Please Review my High Level QM (Quality Management) Process Map

[AndyN]

I think you've missed the point, similar to what Patricia is saying. I wouldn't have used a flowchart, since it's not actually showing processes - just a number of things that departments do or need to be done. You show, for example, your 'control of customer property' and it leads directly to corrective action etc. Really? You don't actually add vaue/process the stuff? I also would ask if your QMS always starts with Management review? Where are the actual business process inputs/outputs?

I rather doubt if you showed this to your management team they'd agree that this is the way you run a business and that's what ISO 9001 is asking you to describe in your QMS 'sequence and interaction' of processes. You've described what each department does, not how they work on your processes and, as such, your diagram is flawed.

 

[Patricia Ravanello]

This was my thought - if I just keep it VERY high level, I'd be pretty much re-writing the ISO continuous improvement map with one or two additions. Also, I wanted to ensure to capture critical processes such as our "Engineering value run, HV Mfg, and Final acceptance test." I do agree that there are quite a number of processes on the flow; however, I do think they are all pertinent.


I think I have done just that. QMS processes are on the left with the specifics of the company in the center.

!

Hello Hrrvett,
The "critical processes" which you refer to appear to be the processes of "product realization", which I see as one of the Key Processes of your Business Operating System.

I may be mistaken, but it seems you're somehow segregating "The System" and Product Realization, as you've noted in your comment, "QMS processes are on the left with the specifics of the company in the center". In doing so, you have omited some processes which I believe are "key" to the Business Operating System, including:

1) Business Planning
2) Control of Documents and Records
3) Infrastructure and Service Support
(including Control of Building/Workspace, Machine Maintenance, Communication, and Work Environment)
4) Change Control

...sorry, I hadn't finished, and my comments somehow got posted!!...



Again, I believe that the standard is asking for your Business Operating System Processes sequence and interactions (which of course includes Product Realization), but I don't see it as a request for mapping our Product Realization in detail. Yes, it is a high level perspective, but where else are you going to define how the System Works, and not just Prod Realization?

Also...I don't think your sequence is quite right. Following Monitoring, measurement and Analysis, feedback should be fed to Management for Review and for the identification of appropriate Corrective/Preventive Action and/or Continual Improvement.

Actually, you've displayed very well that you understand the mechanism of the system...that is the Plan, Do, Monitor/Analyze, Check, Act cycle. I just think you've thrown Product Realization details in unnecessarily. You've created an excellent model (with a few omissions, as noted above), but you should save the center part for your "Product Realization Procedure".

I'll send you a model directly to demonstrate my perspective.

Patricia

 

[hrrvett]

I wouldn't have used a flowchart, since it's not actually showing processes - just a number of things that departments do or need to be done.

What would you have used if not a flowchart?

Isn't that what a process is? A number or flow of things that are done? With inputs and outputs?

You show, for example, your 'control of customer property' and it leads directly to corrective action etc. Really? You don't actually add vaue/process the stuff? I also would ask if your QMS always starts with Management review? Where are the actual business process inputs/outputs?

Really? Do I just have a mental block or what? Of course there are many other processes that interact with "customer property" before it gets to CAPAs; however, those are at a lower level. And to list those would be to go against what Patricia is saying.

Of course the system doesn't always start with Mgmt review. It's very much circular. I don't think it's the starting point per se but something needs to be at the top or the "starting point" if you want to think of it in those terms.

I thought I had put in the business inputs and outputs. What else is there?

You've described what each department does, not how they work on your processes and, as such, your diagram is flawed.

I'm very much confused by this. How else can you show how mfg works on your processes besides showing that they schedule, mfg, test, track, and all that goes to mgmt for improvement?

I don't mean to come off defensive - I just don't know what I'm not doing or better, how you would show this. do you have an example?

Thank you!

 

[hrrvett]

Hello Hrrvett,
The "critical processes" which you refer to appear to be the processes of "product realization", which I see as one of the Key Processes of your Business Operating System.

I may be mistaken, but it seems you're somehow segregating "The System" and Product Realization, as you've noted in your comment, "QMS processes are on the left with the specifics of the company in the center". In doing so, you have omited some processes which I believe are "key" to the Business Operating System, including:

1) Business Planning
2) Control of Documents and Records
3) Infrastructure and Service Support
(including Control of Building/Workspace, Machine Maintenance, Communication, and Work Environment)
4) Change Control

...sorry, I hadn't finished, and my comments somehow got posted!!...



Again, I believe that the standard is asking for your Business Operating System Processes sequence and interactions (which of course includes Product Realization), but I don't see it as a request for mapping our Product Realization in detail. Yes, it is a high level perspective, but where else are you going to define how the System Works, and not just Prod Realization?

Also...I don't think your sequence is quite right. Following Monitoring, measurement and Analysis, feedback should be fed to Management for Review and for the identification of appropriate Corrective/Preventive Action and/or Continual Improvement.

Actually, you've displayed very well that you understand the mechanism of the system...that is the Plan, Do, Monitor/Analyze, Check, Act cycle. I just think you've thrown Product Realization details in unnecessarily. You've created an excellent model (with a few omissions, as noted above), but you should save the center part for your "Product Realization Procedure".

I'll send you a model directly to demonstrate my perspective.

Patricia

Thank you Patricia for your help! I sincerely appreciate it. I look forward to your model.

 

[AndyN]

What would you have used if not a flowchart?

Isn't that what a process is? A number or flow of things that are done? With inputs and outputs?



Really? Do I just have a mental block or what? Of course there are many other processes that interact with "customer property" before it gets to CAPAs; however, those are at a lower level. And to list those would be to go against what Patricia is saying.

Of course the system doesn't always start with Mgmt review. It's very much circular. I don't think it's the starting point per se but something needs to be at the top or the "starting point" if you want to think of it in those terms.

I thought I had put in the business inputs and outputs. What else is there?



I'm very much confused by this. How else can you show how mfg works on your processes besides showing that they schedule, mfg, test, track, and all that goes to mgmt for improvement?

I don't mean to come off defensive - I just don't know what I'm not doing or better, how you would show this. do you have an example?

Thank you!

I would have used a process map. It doesn't deal with binary decisions like you've shown, since business isn't a binary decision making process.

It appears to me that you've simply matrixed the top level requirements of the ISO standard (left hand side) to the departments of the organization across the top, then overlaid the things the departments do. I can't provide any further details without running into a long-winded description. It would be simpler to have a copy and mark it up.

Again, I have to ask - what does your management think of this? If they can't describe what you've got here, then there's little point to us providing a review. There are many other examples posted in other similar threads here.

One key point for me is that you've shown everything being done before anything is sent for Management Review. Everything's analyzed, corrective action, etc taken before reporting up to Management. This isn't what should happen. It's management's responsibility to use the data from the processes etc. to decide on what to improve, reset objectives, policy etc.

 

[QCAce]

Hrrvett,

Here is a copy of the business process map I used in our company's QM. Don't know if it is the best but it is example of another type you could use.
Good luck.

 

[Patricia Ravanello]

Hrrvett,

Here is a copy of the business process map I used in our company's QM. Don't know if it is the best but it is example of another type you could use.
Good luck.

Nothing personal Andy, but this is one of the worst process maps I've ever seen. It doesn't even begin to explain or elude to how the "Management System" works. Your "Support Functions" appear to be Department names, and not processes. The requirement is to identify the "management processes".

Conspicuously absent from your Model are:

Business Planning
Monitoring Measurement and Analysis
Management Review
Corrective Action
Preventive Action
Continual Improvement
Control of Monitoring and Measuring Devices
Internal Audit
Control of Documents and Records
Change Control
Control of Non-conforming Product and Materials
Materials Management
Infrastructure Support
Employee Competence and Empowerment
​

I think you need to go back to the drawing board, and focus on the "System" and not on Product Realization. (I won't even get into what's missing from your Product Realization process since it's not pertinent to the discussion).

I can't imagine that you can use this model to train employees or to help them understand how the system works.

I apologize for my candor if it offends you, but my intentions are noble.

Patricia

 

[QCAce]

...I apologize for my candor if it offends you, but my intentions are noble.
Patricia

No offense taken. I enjoy the candor.

Nothing personal Andy, but this is one of the worst process maps I've ever seen... I think you need to go back to the drawing board, and focus on the "System" and not on Product Realization.
Patricia

Ooh, I think you are very close. But I perfer to say we should focus on the "System" and not the process map. And by focusing on the system we should really start with the metrics and use those to focus efforts and drive improvement.

I quite agree that my process map, or flowchart, or whatever you want to call it is lacking and over-simplified. But this is also intentional. You see I've been where Hrrvett has been. I've spent months mapping out entire business processes and in the end they really never contributed much value. Processes continually changed and it became a paperwork exercise to keep up, all the while we were losing focus on the quality of the product being shipped.

I don't want to minimize the importance of process maps and they can be useful tools in root cause analysis. But when it comes to outlining the quality system, I guess my advice would be to keep it simple, make it a page in your QM, but don't spend too much time on it and focus more efforts on measuring and improving.

 

[Patricia Ravanello]

No offense taken. I enjoy the candor.

...I don't want to minimize the importance of process maps and they can be useful tools in root cause analysis. But when it comes to outlining the quality system, I guess my advice would be to keep it simple, make it a page in your QM, but don't spend too much time on it and focus more efforts on measuring and improving.

Well, what can I add to that? There really is no point in persisting in this rhetoric if your approach satisfies you, your company and your registrar. I just think that it's a loss for your company that you don't have a well-mapped out Business Operating System, and at the same time, I can understand your predilection for the product and the customer.

If done properly, your Business/Management Operating System is relatively static. I created mine 4 years ago, and have yet to change it. The high level documents don't change. Perhaps the subordinate Work Instructions change with increased frequency, but that would not be evidenced in the System Model anyway.

Enough said...I don't give up too easily.

Thanks for putting up with me,
Patricia

 

[cdagnan]

Patrica, you woulnt care to share the model you mentioned earlier would you?