"Method" vs "Process" - Differences

Bev D

Heretical Statistician
Staff member
Super Moderator
#21
the overall process actually isn't documented. it is known and understood.
trained operators train the new people, the way the work is laid out if someone gets it wrong there is immediate feedback and the lien or team lead jumps in to make corrections.
equipment is controlled by only having the equipment required for the job at hand available. if it breaks, the line shuts down.
requirements are documented in the drawings and BOMs.
The engineers do their engineering work and then document the output in (usually) one system: material delivery timings are documented as part of the robot programming or route cards for manual delivery.
quantities to deliver are part of the ERP batch size and mixed model scheduling software.
QC testing requirements are in the drawings and specifications for electronically tested characteristics are transferred to the electronic system. manual and visual inspection are taught and distributed just like assembly operations.

The keys are discipline, standard work, visual workplace, engineering drawings, one source of truth and gemba (know the truth at the actual place where the actual work is going on). "processes" like corrective action and nonconforming material are known - managers teach it to employees and employees teach it to others. there is no tolerance for alternative approaches, unless and until a better way is developed and then it supersedes the previous approach. and every one is personally trained. This allows for flexibility and rapid response. It is the Toyota Production System and it uses an absolute minimum amount of method and process documentation. TPS uses knowledge, training, practice, feedback. operators - and engineers - do not read. they remember. believing that this isn't true is the fatal flaw of document systems.

Pilots do not rely on documented procedures: they are trained and they practice. the have visual and other sensory feedback to tell them when to adjust. they do have checklists (not reams and pages but a simple checklist as error proofing. heads up displays for the visual workplace.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
#22
How are controls established (to whatever degree they are needed), if not by documentation?
At a time when ISO/TC 176 has finally realized that documentation isn't the "be all and end all" of process control, it seems odd to me that you are asking this question. Plenty of very successful companies don't/didn't need documentation. In 6 years at Xerox, we had a very robust development process in the labs, but it wasn't defined in procedures. We must be prepared to shed the shackles of such thinking that documents are somehow critical to process controls. They aren't.
 

Mark Meer

Trusted Information Resource
#23
Thanks Bev! Great discussion, and very illuminating. But still so many questions though...

the overall process actually isn't documented. it is known and understood.
So, when a change is made (for example, a better method to do something is adopted) - this is just disseminated purely through word-of-mouth? Am I correct to assume there is also no documented training process?

equipment is controlled by only having the equipment required for the job at hand available. if it breaks, the line shuts down.
Seems like a liability. Are there not any maintenance, calibration, or adjustment procedures? Or are these too, just in the heads of operators?
I can see engineering drawings, and BOMs having requirements, but the process of scheduling & carrying out these activities is (I would assume) more involved than just specifying a requirement, no?

...manual and visual inspection are taught and distributed just like assembly operations....managers teach it to employees and employees teach it to others. there is no tolerance for alternative approaches, unless and until a better way is developed and then it supersedes the previous approach. ...
I don't know how this doesn't lend itself to the "telephone game" effect, making it difficult to know when (or by how much) training is different from this time, say, 2 years ago.

From what you describe, there would have to be tolerance for different approaches, because the only authority on what is acceptable or not is the judgement of operators (presuming requirements are still met). I can see the advantage of this, but again, I don't understand how you can exercise any consistency controls, or diagnose problems when they arise. Take the following example:

- Operator A trains Operator B (no documented process, just handing down the methods Operator A has always used)
- Operator A quits, and Operator B (once given autonomy) decides a slightly different method is preferable to him - he can still meet time & crafting requirements, so who's to say it's wrong?
- Much later, it is found there is a problem in the field, and it is found to be due to the varied method Operator B is using.
- With no standardized (documented) procedure, and with Operator A (the source of the original, better, method) long gone, what case is there that Operator B did anything wrong?
- Furthermore, with Operator A gone, and Operator B now used to his new method (he's forgotten the details of what Operator A originally trained him on), how do you revert back to the previous method?

..."processes" like corrective action and nonconforming material are known...
Are you saying that there are no documented procedures for corrective action and dealing with non-conformances either?

...operators - and engineers - do not read. they remember. believing that this isn't true is the fatal flaw of document systems. Pilots do not rely on documented procedures: they are trained and they practice....
I'm not contesting this. Once trained, people (generally) no longer have to refer to instructions, this is true. But there at least a couple advantages of documented procedures, nonetheless:

1. For routines that are irregular, so knowledge may be "forgotten" when not used for awhile. For example, I've been trained to code, but haven't done it for years, and have long since forgotten the precise syntax or methods for creating compilation scripts. If I need to do it again, however, I can go back to documented methods to refresh my memory (and not rely on the instructors who originally trained me).

2. Replicability. Documented procedures allow for a baseline standardization of process so it can be replicated without depending on the individual expertise of many people. If a Toyota plant explodes (along with the operators), how could you ever recover the process if nothing is written down?

With respect to Pilots: sure they aren't referring to instructions while flying... but I'm almost certain (correct me if I'm wrong) that documented procedures exist, and are valuable to the training and standardization of the process.
 
Last edited:

Bev D

Heretical Statistician
Staff member
Super Moderator
#24
So, when a change is made (for example, a better method to do something is adopted) - this is just disseminated purely through word-of-mouth? Am I correct to assume there is also no documented training process?
To say that it is "word of mouth" is not only a gross understatement of what I have described, it is a complete mis-characterization. and no there isn't a documented way to train. Everybody knows how to train - because they were trained to do it right. Everybody knows what the goal is - minimize the 7 wastes. engineers are taught how to use the appropriate industrial engineering methods to balance and layout a line to minimize the 7 wastes. they KNOW what to do. they are trained by senior engineers who are trained by engineering managers who are trained by vice presidents.

the system is a flow of work that has a heartbeat with built in physical, electronic and visual signals for when something goes wrong. if someone does something too fast the downstream step doesn't have room for the inventory and the line stops and correction is made immediately. If they go to slow the downstream step will have nothing to work on and the line stops and immediate correction takes. the team leads and supervisors are watching (not in the old crack the whip perspective) to ensure that things are happening correctly. there are never alternative ways of doing things. there is no need for an internal audit "program" that is the continual job of the supervisor and the downstream process to ensure that work is done correctly.

this is not word of mouth. that is the kind of thinking that makes people think writing a process down will help. you must think about it from a different perspective. Discipline. Knowledge. the 7wastes. standard work. built in signals. continual vigilance. empowerment and engagement. the operators and engineers and planners and programmers and managers and leaders KNOW what the right thing to do is. they know the goal and then they know the methods.


Seems like a liability. Are there not any maintenance, calibration, or adjustment procedures? Or are these too, just in the heads of operators?
I can see engineering drawings, and BOMs having requirements, but the process of scheduling & carrying out these activities is (I would assume) more involved than just specifying a requirement, no?
Not a liability at all.
Maintenance and calibration procedures come in the form of checklists, schematics and manuals. some of this is necessarily written down but not in the way a "document and revision control process with review and approvals" would document it. you don't need that kind of document control when you have discipline to the process and built in signals for when something goes wrong and supervisors who are watching and checking in a positive and learning fashion.

The process for scheduling is KNOWN. It is taught to the new people by the people who know how to do it. face to face: show them, watch them, they practice, then audit. If they get it wrong the process won't work right, material will arrive late, gauges won't be calibrated on time etc. and it will be unavoidably obvious. to everyone. and then correction will happen.

don't know how this doesn't lend itself to the "telephone game" effect, making it difficult to know when (or by how much) training is different from this time, say, 2 years ago.

From what you describe, there would have to be tolerance for different approaches, because the only authority on what is acceptable or not is the judgement of operators (presuming requirements are still met). I can see the advantage of this, but again, I don't understand how you can exercise any consistency controls, or diagnose problems when they arise.
what is acceptable is not the judgment of the operators. it is the judgment of the system. the operators determine the best way to meet it. and there is ZERO tolerance for different ways. there is one way and that is how it is done until a better way is determined and then that becomes the one way.

you are missing that the work and the signals and the heartbeat and the flow are the standard. and since the line is stopped and deviations form the standard are immediately corrected it is quite simple to diagnose.

You are not reading or thinking about what I am saying. Mark - really think about how a documented procedure ensures that things are done the same and correctly; it simply doesn't. you must have training, supervision, discipline, flow and the visual workplace that enforces the heartbeat so that any deviations are immediately obvious. Perhaps you just need to get some books on the Toyota production system and read them. Jeffrey Liker has some great books. Bob Emiliani ahs some great blog posts on TPS.
 
#25
Great post, Bev. To see how (good quality) work is planned, performed and improved upon in the classic Toyota way, puts the whole idea on another plane (planet?) and it takes a lot to give up so much conventional wisdom about how "quality" is achieved.
 

Mark Meer

Trusted Information Resource
#26
Great post, Bev. To see how (good quality) work is planned, performed and improved upon in the classic Toyota way, puts the whole idea on another plane (planet?) and it takes a lot to give up so much conventional wisdom about how "quality" is achieved.
Could standards, certifications, and the regulations that depend on these be part of the problem?
We feel pretty "boxed in" to ISO framework (and what our CB and industry auditors expect). Certification is a path to market access so, unfortunately, resources are dedicated to ensuring certification goes as smoothly as possible - which, at the moment, means sticking to the "conventional wisdom".

Industry is motivated by whatever works, so if an alternative (e.g. Toyota) is demonstrably more effective, the only reason I can think of that it doesn't get widely adopted is the existing bureaucracies that incentivise sticking with the status quo. I'm intrigued by the idea of no procedures, but experimenting with it here would be a non-starter (or certainly a risk) due to existing regulations and certifications we have to maintain.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#27
Could standards, certifications, and the regulations that depend on these be part of the problem?
I think mental constructs and paradigms are the culprit. But we also need to realize that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. An ineffective solution for an organization might be a perfect one for another one, with a totally different corporate culture and regulatory context to satisfy.
 

John Broomfield

Staff member
Super Moderator
#29
Baking is work (process) completed by a cook aided by equipment.

The recipe (method) represents the design of the baked product and it’s process (the process is ‘special’ BTW).

The cook may have the competence to repair* mistakes or may start again.

And as we know, correcting baking nonconformities by rework needs no additional expertise.

*repair is a design change which may need the competence of a chef.
 

Mark Meer

Trusted Information Resource
#30
Then you have the wrong CB! Why do you let their 19th century approach dictate strategy?
I think you know the answer. In your estimation, what percentage of CBs would you be confident of a smooth ISO audit if you had no procedures for equipment control, training/qualification, or assembly? Trouble is that you don't know until you actually interact with individual auditors. Shopping around and switching CBs is not easy. I'm certainly open to recommendations though...

Also - at least in our field - ISO calls for adherence to requirements of any applicable regulatory requirements. Regulations like the FDA QSR call for procedures all over the place and we have to abide by these as well. There is no easy way around this.

I think mental constructs and paradigms are the culprit. But we also need to realize that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. An ineffective solution for an organization might be a perfect one for another one, with a totally different corporate culture and regulatory context to satisfy.
Agreed. This is likely why I'm having a hard time envisioning how such a system without documentation works. We are a small outfit where it is not feasible to break assembly down into small tasks overseen exclusively by individual operators. One person is capable of the entire assembly. Furthermore, there are several tasks that are executed infrequently so it is best to have controlled instructions that can be referenced, as no one commits these to memory.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S AS9100D PEAR - Examples for organization's method for determining process results? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 5
T Method to assess Measurement System of a Continuous Process Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 2
A Best Method of Auditing an Installation Process at a client job-site ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4
C Work Sampling Method for Induction Melting Process Improvement Six Sigma 3
D Calibration Process - What do they mean by "Check Method"? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 2
Hami812 Gage R&R Process Method - Pass/Fail Criteria Offered to Operators vs. Parametric Data Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 5
J Why Process Approach? Why not Process Method? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 6
M Non Normal Data Managing - Clements Method to get Process Characteristics Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 8
J Casting Porosity - Caused by improper machining method/process? Manufacturing and Related Processes 21
T What is the Best Method for Wire Insertion? Effective Process Manufacturing and Related Processes 7
Q Initial Supplier Evaluation Method - 7.4.1 Purchasing Process ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 3
M Heat Treat Data - Best method for determining the capability of a carburizing process Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 3
J Simpler Method of Recording In-Process Inspection Data - Machine Shop Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 1
N Identify Documention Process or Method - APQP Manual Page 4 APQP and PPAP 1
A Manufacturing Process Design Output - Method of rapid NC detection & feedback Design and Development of Products and Processes 2
P Process vs Elements/Checklist - Is the old method of auditing the clauses still legal General Auditing Discussions 41
O Process Identification - Painless method to comply with ISO 9001 paragraph 4.1 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
M V&V phase: Justification of acceptance criteria (statistical method ) - (Medical Device) Design and Development of Products and Processes 2
B AS9100D 7.1.5.2 Calibration or Verification Method using outside cal lab AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 1
Q Sampling method for Distributor verification activities EU Medical Device Regulations 1
D Difference between Test Method Validation and Gage R&R Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 18
C Correct Calibration Method for Dial Depth Gage General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 6
E Mentor for Test Method Validation (TMV) Design and Development of Products and Processes 2
earl62 IATF 16949 Clause 9.1.1.1 - What is the batch conformance to specification method? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
A Beginners help with ISO3951-2 Combined control s-method n>5 what is Phi ?? Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 0
S What is the best method to bond urethane foam to urethane foam? Manufacturing and Related Processes 4
R BS EN 12060:1998 - Zinc and zinc alloys Method of sampling Specifications Manufacturing and Related Processes 4
M Test method validation - Is MSA (MSA1, MSA2, MSA3 and linearity) a good solution? Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 1
Pau Calvo How to motivate colleagues to use 8D method or similar Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 37
M Proper method to test flow of a regulator Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 1
V Minitab GRR crossed Xbar and r method macro needed Using Minitab Software 9
R Please share your method used for PEMS Validation IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 5
Y Post Market Surveillance Indicators and Analysis method EU Medical Device Regulations 1
silentmonkey Seeking efficient method to manage install base data Manufacturing and Related Processes 0
D 4M (Man, machine, method, materials) Management Manufacturing and Related Processes 3
Ron Rompen Measurement Method Challenge - Measure feature #91 Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 9
C FDA on changing acceptance criteria re: analytical method validation US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1
M Issuing NCR for improper method statement submissions Internal Auditing 10
F Irradiation Sterilization Validation Maximum Dose - VDmax 25 method (ISO 11137) EU Medical Device Regulations 2
P Test Method Validation for Tensile Strength Tester Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 0
C ICP versus AA: How to determine appropriate specification for assay method verification Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 1
I Flatness - Rectangular part using the three jack method Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 10
B AS9102 Supplier Flow Down Method AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 7
M Control Method correspondence between PFMEA and CP FMEA and Control Plans 8
qualprod Qualitative or Quantitative? Risk method evaluation ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
Ron Rompen Dual level holes - Measurement method suggestions wanted General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 9
D Sampling method that is representative of the devices supplied by that distributor EU Medical Device Regulations 5
P Production Line Pump Cleaning Validation Method Question Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 0
A Risks related to Method Validation and Stability Studies Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 2
qualprod ISO 9001 Risk control method - What could be the better way to control risks? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 3

Similar threads

Top Bottom