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

[DsqrdDGD909]

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)

You have heard from many wise and learned Q practitioners in this thread. Now, for the viewpoint from someone who has about 1 year total in QA.

Make it work for YOU. Now that may mean make it work for your auditors also, but that has to be your call. Reviewing the maps, I like the detailed one better. The simpler one simply looks to be a restatement of the five main clauses.

Regarding the more detailed map, I would suggest that you use the terms, titles, buzzwords that YOUR company uses and not the terms that ISO uses.

 

[JaneB]

As I continue to read this thread I become more and more lost.

Jose, I'm sorry. As you can see, there are many different viewpoints and opinions. It isn't a simple topic and there just is no B&W simple answer.

Is process mapping political? No. But there are different points of view.

You see, when you ask for advice in a free public forum, you get what you pay for. In this case, lots and lots of it. You can't expect from a whole bunch of different people a single, common answer. Hope perhaps, but not expect. And you raised a topic which is interesting to various people for different reasons.

OK, back to your question:

Even if my company does not use a map that is done correctly wouldnt the Quality Manager still benefit from it?

Yes, very much so, as Jim points out.

Is not the Quality Manager the driver of the companies quality system?

Ooohh - another thorny question & potential discussion topic! (My answer is no, the QM should not be the 'driver' and trying to assume that role is fraught with danger. Everyone needs to own quality and the quality system - if you see 'em as carriages being towed by you, where you want them to go, you'll make it hard for yourself. The QM's role includes overseeing it, ensuring it meets requirements, coordinating, coaching, inspiring, etc. But 'driving'? I wouldn't.)

If so wouldnt he need a process map to drive it? This is why Iam trying hard to do it correctly.

Re. your process maps: I think both of your maps are fine for this point in time. I wouldn't worry about trying to do it 'correctly' - there's no single right/wrong version. Quality improvement is a process - you may well change/upgrade/improve one or more of these later.

But do, do, do, take this good advice already given: Make it work for you.

I'd keep both at this point - the one structured around the ISO clauses may help you keep the clauses in your mind, and the other, more business-centred one helps you understand more clearly the overall business processes.

I still am having trouble in determining at what point does the interelated activities become a "core process"?

Try using this rule of thumb: If it makes you money, then it's a core process. If it cost you money to do it, then it's not (it's a supporting/enabling process.


Way back in this thread , you said this about your business:

We are simply brokering. We get Request for quotes, source our vendor availabilities, quote our vendors stock with a mark up, get an order from our customer, buy it fro our vendor, receive and inspect it, then ship it to customer.

Great - that's your core business, right there. Perhaps 3 core processes:

Procuring goods (or perhaps more accurately, sourcing vendors)
Taking Orders
Order fulfilment (includes buy, receive, ship)

Getting & selling goods is a core process. (No goods = no sales = no $$). But things like recruiting, for example, or controlling docs isn't. You have to recruit (unless you can replace people with robots and you must control docs or things go awry. But neither of those things actually directly make you money.

Hope this helps.

 

[harry]

Thanks for summing it up, Jane.

I hope the OP (Jose) find these discussions beneficial - much better than attending a course where you listen and get the views & ideas of only one person.

 

[Gary E MacLean]

Very nicely put Jane. Even keeled, calm and balanced and full of logic and information. Thank You.

Incidentally how do you show a quote of an individual part of a persons post like you just did with Jose's? Can you help? or can you point me in the right direction. I try to use the forum help forum but it to is a forum. I have to know how to use it before I can use it to find out how to use it??

 

[JaneB]

Very nicely put Jane. Even keeled, calm and balanced and full of logic and information. Thank You.

Incidentally how do you show a quote of an individual part of a persons post like you just did with Jose's? Can you help? or can you point me in the right direction. I try to use the forum help forum but it to is a forum. I have to know how to use it before I can use it to find out how to use it??

Thanks Gary. Yes, it isn't always very easy to find info around this place.

Re. quoting, this is one of many tags in HTML that are paired - one tag opens it, the other closes it.

It's too hard to write about HTML in something that uses them, so see attached how to do it.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Incidentally how do you show a quote of an individual part of a persons post like you just did with Jose's? Can you help? or can you point me in the right direction. I try to use the forum help forum but it to is a forum. I have to know how to use it before I can use it to find out how to use it??

If you want to include only part of someone else's post, just hit the "Quote" button, and then delete everything except the part you want to quote, making sure that the quote tags remain in place. If you want to quote more than one post, hit the "multiquote" button under each post you want to quote, then hit the "Quote" button under the final post you want to quote. The multi-quote button looks like this:

and it turns red when you select it. After all of the quotes are in place in your post, you can edit them as you see fit.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

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.

Actually, your quote below may answer your own comment.

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!

If a company does not write useful things, people won't read them much.

What I find is most manuals and procedures don't provide much information...therefore they don't get used much. Why would you refer to a document which you believe does not provide relevant information?

Most procedures I read provide less relevant information than the standard itself. Often, only work instructions begin to contain meaningful information.

Let's write meaningful stuff, and maybe more people would begin to read it.

 

[JaneB]

Let's write meaningful stuff, and maybe more people would begin to read it.

So true Helmut. Indeed, so very true.

I've lost count of the so-called 'quality procedures' or so-called 'quality manuals' that were just a bunch of verbiage, that actually said nothing. Or perhaps contained a very small fragment of useful information, ooh, say perhaps around 5%. No one can be bothered to spend that much time sifting through the dross panning for the useful info.

Indeed, let us strive to write meaningful stuff.