Process Effectiveness and Efficiency (IATF 16949)

[jfriess]

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!!

 

[howste]

Re: Process effectiveness and efficiency

...all processes within the QMS must have measurements of effectiveness and efficiency...

It may have been the intent of the IATF 16949 authors to require measurements of effectiveness and efficiency for all processes, but it doesn't actually say that. What I see is "review" of efficiency and effectiveness for processes and "monitoring" of effectiveness for processes. "Measurements" are determined by the organization:

5.1.1 Process efficiency

Top management shall review the product realization processes and the support processes to assure their effectiveness and efficiency....

8.2.3 Monitoring and measurement of processes
The organization shall apply suitable methods for monitoring and, where applicable, measurement of the quality management system processes. These methods shall demonstrate the ability of the processes to achieve planned results.

5.1.1.2 Process effectiveness and efficiency

Top management shall review the product realization process and support processes to evaluate and improve their effectiveness and efficiency....

9.1.1 Monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation - General

The organization shall determine:
a) what needs to be monitored and measured;
b) the methods for monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation needed to ensure valid results;
c) when the monitoring and measuring shall be performed;
d) when the results from monitoring and measurement shall be analyzed and evaluated.
The organization shall evaluate the performance and the effectiveness of the quality management system.

Having said that, management review does, however, require "measures" of process effectiveness and efficiency as inputs, but it doesn't say for every process:

9.3.2.1 Management review inputs-Supplemental

Inputs to management review shall include:
b) measures of process effectiveness;
c) measures of process efficiency;

Admittedly I'm being pedantic, but if you stick to the letter of the requirements you could "review" efficiency of some processes and "measure" efficiency of the other processes and still meet the requirements. All "product realization" and "support" processes need to have one or the other.

I feel that the standard on this point is poorly worded, as it doesn't define what a "support process" is. Many automotive organizations classify processes as Operations Processes, Management Processes, and Support Processes. If you do this then you could probably argue that Management processes such as your Management Review Process is exempt from the requirement.

 

[QAMTY]

Re: Process effectiveness and efficiency

Dear howste
Into the ISO 9001 2015 (below) regarding efficiency, is all what we find,
but it doesnt mean we have to take care of efficiency (e.g.kpi for processes).
We can set them if we want but is not a requirement, what is your opinion?.
normally we only take care of the effectiveness

0.3.1 General
This International Standard promotes the adoption of a process approach when developing,
implementing and improving the effectiveness of a quality management system, to enhance customer
satisfaction by meeting customer requirements. Specific requirements considered essential to the
adoption of a process approach are included in 4.4.
Understanding and managing interrelated processes as a system contributes to the organization’s
effectiveness and efficiency in achieving its intended results. This approach enables the organization
to control the interrelationships and interdependencies among the processes of the system, so that the
overall performance of the organization can be enhanced.

 

[howste]

Re: Process effectiveness and efficiency

Dear howste
Into the ISO 9001 2015 (below) regarding efficiency, is all what we find,
but it doesnt mean we have to take care of efficiency (e.g.kpi for processes).
We can set them if we want but is not a requirement, what is your opinion?.
normally we only take care of the effectiveness

0.3.1 General

This International Standard promotes the adoption of a process approach when developing, implementing and improving the effectiveness of a quality management system, to enhance customer satisfaction by meeting customer requirements. Specific requirements considered essential to the adoption of a process approach are included in 4.4.

Understanding and managing interrelated processes as a system contributes to the organization’s effectiveness and efficiency in achieving its intended results. This approach enables the organization to control the interrelationships and interdependencies among the processes of the system, so that the overall performance of the organization can be enhanced.

I agree with you. ISO 9001 has no specific requirements regarding efficiency measurement, so efficiency metrics can be implemented or not as decided by the organization. If the organization believes it can benefit from measuring efficiency and setting targets for improvement, the QMS should support this.

The OP was asking about IATF 16949, which does have specific requirements, so it's a different situation. There must be at least some efficiency metrics for that standard.

 

[QAMTY]

Re: Process effectiveness and efficiency

Thanks howste
You, like other members here at Cove, always ready to help people who need assistance.

 

[Sebastian]

Re: Process effectiveness and efficiency

Dear howste, it seems that you have not noticed origin of sections you had quoted. It led to apparent inconsistency. 9.1.1 is ISO and 9.3.2.1 is automotive. Conclusion is obvious. There is no way, to not establish both measures for any of organizational process. It is only question of auditor's evaluation if any absence would be accepted.
I am not saying it is easy, I am also struggling with that, but intention of this requirement is always to give interested parties what they expect and still assure our profit.

 

[howste]

Re: Process effectiveness and efficiency

Dear howste, it seems that you have not noticed origin of sections you had quoted. It led to apparent inconsistency. 9.1.1 is ISO and 9.3.2.1 is automotive.

IATF 16949 includes all ISO 9001 requirements. Interpretations need to include all requirements of both standards. That's what IATF 16949 requires.

Conclusion is obvious. There is no way, to not establish both measures for any of organizational process.

If the conclusion was obvious we wouldn't be having this discussion. Please show me where IATF 16949 + ISO 9001 requires measurements for efficiency and effectiveness for every organization process. What I see required is a review for efficiency and effectiveness.

 

[Sebastian]

ISO was/is more lapidary than automotive part of standard, so my interpretation is "weighted" with higher weight put on automotive part - this is my personal experience, which heavily affects how I see some things. I am sorry.

ISO opens gate here, which might be used by some processes to escape from two-stage evaluation. "We have determined, these processes do not require monitoring and measuring". Ok, so what is a risk for other processes, caused by non-monitoring/measuring of these processes? No risk at all?

It is hard, even for management, to review non-existing metrics. Requirement related to review pulls establishment and measuring of metrics, I say. Problem I see, as non-native speaker, is that 5.1.1.2 requires result of metrics review, which should be input to 9.3.2.1, while 9.3.2.1 requires pure metrics, not results of their review. Following this logic, 5.1.1.2 should change its wording and require establishment of metrics, to let 9.3.2.1 get them, review and transform them into 9.3.3.

Of course I can argue with auditor regarding literal wording of standard, but I do not see profit here, nor for me nor for organization I am working for.

 

[howste]

ISO was/is more lapidary than automotive part of standard, so my interpretation is "weighted" with higher weight put on automotive part - this is my personal experience, which heavily affects how I see some things. I am sorry.

ISO opens gate here, which might be used by some processes to escape from two-stage evaluation. "We have determined, these processes do not require monitoring and measuring". Ok, so what is a risk for other processes, caused by non-monitoring/measuring of these processes? No risk at all?

It is hard, even for management, to review non-existing metrics. Requirement related to review pulls establishment and measuring of metrics, I say. Problem I see, as non-native speaker, is that 5.1.1.2 requires result of metrics review, which should be input to 9.3.2.1, while 9.3.2.1 requires pure metrics, not results of their review. Following this logic, 5.1.1.2 should change its wording and require establishment of metrics, to let 9.3.2.1 get them, review and transform them into 9.3.3.

Of course I can argue with auditor regarding literal wording of standard, but I do not see profit here, nor for me nor for organization I am working for.

I agree with you that my preference would be to have measures for each process for both efficiency and effectiveness. If I was the decision maker for the organization we would have measures for efficiency and effectiveness for each process. I also agree that if that's the intent that they should use the word "measures" in 5.1.1.2 instead of "review."

But still, the standard in 9.3.2.1 doesn't require measures for all processes. And 5.1.1.2 only requires reviews. If the organization chooses to do less that what the auditor wants, but what they do meets IATF 16949 requirements, the auditor shouldn't write a nonconformity. If they do it would be grounds for an appeal.

 

[jfriess]

Thank you so much for the insight. I really appreciate it!