Lost in spaghetti-shaped processes

[Caster]

The 'Best of the Best' Process Map Format
That thread has many examples and a good deal of information....

If you haven't done so already, as has been suggested, please give yourself permission to spend several hours searching, reading, copying and printing examples of process maps from the Cove.

This few hours will be the best you could ever spend.

I find that I always end up with 3 or more approaches, from which I can take what may work for me.

Good luck, this is the place to be, it just takes some digging, reading, thinking, and changing to suit your situation.

 

[JaneB]

Wow Jane...:truce: That was tough! But I *do* appreciate your honesty and input. This is my first go in the QA-side of manufacturing. Not as clear-cut as I am accustomed to. I do see your point, however. I have been "loosely" basing what I have been doing sarcasm on "list" and "documents" instead of the actual processes themselves it seems.

Hmm - was there something I said that came across as a bit too blunt? If so, my apologies, but if someone asks for an opinion, or feedback, I do aim to speak honestly.

But if I look at, say Patricia's example, or a couple of the examples in the thread Caster mentions (not all of them, many of them appear to be what I'd call procedures, rather than processes) I can follow what happens. I can find where the process starts, and roughly what comes after what. I can see in the Audit one for example, the 'flow' of audit activities. I can see in Patricia's what comes before/after different processes.

A fairly simple example I quite like is in Brivis' Quality Manual (and no, I didn't consult to them!). Look at the model in 3.4 'Quality Management System Model' - you can get a reasonable idea of what their main activities are from this and in which order they occur.

I couldn't see any of those things in yours. This *may* not matter - ultimately the processes need to make sense to you & the people in your organisation. And different people have different ways of doing things, and mostly we all tend to think that our way is much better than others' (including me ) I don't particularly like turtle diagrams at all, for example, whereas other people do. They can do 'em - I avoid 'em.

But I would still wager that if they aren't outlined in some relatively clear way currently, then there is confusion around them.

What you come up with has to make sense to you - but also to be useful in some way. (What makes diagrams & maps & the like difficult is that often we conceptualise and see things differently). But yes, I'd definitely urge you to drop the list approach, and see if you can come up with some kind high level flowcharts of what the main processes are - what they start with, where they finish & roughly what stages they go through in between. Then - and only then - in my experience, one has some kind of framework to start slotting the docs into/comparing the docs against.

 

[gfreely]

Jane,

No worries! I appreciate a straightforward approach!

I made a broad overview of sorts based on what I have been told and input from other areas of our operation. I would like your honest critique, please!

Any inputs from the other fine folks here @ the Cove would be MUCH appreciated also!

Thanks!

Oh, and

I originally signed up here several years ago and had to re-register when I tried to log on after a "hiatus"....did I miss something? Was it the redesign of the site? Just curious....

 

[Patricia Ravanello]

Gfreely,

Is the arrow between Kitting and Stock going the wrong way?

Patricia

 

[gfreely]

...THAT's real professional!

Yes, in my rush to pick up Visio, I ended up dragging the arrow incorrectly...sorry

 

[Patricia Ravanello]

No problem...

Next...I think you have to look at the Big picture from 30,000 feet...map out what you see...then drop to 10,000, and start to flow-chart the details.

From what you've provided, here's what I think you'd see from 30,000 feet:

Product Realization Phases:

1. Order Receipt and Entry
2. Product Design
3. Manufacturing Planning
4. Production (sub processes: assembly, inspection, packaging)
5. Shipping​

Everything else is peripheral to, or a sub-process of one of these "Phases" of your Product Realization.

Next step...
Create the flow charts that take you through each phase.

Where there are links to other Key processes, identify and link them...you don't necessarily have to provide the details in the Product Realilzation process itself (like Purchasing details...those would be outlined in the Purchasing Procedure, and so, they don't have to be repeated here...just make sure they're linked).

Based on the 30,000 foot view in my previous attachment (Product Realization OVERVIEW), here is what my flow chart of Phase 1 - The Program Feasibility Phase looks like (see attachment).
At this level (10,000 ft), I start to see the process steps, who's responsible, what the input and output to each step is, and what the links to other processes are (both Procedures and Work Instructions). This particular process flow represents an organization that has Sales/Engineering facilities separate from the Manufacturing site. Here, it was important to differentiate what the respective responsibilities (left/right side) are, as well as those that are shared (processes which straddle the line).

You can see how it's critical to sort it all out from the beginning, so you know where things will go. It's time well spent.

Start with a skeleton flow and get confirmation...then add the meat on, step-by-step, with the help of the process owners.

Patricia

 

[gfreely]

Ok, I see where you're going with this and I am going to give it a shot.

And just to make sure the is dead, I am gonna beat him one more time....question:

How far down is it common and/or necessary to go? I understand starting with a broad range and scaling it down to individual processes, but one could theoretically break an operation down to 1k infintesimal processes...I suppose when it gets that small you begin delving into the "procedure" realm though, huh?

Ok, I am going to work with the new info and see what comes of it. I would still love to hear differing views/opinions if anyone is willing!

 

[Patricia Ravanello]

Ok, I see where you're going with this and I am going to give it a shot.

And just to make sure the is dead, I am gonna beat him one more time....question:

How far down is it common and/or necessary to go? I understand starting with a broad range and scaling it down to individual processes, but one could theoretically break an operation down to 1k infintesimal processes...I suppose when it gets that small you begin delving into the "procedure" realm though, huh?

Ok, I am going to work with the new info and see what comes of it. I would still love to hear differing views/opinions if anyone is willing!

Only go into as much detail as is appropriate for the knowledge, skill and experience level of your employees, or if variations in a process can lead to failures (Ex. Process: Thread a needle...do you need to describe the process? Will variations in how you thread it make a difference? Is there a right and a wrong way?)

Re: Your comment: ...I suppose when it gets that small you begin delving into the "procedure" realm though, huh?

You're really scaring me now...I'm not sure we're on the same page. The Big Picture (Product Realization) IS the Procedure realm. As you get into more detail, you get into the Work Instruction realm.

There are dozens of other examples and models here on the Cove. You need get a broad picture of several approaches...don't just rely on mine. Find or develop one that works for your organization.

Patricia

 

[JaneB]

I think this is a bit clearer, but either Patricia's eyesight is better than mine or she can read text in a JPG better than I can.

In a nutshell - too hard to read text in a JPG - if you want any more opinion from me, pls attach as a VIsio or a PDF - something that enables READING the text You know what's on it. I don't.

Patricia's given you a lot of good advice, including that of looking at various models and finding one that speaks to you. For example, I just loathe any procedure/chart the like that uses the term 'Product Realization' (a phrase to which I have a deep and lasting aversion); I'd much rather you used terminology that is comprehensible to all (not just those of us who understand ISO-speak).

 

[Patricia Ravanello]

Hi Jane,
I, too abhored the term "Product Realization", since it is not common to most companies, and it covers such a broad scope of activities (from Request for Quote...to Product Close-out, roughly speaking), but while most companies have names for all the phases that make up Product Realization, they didn't have a name for the whole family of activities.

Rather than create another new and unfamiliar term, I've just surrendered to the standard's usage...at least it's fairly universal among ISO companies. And yes...sometimes people have to add new words to their vocabulary...oh well!

Patricia