Process Measurement - Only Processes Defined in our Quality Manual?

[M Greenaway]

Process Measurement

I'm sure you guys can help my understanding on process measurement.

As we know the standard asks us to define our process, their sequence and interaction. It also asks us to measure the performance of our processes. Do we only measure the processes we define in our Quality Manual ?

For example we may define a process as 'manufacturing' but this process is made up of many seperate sub-process, some of which may not even inter-relate. Do we measure the performance of each sub-process, or just the main process defined in the Quality Manual ?

 

[E Wall]

RE: Measurement

The measurement is how well you are meeting your goals and objectives set for the specific process (and how they support the overall goals/objectives of the QMS). There are going to be many different levels, to what degree you define them is up to you. The quality manual should identify all key processes used in the management system. Personally we're not listing all the sub-processes in the quality manual. We are putting together the key process outlines in which they refer to activities (which in some cases are sub-processes), but the objectives, goals and measureables are defined for the key process. In our case the process custodian has discretion of how to tract sub-process information so long as they can report on the key process measurables. If during review mgmt decides not enough information is being provided, they would get involved and may direct some sub-process metrics specifically.

Using your example of the manufacturing process -
QMS - Objective & Goal: Scrap Reduction (50% less than previous year avg)

Manufacturing processes -
Objective & Goal - 50% reduction in scrap CPU vs Forecast

Recently someone provided a good guideline for evaluating both process effectiveness and efficiency. I don't have time to search for it now, but will try later if it isn't already refered to by that time.

Catcha Later - Eileen

 

[gpainter]

What do you want to do?

 

[HFowler]

Martin,

IMHO if a process is critical to quality, then it makes sense to monitor and measure it. The standard allows flexibility in determining which processes to measure. Like gpainter says, "what do YOU want to do"? What will benefit your business?

Best Regards,
Hank

 

[M Greenaway]

Well I am kind of coming from the auditing angle again. If I walk into an area to audit and cannot see that the process has a direct measurment or monitoring going on is it non-compliant, or is it OK so long as there is a higher up measuring/monitoring going on ?

 

[E Wall]

Audit Angle...

Cannot measure compliance if there have not been requirements made. It is possible for a sub-process to be go/no-go or visually measured and that is all. If the manufacturing process in question is a sub-process it should be identified as such in the Key mfg process. There should (IMO) have been a determination of what is to be measured and how it supports the objectives & goals of the master (key) process. You'll probably need to be interviewing the process manager not an operator to get this level of detail. The real answer really depends on the specific situation.

Possible questions for the operators:

Who is/are your customer(s)?
- whether internal or external not only for the product but for information as well

What objectives and goals are expected for the product/service?
- even if not documented personnel should be aware of them

How is this measured and communicated?
- I would follow this up with whomever the information is reported to in order to see how it is used.

 

[Chris May]

How well are you doing?

We have key processes and then sub processes that are defined by the nature of our business (Electronics Manufacturing). The key process monitoring is referred to in our QMS and the sub process monitoring refered to in our work instructions.

As mentioned, some of these are critical to quality and if not performed correctly, can cause major issues later in the internal customer chain.

We measure and monitor nearly all of the sub processes anyway, because, the earlier we catch a problem, the cheaper it is.

By measuring process parameters, the operators or process owners can honestly answer the question "How well are you doing ??

Now you have defined your processes:
What is the impact of not measuring a certain process ??
What are the defect opportunities for each process or sub-process??

As I said before, earlier is cheaper

Regards,

Chris May

 

[Chris May]

How well are you doing?

We have key processes and then sub processes that are defined by the nature of our business (Electronics Manufacturing). The key process monitoring is referred to in our QMS and the sub process monitoring refered to in our work instructions.

As mentioned, some of these are critical to quality and if not performed correctly, can cause major issues later in the internal customer chain.

We measure and monitor nearly all of the sub processes anyway, because, the earlier we catch a problem, the cheaper it is.

By measuring process parameters, the operators or process owners can honestly answer the question "How well are you doing ??

Now you have defined your processes:
What is the impact of not measuring a certain process ??
What are the defect opportunities for each process or sub-process??

As I said before, earlier is cheaper

Regards,

Chris May

 

[M Greenaway]

Lets take maintenance for an example. Should I be able to see specific process measures for this activity, such as some analysis of breakdowns, or time lost due to maintenance, or is it good enough just to have the overall business measurement of on time delivery as it could be argued that the maintenance departments performance will affect this measure ?

 

[energy]

Why not?

M Greenaway said:

Lets take maintenance for an example. ...or is it good enough just to have the overall business measurement of on time delivery as it could be argued that the maintenance departments performance will affect this measure ?

That's my take. I've seen the posts suggesting that the standard wants goals and objectives for all processes. What's that? 50, 100, 200 goals and objectives? Bullfritters. (I like that, Randy).
You define the goals and the objectives that measure the effectiveness of the QMS. You don't nickel-dime everything sub-process unless you have the resources and the determination to do them all. You would end up with a pile of numbers that don't mean Jack****. Just something to beat a department supervisor over the head with. That's not to say key processes, like Shipping and Receiving, aren't subject to meeting the overall company goals and objectives regarding Supplier and Customer on-time deliveries. JMHO