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

[Manix]

Re: Quality System Process Map

...and here's the one I use...just without the ISO bridgework.

Hi Pazuzu,

I really liked your process map because it is very close to what we do. However on closer examination I feel there maybe a a missing link:

Your management Processes seem to be totally isolated from your customer input. How can this be? Surely the managements planning and objectives should consider the voice of the customer? I see one of your customer inputs is market research. What if this research shows that your customer wants something completely different from you. This diversification would require management review and a degree of planning so this link should be there should it not?

Also, it would be useful to measure how many quotes we actually do turn into business, as this might tell us something about our pricing and the other elements of our quotes that we might be getting wrong (or right).

I might have missed something but it just seems your management review of measurement data is centred around Internal product and process data and not external customer requirements. Just an observation!

 

[Manix]

Acid test: is it really valuable to the organisation? Seriously? (Beyond just something an auditor wants?) If it was, they'd use it.

Whoa, that's a HUGE ASSUMPTION! Many organisations (trust me I work in one) don't make use of such things for a huge amount of reasons, not just because it's not useful to the organisation. Our quality manual and our quality procedures would probably be useful if they were used, but the fact is in my organisation, it has become a bad habit not to refer to our manual and do it your way!

The same could probably be applied to many organisations with redundant process maps. OK I accept that MAYBE a reflection of the process not working for the organisation, but what about the flip side? An organisation refusing to work in a more efficient manner and everyone having a better understanding of the whole rather than just their individual piece.

Like I have said earlier, people like being in the box, stepping outside is scary. I think it is the same with many organisations, people don't use these maps because it's not their area, they have to step out of their box! IMO!

Because something is redundant, does not mean it is not useful. The people who made it rendundant might just be incompentent!

PS: I wish my organisation had implemented process maps for our key processes, so I would be having an easier time understanding what they are and how they interact. Instead I am having to try and create them myself! (I am taking over the QM in the near future and I am trying to get my head around the management system.

 

[Gary E MacLean]

There are many underlying threads throughout this discussion. One of them is "The use of the process map." On one hand some of us would proclaim that "No one uses it anyway." then on the other hand there is a group that says "If they are serious - they will use it."

After careful thought I have to ask "Use it for what?" I mean we, as quality professionals, spend umpteen hours in the development, discussion and revision of our Process Maps but then what do we actually do with it? Please don't respond with a bunch of pretty statements about what COULD be done with it. Really, what is really done with this map? How does anyone really use it? What is the activity you actually require this map for? What do you do today that you could not accomplish without this map?

What comes to mind right away for me is "Show it to the auditor!" Am I wrong? I believe it is something like many people's FMEAs; "Build it at PPAP then file it." Or like we used to be accused of regarding the Quality Manual; "Write it then let it sit on a shelf gathering dust."

If you are really honest with yourself and with your organization I really think you are going to have to say the biggest use of this map is as evidence for the auditor that you have built one. Reminds me of the WPA. You know, one group of guys digs the ditches while the other group fills them up, but at least they all have work.

 

[KReynolds]

A common remark we get from the QMS & EMS auditors is that our plant and processes are good, the process maps are excellent (as they describe what happens well), but that the employees are not familiar with the ISO process procedures. Even the forms they use, which are controlled and have a form number, etc., the employees do not recognize them as being ISO. They say we have well integrated the ISO into the operations - just it is not recognized as ISO. Sometimes we get an embarrassing comment about ISO from an employee during an audit interview showing that they do not fully understand what ISO is about. We have training sessions for all employees once a year, and part of the training is ISO, but they seem to forget it once they leave the training session.

We are working closely with many of the employees now as we review the process maps, and getting them involved. Ths is the result of Lean Mnaufacturing Implementation, and the few involved are getting a good understanding of what ISO is, and we are hoping that it will be contagious, especially as more and more employees get involved with Lean. I work both ISO and Lean, along with plant engineering (many hats.

There are many underlying threads throughout this discussion. One of them is "The use of the process map." On one hand some of us would proclaim that "No one uses it anyway." then on the other hand there is a group that says "If they are serious - they will use it."

After careful thought I have to ask "Use it for what?" I mean we, as quality professionals, spend umpteen hours in the development, discussion and revision of our Process Maps but then what do we actually do with it? Please don't respond with a bunch of pretty statements about what COULD be done with it. Really, what is really done with this map? How does anyone really use it? What is the activity you actually require this map for? What do you do today that you could not accomplish without this map?

What comes to mind right away for me is "Show it to the auditor!" Am I wrong? I believe it is something like many people's FMEAs; "Build it at PPAP then file it." Or like we used to be accused of regarding the Quality Manual; "Write it then let it sit on a shelf gathering dust."

If you are really honest with yourself and with your organization I really think you are going to have to say the biggest use of this map is as evidence for the auditor that you have built one. Reminds me of the WPA. You know, one group of guys digs the ditches while the other group fills them up, but at least they all have work.

 

[Gary E MacLean]

We, being intimately involved with the ISO interpretation and implementation, can sometimes forget that those who are reminded of it only once or twice a year or those who have very little to do with it or for it, need to know as well. But how do you transfer the level of involvement a few people have, like yourself, over to the bulk of the employees. You simply can't make a Management Qualty Rep out of everybody in your organization so there must be other measures applied.

Everybody has that same problem; every organization I have ever worked with. From the smallest organization to the largest. It doesn't matter; if you have a group of employees who are not intimately involved with the standards you have a group of people who simply do not understand it to your personal depth. Being a consultant for over ten years and working with upwards of 75 different organizations during that time I have seen many attempts and many different ideas used to try to keep ISO in front of and within the employees daily thinking. A list follows; some of them are the more obvious but some are a bit different. May be worth reading.

1) Of course, Dr Demings favorite rolleyes; posters, banners, and placards proclaiming your registration success. But a twist to this is that the posters and such get changed every so often. I have a client who posts a clause of ISO with an interpretation right below it and changes it once a month. It could take forever to go through the whole standard this way but this client has four posting locations in the same plant and each one has a different clause. At the end of every month there is a public quiz on the four postings with an economical, however attractive, prize for those with a perfect score.

2) Internal auditors need to know the standards. I have seen organizations use their internal auditors to hold training sessions on certain aspects of ISO; particularly those areas that directly affect employees. All employees are invited. Keep it short and pay the employees for the time they are in training.

3) Lunch and Learns: Hold 30 minute discussions on certain parts of ISO during lunch. Buy lunch for everyone who attends. Of course have a quiz at the end of the session. You can claim "effectiveness" and you can find out who is comprehending what. I have a client who has a L&L every Friday.

4) I personally know a Management Quality Rep (MQR) who walks around watching for someone who is particularly successful at applying any aspect of their internally documented ISO Quality System. Upon his discretion he awards outstanding practitioners with a silver dollar. Not a great expense but something very worthwhile.

5) Tie knowledge of the standards to an employees Performance Review. Actually establish an increase schedule, however small, to their ability to respond effectively and accurately to a series of example ISO questions.

6) Establish career tracks for the average employee to work themselves into a premium ISO related position. Require knowledge and uderstanding of the standards at certain points along the path.

7) I know an MQR who holds weekly ISO meetings simply to talk about the standards and any changes or developments; internationally, nationally, locally, corporate wide and internally. Of course, at the end there is always a quiz.

There really are many more ways to influence the average employee to take an interest. You need to make it worthwhile for anyone to undertake somethng that is extra to their job description though; always keep compensation and time off in the equation.

No matter what I do or what I recommend an organization do I always say give a pre-quiz and a post-quiz. I don't care what the topic is if you want anyone to get anything out of what you are subjecting them to then quiz them before you present your material (ISO meeting, department meeting, plant meeting, benefits meeting, training, L&L, whatever) then after you present it. Compare the grades.

You do several things for yourself;
1) You help support the effectiveness requirement
2) People begin to expect quizzes so they may start listening better
3) You get info on your students ability to comprehend and retain knowledge.
4) You also get input as to the ability of your instrucftor to transfer information effectively.

Bottom line is you must get people involved. You can't afford those embarrasing questions or statements during an audit. Get creative - just do it.

 

[JohnCTB]

Greetings Gary,
You mean the employees are supposed to be involved with ISO? I thought that is why we have a Management Quality Representative. The MQR should be able to take care of the entire QMS without any help. My goodness, is it not enough that the employees show up for work? There is really no need to hold them responsible for anything.

( only slightly tongue in cheek !! )

JCTB

 

[Jim Wynne]

There are many underlying threads throughout this discussion. One of them is "The use of the process map." On one hand some of us would proclaim that "No one uses it anyway." then on the other hand there is a group that says "If they are serious - they will use it."

After careful thought I have to ask "Use it for what?" I mean we, as quality professionals, spend umpteen hours in the development, discussion and revision of our Process Maps but then what do we actually do with it? Please don't respond with a bunch of pretty statements about what COULD be done with it. Really, what is really done with this map? How does anyone really use it? What is the activity you actually require this map for? What do you do today that you could not accomplish without this map?

What comes to mind right away for me is "Show it to the auditor!" Am I wrong? I believe it is something like many people's FMEAs; "Build it at PPAP then file it." Or like we used to be accused of regarding the Quality Manual; "Write it then let it sit on a shelf gathering dust."

If you are really honest with yourself and with your organization I really think you are going to have to say the biggest use of this map is as evidence for the auditor that you have built one. Reminds me of the WPA. You know, one group of guys digs the ditches while the other group fills them up, but at least they all have work.

Sometimes the utility is in the process of making the document, and not in the document itself. There are lots of records in lots of companies that are never "used," but are highly useful when someone (an auditor, for example) does want to see them. The process of drawing a process map, if it's done effectively, forces thought about processes and their relationships. Sometimes we only "see" all of this as we're in the process of drawing the map. The old derisive question, "Do I need to draw you a picture?" comes to mind. Sometimes you do need to have a picture drawn in order to understand the sequence and relationships of processes.

FMEA is pretty much the same thing; as I've often said here, FMEA is a process, not a document. The document is a record of the process, and nothing more. As such, it's not surprising that the document itself might not be particularly "useful." Let's not confuse containers for the things contained. If a process map serves its prime purpose (facilitating the visualization of key processes and relationships) we shouldn't necessarily expect it to be anything more. It's worth retaining for a number of reasons, though, not the least of which is to serve as a record of the execution of a process required by the standard.

Added in edit: As has been mentioned here already, the standard doesn't require graphic illustrations of any kind, and a written summation of key processes and relationships is sufficient. If you have an auditor who disagrees after having been asked for the specific "shall," politely show the auditor to the door, and talk to his supervisors.

 

[Gary E MacLean]

John - John - John

I KNOW I sense a certain degree of "levity" in your post - I sure hope so anyway.: Yeah, it's quite a concept isn't it? I really have seen it work though

Jim,

Very good explanation, you know, the value is not in the document but in the making of that document. I know, I have experienced that very thing many times. I fully agree. Perhaps the document is not used but whoever built it has most certainly expanded their own knowledge of the subject at hand simply by researching enough to build the document.

Thanks

 

[curryassassin]

I didn't feel like I was being lectured to, Gary, honestly. Your reply was very thought provoking and had some very good ideas in it. I agree that the quality policy and quality objectives should be clearly communicated by management, and staff should be aware of thier ISO certification and how their job contributes to maintaining that, but knowing more about the standard? I've replied to your numbered points below, but this is meant in the best possible taste:

1) Management certainly need to be aware of their responsibilities wrt ISO, but does anybody else need the detail? They need to know how to do their job. I thought poster campaigns were useless without the continual verbal re-inforcement?
2) Train within normal working hours surely?
3) Now you've lost your essential break time - how can you stay fresh?
4) How can he tell? Isn't everyones' contribution essential to success?
5) Only if they're interested - does this fit with company objectives?
6) as in 5)

If something is extra to your job description that's a goal or objective aint it, so you don't get paid for it, but you may get a rise at the end of the year.

I have to prepare an annual refresher training course for all staff in GMP/GCP/GCLP/GLP so I'm planning on using the theme of one of those reality game shows that seem to be on the tv a lot, maybe using small teams to answer quiz questions or vote on answers or vote on truth/lies. What do you think?

Cheers

 

[josecortez]

As I continue to read this thread I become more and more lost. Is process mapping so political? I dont know much about it but then again I guess no else does either due to the various "opinions." Based upon my reading about it, if applied correctly can be a benefit to a company. As the Quality Mgr, I have the responsibility in applying ISO requirements effectively in order to produce results. Even if my company does not use a map that is done correctly wouldnt the Quality Manager still benefit from it? Is not the Quality Manager the driver of the companies quality system? If so wouldnt he need a process map to drive it? This is why Iam trying hard to do it correctly. Even if only the auditor benefits from it he could use it to give advice for our system which would make the process map beneficial for everyone in the end.

THE BIG ISSUE
I still am having trouble in determining at what point does the interelated activities become a "core process"? What Iam finding is that there are many levels of this. How detailed should i go? Should I make a few process maps with detailed levels?
What if I use both of these maps? (see attachments)