Informational ISO9001:2015 Process Interactions

[Tagin]

True JIT (Just In Time) means the bin locations for stocking is not available yet, which creates a problem. Automotive is big on early shipments being cause for a non-conformance report to be issued.

In our environment, we typically work to a -5/+2 ontime metric (i.e., up to 5 days early, and up to 2 days late) specified by our customers and we in turn apply to our suppliers. With suppliers, too early means more of our warehouse space is used longer, and the A/P invoices start ticking sooner (potentially affecting cash flow). These are fairly long leadtime items, so -5/+2 is reasonable for our market, whereas it might be horrendous in other markets.

 

[Crusader]

Soooo, Shipping is part of a Core process, right? Finished product and production traveler/paperwork in ==> Shipping Dept ==> shipping pack slips and other shipper docs out. (in our process, the shipping dept stamps and sends the finished traveler/production packet to Accounting, who waits to marry it up with paid invoices, then it is filed away.)

 

[Kronos147]

Soooo, Shipping is part of a Core process, right?

What's the context?

In a large org, it may be considered a core process, in a smaller org, a sub-process. It's up to the org to define their processes.

 

[Crusader]

Shipping is not much more than a blurb in the product realization (core) process. That is the only place it is mentioned.
I've looked over many process maps and I appreciate all input. I think this one attached is going to do it. I took 2 similar maps from here, 1 from our CB webinar, and 1 from a TS16949 map on the internet and did some changes and added my flavor. My system only defines 3 core processes and the rest are all support.

 

[tony s]

The standard says inputs and outputs must be determined as well as sequence and interaction, but no standard I have yet seen contains the words "process" and "map" next to each other. Over the years people have trained themselves and each other to think a process map is the only thing a CB will accept.

I agree. Even ISO/TS 9002:2016 in section 4.4.1b mentioned a simpler approach:

​

when determining the sequence and interaction of these processes, the links with the inputs and​

outputs of the previous and subsequent processes should be considered; the methods for providing​

details of the sequence and interaction of the processes depends on the nature of the organization;​

different methods can be used, such as retaining or maintaining documented information (e.g.​

process maps or flow diagrams), or a more simple approach, such as a verbal explanation of the​

sequence and interaction of the processes​

The ISO 9001 Auditing Practices Group Guidance by the ISO and the International Accreditation Forum have also provided guidance for CBs in Evidence Collection:

​

Auditors should be aware that objective evidence does not necessarily depend on the​

existence of documented information, except where specifically mentioned in ISO 9001. In​

other cases is up to the organization to determine what documented information is​

necessary in order to provide this objective evidence.​

It is the organization’s responsibility to provide objective evidence of conformity.​

Organizations may be able to demonstrate conformity without the need for extensive​

documented information.​

 

[John Broomfield]

Crusader,

Would you mind changing the order of your processes to reflect what your organization does to turn customer needs into cash in the bank?

Your colleagues may then understand that it is their business management system that creates satisfied customers.

Instead of just sitting at your desk with the standard listing processes as they come to mind, why not work with top managers to determine exactly what the organization does to convert customer needs into cash in the bank. Make sure you address all they do to prevent later problems.

After showing respect for their management system they will gladly help you to ensure it conforms to the standard.

Best wishes,

John

 

[chetws]

I work for a small chemical manufacturing company with fewer than 50 employees. The processes for my company were never well defined in our QMS. I'm trying to lay out what they are now, but I have the feeling that I'm over complicating things. Looking at the process interactions posted by others on this thread, mine seems a bit convoluted with 10 processes.

Attached is a picture of the process interaction diagram below. Does this look like I'm on the right track? I'm new to administering ISO 9001 company-wide, so I really appreciate any criticism and suggestions.

 

[John Broomfield]

Chet,

Being as you’ve accurately represented your company’s business management system it looks reasonable. This is the system that delivers quality services and products or not.

I would though emphasize the importance of leadership instead of administration.

Note that true processes end with ing. They are doing words.

You’ve not yet defined the interactions between these processes and those interactions may include assessing risks and invoking action to prevent problems.

My clients usually included invoicing and controlling credit (for accurate billing and prompt payment) to help ensure the funds were available to invest in improvement. It also reinforces the fact that quality is meant to be delivered by the business system instead of by some bolt-on quality system.

Don’t forget to include the services valued by your customers and the actions taken to prevent problems.

John

 

[chetws]

Chet,

Being as you’ve accurately represented your company’s business management system it looks reasonable. This is the system that delivers quality services and products or not.

I would though emphasize the importance of leadership instead of administration.

Note that true processes end with ing. They are doing words.

You’ve not yet defined the interactions between these processes and those interactions may include assessing risks and invoking action to prevent problems.

Hi John,

Thanks for the quick response My rational for "Management Administration" is basicly a catch all for other 9001 clauses not capture in my other processes. Clauses like 4.0 Context of the Organisation, 5.0 Leadership, Management Review, etc. Perhaps it's better to simply name this process "Management"?

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Attached is a picture of the process interaction diagram below. Does this look like I'm on the right track? I'm new to administering ISO 9001 company-wide, so I really appreciate any criticism and suggestions.

I am glad you are open to constructive feedback.

In my opinion, these high level process maps are utterly useless. They don't add any value whatsoever because they are overly simplistic, don't really recognize all the interfaces between processes and are easily glossed over. They seem to exist solely to appease misguided external auditors who "like" to see something like this to tick a mental box they have.

If you want to do something that really adds value, forget creating a process map such as this. Try to describe in TEXTUAL form the processes and their interfaces in the system. Obviously, you can not put all the details there, but the primary and secondary interfaces. For example one thing that your process map does not contemplate. Customer wants to URGENTLY change the delivery method and address for an order. Your process does not have a DIRECT interface between order management and shipping. Guess what? In an URGENT change order scenario, that interface needs to exist, at the risk of creating customer dissatisfaction. A description of such processes interfaces would help educating the workforce about the quality system of the organization.

Good luck.