wake-up and realize that simple answers to complex questions give mediocre results. Your quotes are all too accurate.

The question then becomes, what does one do?

 

[M Greenaway]

I dont believe that ISO9001:2000 says you must adopt the process approach, only that it is encouraged (maybe this is the same thing).

As the 1994 standard was written around the processes of a manufacturing (engineering) organisation, if you are such an organisation your 1994 structured QMS should still fit the bill (if you did it right in the first place).

Does anyone know how a company can operate without managing things as processes ?

 

[Michael T]

Sounds like it to me...

ISO 9001:2000; 4 Quality Management System

4.1 General Requirements

The organization shall establish, document, implement and maintain a quality management system and continually improve its effectiveness in accordance with the requirements of this International Standard.

The organization shall

a) Identify the processes needed for the quality management system and their application throughout the organization;

b) determine the sequence and interaction of these processes,

c) determine criteria and methods needed to ensure that both the operation and control of these processes are effective,

d) ensure the avaiability of resources and information necessary to support the operation and monitoring of these processes,

e) monitor, measure and analyse these processes, and

f) implement actions necessary to achieve planned results and continual improvement of these processes.

These processes shall be managed by the organzation in accordance with the requirements of this International Standard.

Where an organization chooses to outsource any process that affects product conformity with requirements, the organization shall ensure control over such processes. Control of such outsourced proceses shall be identified within the quality management system.

NOTE Processes needed for the quality management system referred to above should include processes for management activities, provision of resources, product realization and measurement.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Sounds to me like the process approach... very first thing in the new standard.

The way I read the 1994 standard - it was basically compliance based. Either you do it the way the standard says or you are non-compliant.

The way I read the 2000 standard - it is basically process based. There is a process map that identifies the main process and all the subprocesses for product realization and the measurements used to determine if those processes are actually achieving the desired results. Business decisions are based upon these results and those processes are modified to conform to new business decisions (continuous improvement).

To answer your question, I don't see how ANY business or enterprise can operate effectively without managing things as processes. (The operative word is "effectively"). Processes exist whether a business entity wishes to manage them or not. Businesses can fly by the seat of their pants for a short period of time provided the business is small enough and only a very few people are calling the shots. It is the shrewd and enlightened manager/VP/President/CEO, whatever, that sees everything as a system (or process) and understands that the decisions/solutions made yesterday are in all likelihood the problems of today.

Anyway - this is how I see it... JMHO

Cheers!

 

[Neelanshu Varma]

I wish Marc had another option - None of the above. Of the options given, the second one is closer to reality though the use of the word "must' prevented me from voting for it.

Many posts indicate that just tweaking the earlier process ensure compliance with the new 2000 version hence the new version is not any different from the old 1994 version. - Old wine in new bottle-??? Not really.

I think what really matters is that organisations that did not have a QMS are finding the implementation of QMS to be simpler with 2000 version than it was with the 1994 version.

Also the standards lay greater emphasis on measurement, whcih really does not require much change to an existing QMS but would (should ) have a larger impact on the outcome of QMS implementation.

Cheers
Neelanshu