Re: Process vs. Activity - What are the differences between a Process and an Activity
A lot has been said here over two simple terms as an "activity" and "process"! And pulled and stretched into ever more confusing aspects as activity and process implying the same meaning, and then quote that the definition is flawed!!
Jane, I greatly agree with you that I should have presented some even simpler examples in line with management systems to clarify the definitions of activity and process. I probably gave the silly
'quenching thirst' example to make the process vs activity distinction were clear. Sorry, it was pretty unscientific on my part.
Cut to
Purchasing process:
Request for material from Dept/Plant/site
(Input) --> Purchasing activities with resources and controls
(Interacting/Interrelated activities) --> Purchased material
(Output) === PROCESS
So, what you see above is a full grown process, as very generously defined by the standards. Fair. Lets go to Purchasing activities:
- Prepare RFQ
- Send to Supplier
- Receive Quotation
- Review Quotation
- Prepare P.O.
- Send P.O.
- Receive Material to Store (This is a "sub-process")
What do you call the above tasks? Processes? Do they have inputs and outputs? Maybe. But, what are these, leaving aside the in and out? Aren't these supposed to be called tasks, activities
by definition? I believe so. Strongly. Are they interacting/interrelated? Definitely yes.
Painting Process (part of our manufacturing process):
Request from Coil shop
(Input)--> Painting Activity with resources and controls
(interrelated activities) -->Painted Sheet
(Output)
Painting Activity:
This entire task is a work instruction. Simply DO job.
Place the sheet on the roller
Spray the sheet
Turn the sheet
Spray the sheet
Dry the sheet
Remove sheet
What would you want to call these steps? I call them activities/tasks.
Training Process:
Request for Training
(Input) --> Training Activities
(Interrelated/Interacting) ---> Conducted Training
(Output)
List the training activities involved and you will find that the tasks that you are conducting are activities.
Hitting the head on the wall is an 'activity', but
why you hit your head and
what is the outcome of this, makes it something else (by definition)! Ofcourse, the activity was triggered by something, and there was an output to that activity. And that exactly what we call is a process! Don't we?
Activity (by definition) - is an act, a task, a doing. Period. No inputs, no outputs, no nothing!
Process (definition) - We all, by now, definitely know what a process is. Both, in general as well as by the standard. I prefer the standards definition because thats what the context is and thats what it should be.
I am not sure I have convinced anyone here, but I say all of the above purely for the purpose of definition, and this thread and forum section is about that. If you want to give a task an input and an output, it becomes a process, because that's the definition of process.
Originally Posted by Peter Fraser
"a sequence of related tasks triggered by an event and intended to achieve an objective. It uses resources and is subject to influences".
Originally Posted by Peter Fraser
No, the definition is flawed - there is no recognition of a "trigger" [this applies as much to a task (activity) as to the process itself (after all, this starts with its first activity)], and even more important there is no mention of an objective (this is one of the key points that David Hoyle made to me many years ago, and until then I too was stuck trying to make the "inputs - transformation - outputs" concept fit with every day business events).
Quite frankly, I don't see any standards defying difference here that makes it sound any better than the standards.
'triggered by an event' - input
'to achieve an objective' - output
The recognition of a "trigger" is the input, and the "objective" is the output, to make it generic and applicable to all scenarios.
The point is if my objective is to make profits by manufacturing a machine (the Big Process), there are many sub-processes involved with many 'events' and 'objectives' (applying your definition)! They are merely outputs (objectives?) to the many sub-processes involved within and that, my friend, is not my objective!
But yes, I like some parts of David Hoyle's presentation. Especially, the brief on 'transformation'.
Ciao.
