Process Effectiveness and Efficiency (IATF 16949)

[Golfman25]

I just went through an audit to the old standard (ISO9001:2008 and TS16949:2009) and my next audit will be to the new standard(ISO9001:2015 and IATF16949:2016)... The auditor stressed measurements of the processes. Meaning all processes within the QMS must have measurements of effectiveness and efficiency... Does any one have examples of what they are using for all of the required processes? What if there is a process that does not apply (we do not repair product, while we have a process in case we would, I cannot track what we do not do)? I apologize if this is obvious, I am having issues understanding this.

We have no problems with "operations processes" we have more than enough measurements for it, as it lends itself to be measured easily, but the confusion is when looking for the same types of measures for Management Review, Internal Audit, Internal lab scope. Does it have to be on all process or just the main ones???

We were monitoring for effectiveness and to a degree efficiency for this last audit and only received a minor to the old standard 4.1.C and 5.1.1, which I will have to answer for this audit.


Am I looking too far into it? Is the auditor? I would appreciate feedback on this!!

So this came up a few years ago. Basically auditors where told each process has to have a measurement for both effectiveness and efficiency. I'm sure this is being driven into the new standard. Heck, the numbers don't lie, right. How stupid is that? Some processes don't lend themselves to those metrics. And some processes are so rarely used that trying to measure them is a waste of time.

But you have to do what you have to do. Identify your processes carefully. And depending on your company, try to you a single metric for multiple processes. That can cut down on some datakeeping.

 

[jfriess]

But you have to do what you have to do. Identify your processes carefully. And depending on your company, try to you a single metric for multiple processes. That can cut down on some datakeeping.

Due to the standard specifically defining 23 processes, it makes it more difficult. For example, a process is required for Type and Extent of control of Suppliers (external providers). How do you measure effectiveness and efficiency for that?

We have processes on top of the 23 required, which I am trying to merge to cut down on the metrics, but we will still have around 35... But you are right, I am trying to use the metrics towards more than one process

 

[Golfman25]

Due to the standard specifically defining 23 processes, it makes it more difficult. For example, a process is required for Type and Extent of control of Suppliers (external providers). How do you measure effectiveness and efficiency for that?

We have processes on top of the 23 required, which I am trying to merge to cut down on the metrics, but we will still have around 35... But you are right, I am trying to use the metrics towards more than one process

I would dump that into a more global process called purchasing. 23 processes would require 46 metrics. That's overkill and adds no value.

 

[jfriess]

While I agree completely, our auditor insists if it is required by the standard to be a process then it is required to have metrics for effectiveness and efficiency

 

[Sebastian]

Processes realised inside organisation have various levels and importance.
High level processes contain lower level processes. Processes required by IATF 16949 are mainly lower level processes, so they would be covered by high level processes.
Finally it is organizational decision, how the process map looks like. If you decide to set high level to all processes required by IATF 16949, so you have no other choice as to assign both metrics to them. Your decision. There are over 30 processes required so generally 60 metrics is required.
Even company I am currently working for is not especially ISO/TS focused, we have totally over 40 metrics to monitor for all activities, so 60 don't look terrifying. Still it is not question of quantity, it is question of applicability.

 

[Sherry Gill]

While it may seem non-value added to monitor and measure efficiency and effectiveness of all QMS processes, it's possible to do it and provides opportunities for all interested parties within the organization to contribute to improvement of the QMS. Holding the Sales team accountable for respecting established lead times, for example, contributes to customer satisfaction through establishment of realistic delivery promise dates. Over time, it's possible to monitor, measure, and analyze the results and find OFIs.

I may sometimes get into the minutia, but the whole organization is responsible for customer satisfaction, and I think it's important to involve everyone in the process flow map to some degree. While the importance of all processes is not equal, all processes are part of the final equation.

Because we have managed to push most our internal processes into three databases (Engineering, MRP/ERP, and QMS), tracking progress toward objectives is 'fairly' simple.

 

[Golfman25]

IMO no way you can effectively manage a company with that many metrics. They tend to be interrelated so reacting to one will affect another. It's like wack a mole. You'll drive yourself nuts. But you'll have a bunch of colorful charts. A handful of good ones is preferred.

 

[jfriess]

I agree, but the auditor that we have seems to feel that this is exactly what the standard is asking for... How do you get around that?? We just did a recertification to the TS16949:2009 and in a year we will do the IATF:16949:2016. I believe I have an opportunity to switch auditors and have been given the approval to try, but if not...

Thanks for everyone's input!!

 

[Golfman25]

I agree, but the auditor that we have seems to feel that this is exactly what the standard is asking for... How do you get around that?? We just did a recertification to the TS16949:2009 and in a year we will do the IATF:16949:2016. I believe I have an opportunity to switch auditors and have been given the approval to try, but if not...

Thanks for everyone's input!!

I think your auditor is over interpreting the standard. Our auditors only looked at our identified processes -- 5 or 6 of them (ie; purchasing, manufacturing). If we had the two metrics for them, we where ok. Obviously, there are many sub-processes, but we only really kept and reported the main metrics. We actually got rid of an identified process when there was no value in keeping the measurements.

 

[Blaest]

Due to the standard specifically defining 23 processes, it makes it more difficult.

Would you please let me what these 23 processes are?
I was not able to find a list or identify them on my own.

Thanks in advance.