Lost in spaghetti-shaped processes

[gfreely]

Sorry for the .jpg...wanted to make it visible for all so I didn't attach Visio.

After an excruciatingly extensive review of MANY different takes on "process mapping", I have come to a couple of conclusions:

a) I am embarrased at my previous attachment. I am no expert by ANY stretch of the imagination, but I have had quite a bit more Quality experience than the average field mouse. Just not necessarily in this area. This is a unique situation for me...

and b) as embarrasing as it may be, it has the potential for the bones of what I need to shoot for...based on what I have seen thus far.

Patricia, regarding my comment earlier, I was making a veiled attempt at sarcasm...which never came to fruition I assume. I actually *do* see the light (to an extent)...I am just trying to figure out how to get there from here in this new and different environment.

Jane, I can post the file in Visio format if you really want to see it...(see a. above) I tried to get my hands on some of the documentation from a company I used to work for (who has a facility in Sydney - which is *similar* to the situation I am in) so I could see how they managed, but so far they are not very forthcoming with their documentation unless I were buying from them

I can try to give a general background on my situation if it would be of any use (can't be too specific lest the corporate info cops get miffed).

Thanks!

 

[Patricia Ravanello]

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.
.

Sorry Jane, I don't agree that Brivis' Quality Management System Model is correct. If they called it a mapping of the sequence of Product Realization processes, I would be in agreement...there is no doubt that it tells us how a customer's request is processed and satisfied.

It does not in any way allude to how the "Management System" works - it's not a Management System Model. It doesn't capture the essence of the dynamics that the ISO standard mandates (of course, only IMHO).

On page 5, they have another Model without a label, but which they say (on pg. 4) is an overview of the "Quality Management System Model, with all the core processes included", which I believe is closer to the truth (I say closer, because it doesn't answer the mandate of 4.1.b ...the arrows represent sequence to me, but they don't address interface...also, there's no mention of Corrective/Preventive Action as a core process).

I don't want to spark a debate about this in this thread, but perhaps gfreely can benefit from these observations.

Patricia

 

[JaneB]

Gfreely, don't be embarassed -
There are almost as many interpretations 'process mapping' as you can count. And it's particularly confusing because it may be used to mean one or more of a diagram (flowchart/etc) or description of:

• a single process
  
• a number of related processes
  
• model of the quality management system itself!

Asking in a public forum means you get free advice - but one of the downsides is that you can get conflicting - and strongly held! - opinion from different people.

The important thing is never that 'we' agree with you, but that whatever you come up with works for your purpose. So if it has the bones of what you're after, keep on going. You're the 'Johnny on the spot' - none of us are. But happy to try & help when possible.



Patricia, I agree with you on all points, including that the Brivis diagram is very badly titled!

 

[gfreely]

Okay Jane,

Take a DEEP breath and grab hold of your patience...I did a rough sketch of what I *think* is headed in the right direction as far as what I am looking for. Does it make any sense? I guess I after all of this investigating I have been doing trying to learn how this company operates, I would like to know I can (with relative accuracy) relay it to others. THEN I can set out to identify potential improvements.

Anxiously awaiting input!

:mg:

 

[JaneB]

Take a DEEP breath and grab hold of your patience...

Hey, there's nothing wrong (I think) with my patience - if anything I said gave you that impression, it was unintended.

I did a rough sketch of what I *think* is headed in the right direction as far as what I am looking for. Does it make any sense?

Yes, it sure does. This is something that I can follow, & which communicates something to me. Your first thing didn't (for me) at all. As you say:

I guess I after all of this investigating I have been doing trying to learn how this company operates, I would like to know I can (with relative accuracy) relay it to others. THEN I can set out to identify potential improvements.

Exactamundo. That is the purpose (to me) of sketching a process chart, doing a process map, a flowchart, whatever one wants to call it. It's one of the first things I do when coming to grips with what an organisation does (roughly) - what the main stages are, what comes before what, where it starts and ends, etc. Your previous list may have meant something like this process to you, but I think you were perhaps filling in the process mentally, based on your list, if that makes sense. That's just fine, unless and until you need to discuss or communicate the process with someone else who doesn't see the same thing. Like me

I tend to sketch things roughly on a bit of paper, and when I can't sketch it - be it ever so rough!- I know one of these things: I'm not talking to someone who can lift above it enough to explain it (possibly lost in the detail) or, it's actually convoluted or over-complicated, or possibly 'I'm not 'getting it'. But this last is pretty rare these days, because I've sketched/mapped/drawn/documented one heck of a lot of different processes by now.

And the result of all that is that I can finally draw something that people who do the process have something to talk about, can begin to say yes, it happens pretty much like this, or 'well, not really right just here'... etc.

I can query a few details eg, I imagine that QA inspecting received materials doesn't just 'terminate' there (one would hope not). And I don't quite understand the 2-headed arrow on the left of the 1st Visio, particularly what is moving backwds & fwds between order entry and say, all the other stages (which do make sense) - seems to be contradicted by the 2nd more detailed one. And how do Sales & QA inter-related (things appear to possibly go 'round & round' between the Quality Plan & Sales Order)... but no doubt these are things you're already asking yourself!

Anxiously awaiting input!

Gosh, please don't be anxious. Now you're going to give me a complex

As we say here, No worries, mate. She's right. (or 'She's apples'). Translation = it's all fine.

 

[Peter Fraser]

Sorry Jane, I don't agree that Brivis' Quality Management System Model is correct. If they called it a mapping of the sequence of Product Realization processes, I would be in agreement...there is no doubt that it tells us how a customer's request is processed and satisfied.

It does not in any way allude to how the "Management System" works - it's not a Management System Model. It doesn't capture the essence of the dynamics that the ISO standard mandates (of course, only IMHO).

On page 5, they have another Model without a label, but which they say (on pg. 4) is an overview of the "Quality Management System Model, with all the core processes included", which I believe is closer to the truth (I say closer, because it doesn't answer the mandate of 4.1.b ...the arrows represent sequence to me, but they don't address interface...also, there's no mention of Corrective/Preventive Action as a core process).

I don't want to spark a debate about this in this thread, but perhaps gfreely can benefit from these observations.

Patricia

Patricia (and Jane)

Goodness - how much can I agree / disagree with!

3.4 is awful - no way does it describe the QMS, or even process interaction, there is so much missing. For example, Product Servicing doesn't even affect Service Feedback (apparently). What is the difference between Customer Feedback and Service Feedback (does this not come from the customer as well)? And how is "Supplier assessed" or "Components received" a "transformation"? What benefit is this diagram supposed to give anyone?

And...

the diagram on Page 5 is just one more example of someone copying the (relatively pointless) picture out of the standard without thinking. So there are only 2 information flows, and 2 value-adding activities, in the entire QMS worth mentioning? "Inputting a customer requirement" adds value, does it? No way - that is the trigger for you to start adding the value. "Control of records" doesn't go near "Management review" - I don't think so.

I have no idea why people produce these pictures - they are usually so fundamentally flawed that they are not only almost totally useless but they also bring into question the understanding of the people who produce them.

And (while I am on my high horse...) I have to disagree with Patricia - "preventive action" is very often not a process, but can be (and should be) part of many processes.

Apart from that, the example is pretty good...(!)

 

[JaneB]

Patricia (and Jane)

Goodness - how much can I agree / disagree with!

I don't know - how much can you?

3.4 is awful - no way does it describe the QMS, or even process interaction, there is so much missing.

I'm wondering if you're taking up cudgels on a different topic? Let us return to the question that the OP was asking, what he posted, and the feedback he asked for.

He was attempting (first attempt too!) to identify main 'product realisation' processes in a confusing environment. That's what I responded to, including refs to a couple of simple-ish examples which had to be fairly readily to hand in a short time.

The Brivis diagram I said gives

a reasonable idea of what their main activities are ... and in which order they occur.

I can see (now) that it's possible to read this as meaning I held it up as a good model of an overall QMS, but that wasn't the intent. I think the OP's question, our posts and the conversation up to that point make this clear. It was merely used as one way of communicating main product-related processes, and contrasting that with the OP's list approach.

A debate about whether the diagram in the Brivis manual is a suitable model of a QMS is a whole other topic, & not the question at hand. I'm happy to debate a topic when it's the one I was discussing, but this wasn't it.

 

[Patricia Ravanello]

Patricia (and Jane)

Goodness - how much can I agree / disagree with!

And (while I am on my high horse...) I have to disagree with Patricia - "preventive action" is very often not a process, but can be (and should be) part of many processes.

Apart from that, the example is pretty good...(!)

Thanks Peter...I admire and appreciate your comments and ardour, and I agree with you.

The attached model demonstrates how "Preventive Action" not only should be, but in fact, IS linked to all the Key Processes of the Management Operating System.

Patricia

P.S. - Actually, the PowerPoint file that I wanted to attach is too large. If you send me your e-mail address, I'll forward it to you directly.

 

[Peter Fraser]

I'm wondering if you're taking up cudgels on a different topic? Let us return to the question that the OP was asking, what he posted, and the feedback he asked for.

A debate about whether the diagram in the Brivis manual is a suitable model of a QMS is a whole other topic, & not the question at hand. I'm happy to debate a topic when it's the one I was discussing, but this wasn't it.

Jane

It is clearly Patricia's fault - even though she said she didn't want to spark a debate, she didn't use a big enough font, and I didn't notice...!

I am trying to map the different processes from the Customer Order to Shipping the product. I know there a few in between that I won't need to worry about (they belong to another group), but I am looking for a push in a direction of where (and how) to get started.

I was hoping to avoid the OP trying to apply a model which I though would be less than helpful.

Although I am a great believer in the use of flowcharts and process maps, there is probably nothing much wrong with starting by listing what happens from the customer enquiry stage through to the customer getting the delivery. Something like:
(WHAT you do)
Review the enquiry - can we do it?
Respond to the customer
Receive and record the order
Schedule production
etc

...then expand each step to say HOW you do it. This may result in a separate process map for each of some steps, or just a short explanation or even a checklist of bullet points for others. But say as little as is required. "Simplicity lies beyond complexity".

 

[Patricia Ravanello]

Jane

It is clearly Patricia's fault - even though she said she didn't want to spark a debate, she didn't use a big enough font, and I didn't notice...!

Sure Peter, blame ME!!!!