Quality System Process Map - Is this too detailed or not enough detail?

[Stijloor]

This is one of those occasions when I laughed, but then realized that I had no idea what I was laughing at. :truce: Maybe some of us like being bunco gals.

Hi Gary and Jim,

To avoid cultural confusion among our Cove friends in the rest of the world, here is an explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunco

Stijloor.

 

[Gary E MacLean]

Of course we like being bunco gals but what we like and what we are steered into believing or herded into doing are two different things indeed. If I could just take the standard for what it says and go on about my business I could afford to be a bunco gal.

Well, I'm glad you laughed anyway, doesn't matter why we laugh, as long as we can laugh things are bound to be alright.

GMAC49

 

[Patricia Ravanello]

Manix, you've stated...

I think I have two confusing elements when approaching this:

• How do you define a KEY/CORE Process. If you look at any process long enough it becomes key! That's my problem anyway!
  
• How are interactions defined on the diagram, if they are not simply lines?

You might want to look at the thread entitled: Linking Business Process Map with Sub-Process Process Map . In addition, I've posted an attachment here that might help clear your thinking. It lists what I believe to be the minimal "Key Processes" of a Management Operating System (I say minimal because there are many organizations that have other key processes, but they are not mandated by the ISO standard).

It's an animated Powerpoint presentation, but it will advance on it's own...don't click anything after it starts.

The second and third attachments are a partial representation of a "Key Processes Map". It demonstrates how the 4 support-oriented processes (SOPs-0006 through -0009) interface with the Business Planning & Management Review process (SOP-0003), which is through the Monitoring, Measurement & Analysis Process (SOP-0004). You can see how output from one becomes input to the other.

Then, the Business Planning & Management Review process considers the input, identifies appropriate Corrective or Preventive Action, or Continual Improvement (SOP-0005), and outputs it back to the Support Processes.

This is the essence of the dynamics of your Management System...of everyone's (ISO-compliant) Management System. When you think about it, the sequence and interface should be identical for each company, if you are compliant with ISO. It is very generic, and really applies to everyone, because the Standard has mandated the dynamics. How you illustrate it is up to you.

​

Gary MacLean, you've said...

I know of at least two registrars who have publicly stated and published exactly the opposite of what you have just suggested. I would have thought all the KEY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Processes as well but these two registrars phrase it "the line of sight" approach. They include only those activities that result in product realization.

You can add dozens more registrars to the two you mention...I really feel like a voice in the wilderness. I think I've said and given samples enough on the subject to make my point. I really don't care to further belabor my seemingly unique perspective. At this point, this thread is becoming redundant...I'm not giving in, or giving up...I just can't provide any further guidance without releasing "copyrighted" materials.​

.
I hope that at least this thread has provoked some thought and re-assessment of how we each have met this challenge. It should not be taken lightly, because if executed properly, it becomes a critical tool for training, and a powerful representation of the organization's dynamics and operational methodology. I hope my input has been helpful, thought-provoking, and inspiring, and not just indiscriminate bantering and posturing.

Patricia Ravanello

 

[Gary E MacLean]

Patricia

I too feel we have come to the end of this one - we are at our last thread so to speak. However, one of your last statements just demanded a response. You said you feel like a voice in the wilderness. I can scarcely believe it - I heard your voice several years ago. I too interpret the whole situation in the same manner you do, I believe, at least in the big picture. Details may get messy but I really balked at the "line of sight" thing. It is management processes that ISO is looking for and that is how I have practiced since inception of the "process approach."

Your voice has been heard

and acknowledged

GMAC49

 

[Stijloor]

Could I get some professional opinions on my Process map draft? Is this too detailed? or not enough detail?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Jose

Hello Covers,

I've been following this thread for the last few days. Thank you Patricia and Gary! What a determination and energy!

I think the OP (josecortez) got his "money's worth"....

Well done

Stijloor.

 

[Gary E MacLean]

Could I get some professional opinions on my Process map draft? Is this too detailed? or not enough detail?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Jose

I apologize. Sometimes it is easier just to get on the bandwagon and start spouting off about what we know or what we think we know than it is to stop and take a look at what the poster's real question is. I missed that first rule.

I should have looked at your map some time ago Jose. Very clean, very direct and clearly, related to the requirements of the standard yet addresses the lne of sight. I like it. Were I to audit your system I would ask for a copy so I could "Benchmark" it on my own time.

Well I just went back and read every post on your orignal query Jose. I wish I had time to read them at the time of posting but I don't always. In my mind you have just crippled your original process map. If you still have the original one compare your very latest with it. Which one can you read? Get the point. The only ones making the rules about how your map will look are the registrars. You need to find a registrar who will accept what you present and say "Good Job." Your system is indeed your system. Not even ISO trys to tell you what to do with it.

I still like your very first one. I have never been one for all those arrows and turn arounds and backing up on one another and duplications and on and on and on. Just flow it and keep it related to ISO. You did that very well in your very first version.



Good Job.

GMAC49

 

[Helmut Jilling]

I....The only ones making the rules about how your map will look are the registrars. You need to find a registrar who will accept what you present and say "Good Job." Your system is indeed your system. Not even ISO trys to tell you what to do with it.

Whoa...I would like to strongly disagree. A registrar auditor most definitely should not MAKE rules about your process map. As a registrar auditor, I am only supposed to assess whether your map is appropriate and meets the requirements in cl 4.1.

I have seen many maps which I did not care for personally, but they met the requirements. At that point, we might discuss improvement ideas, but I cannot make "rules" about it.

On the other hand, frequently the maps are not compliant. Then, I still don't make the rules, but I might have to point out where it does not meet the requirements. (Remember, there is no requirement to make process maps.)

There is a big difference between meeting requirements vs. opinions about how process maps should look. Therefore, make your maps to meet the requirements, and provide value to your company, and select good auditors and registrars. But please don't base your selection on whether they like your style of process map.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Manix, you've stated...

You might want to look at the thread entitled: Linking Business Process Map with Sub-Process Process Map . In addition, I've posted an attachment here that might help clear your thinking. It lists what I believe to be the minimal "Key Processes" of a Management Operating System (I say minimal because there are many organizations that have other key processes, but they are not mandated by the ISO standard).​

It's an animated Powerpoint presentation, but it will advance on it's own...don't click anything after it starts.​

The second and third attachments are a partial representation of a "Key Processes Map". It demonstrates how the 4 support-oriented processes (SOPs-0006 through -0009) interface with the Business Planning & Management Review process (SOP-0003), which is through the Monitoring, Measurement & Analysis Process (SOP-0004). You can see how output from one becomes input to the other.​

Then, the Business Planning & Management Review process considers the input, identifies appropriate Corrective or Preventive Action, or Continual Improvement (SOP-0005), and outputs it back to the Support Processes. ​

This is the essence of the dynamics of your Management System...of everyone's (ISO-compliant) Management System. When you think about it, the sequence and interface should be identical for each company, if you are compliant with ISO. It is very generic, and really applies to everyone, because the Standard has mandated the dynamics. How you illustrate it is up to you.​

​

Gary MacLean, you've said...

You can add dozens more registrars to the two you mention...I really feel like a voice in the wilderness. I think I've said and given samples enough on the subject to make my point. I really don't care to further belabor my seemingly unique perspective. At this point, this thread is becoming redundant...I'm not giving in, or giving up...I just can't provide any further guidance without releasing "copyrighted" materials.​

.
I hope that at least this thread has provoked some thought and re-assessment of how we each have met this challenge. It should not be taken lightly, because if executed properly, it becomes a critical tool for training, and a powerful representation of the organization's dynamics and operational methodology. I hope my input has been helpful, thought-provoking, and inspiring, and not just indiscriminate bantering and posturing.

Patricia Ravanello

There are a numbe rof different ways to diagram a company's processes. I happen to like the Core (COP) vs Supporting (SOP) process approach because it is simple and easy to understand.

Others like a very complex map showing every possible interaction.

Others take other approaches. There is no single correct approach, or everyone would do it my way.

The important things is whether it is accurate, complaint, addresses the required items, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, is it in fact useful to the organization.

Please, define your processes for your needs, not for an auditor.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

...If we do it - it's a process - include it.

GOT to love that idea!!!!! That ought to at least reduce some of the debate!

 

[Manix]

GOT to love that idea!!!!! That ought to at least reduce some of the debate!

Yeah it will reduce the debate, but it will increase the complexity of the process map!