Can YOU help? --> Unanswered questions <-- (Other than Marcelo's Informational posts)

RoxaneB

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
#11
As others have suggested, having the exact wording of the finding could be helpful to give us some context. The indicators that you listed as "having", as well, were these the ones in place at the time of the audit or are these ones you have come up with as a response to the nonconformance? If these are new ones, can you also share your quality objectives that were in place at the time of the audit?
 

KimGr

Involved In Discussions
#13
If the auditor is truly looking for the goals for all of these processes, is it possible that your process map indicates that they are all key processes? What does your process map look like?
 
#14
IATF 16949:2016 Sanctioned Interpretations (SIs) # 13 stated:

c) measures of process efficiency for product realization processes, as applicable;

Which means not all the process needs KPI, you can select the KPI based on your orgainizations' business needs
Nice find. Thank you.
 

Sebastian

Really trusted?
Trusted
#15
IATF 16949:2016 Sanctioned Interpretations (SIs) # 13 stated:

c) measures of process efficiency for product realization processes, as applicable;

Which means not all the process needs KPI, you can select the KPI based on your orgainizations' business needs
Conclusion is wrong because KPI are not limited to efficiency metrics only.
There is still 4.4.1 c) and 9.3.2 c) 3) and 9.3.2.1 b) which requie proces effectiveness/performance metrics.
 

rogerpenna

Involved In Discussions
#17
See my comments (in blue) below

Corrective & Preventitive action - Number of CAR/PAR completed and closed within xx days (goal is all)

should we strive to complete and close CAR and PARs in an X amount of time, rather then really correcting them the best way?

specially PARs, they may require so many and profound changes that they are more like a project. Maybe research, get proposals, install and train personel in a new software system, for example.


It seems to me setting a max amount of time for a CAR or PAR might end up having the effect of people striving to find the easiest and fastest solution, not the best.

A par should result in action plans. Some action plans may MITIGATE the problems and be good enough for short term. But the par should remain open until the more complex and profound action plans, which may be planned to take much longer to solve, are individually closed.

And that would destroy such KPI, even though it's good for the organization as a whole.
 

rogerpenna

Involved In Discussions
#18
First thing... an medium sized organization may have over 200 processes. And sometimes they can have subprocesses, themselves, depending on the granularity of the mapping. And also sometimes those processes can be grouped into macro processes.

ISO is not very clear on the level of granularity you should map and control your processes. Maybe you should map them "on the basis of what is best for the organization and stakeholders to understand it".

that said, macro processes are difficult to do KPIs because they involve too much things... too many outputs. They are just processes agglomerations. ALMOST (but not exactly) departments.

But 200 processes are just impossible to measure, despite the whole PDCA cycle being almost like a core thing at ISO.

Some stuff are almost impossible to measure without too much bureaucracy and lost time compared to the GAIN of measuring it's output.


KPI's should be required based on the strategic planning of the organization, as well individual processes objectives, some coming from risk analysis, some objectives coming from some CAR or PAR, etc.
Plus some for the processes in the chain that outputs for the client.

But creating KPIs (and then collecting, calculating and analyzing the data) for 200 processes? How many bills has the treasury delayed? How many invoices has the accounting processed on time?

It gets worse when you discover that some of those KPIs are always perfect... so they are even more useless. And time-wasting.
 

rogerpenna

Involved In Discussions
#19
Conclusion is wrong because KPI are not limited to efficiency metrics only.
There is still 4.4.1 c) and 9.3.2 c) 3) and 9.3.2.1 b) which requie proces effectiveness/performance metrics.
for all 200+ processes in a MEDIUM sized company?

4.4.1.c - it talks only about processes that the organization determined as necessary for the QMS

9.3.2.c.3 - comes right after "9.3.2.c.2 - extension at which the Quality Objectives were met" (sorry if it's not the exact wording, I am translating here). It's not impossible to assume 9.3.2.c.3 references processes linked to Quality Objectives and goals.

I doubt the director at Management Review will be interested in the KPI of toilet paper meters used each month and number of toilets not flushed by users per month, from the Bathroom Maintenance Process... UNLESS the Acquisitions Process owner identifies the company is spending a million dollars per year in toilet paper, or employees are complaining to HR about the smell on bathrooms, despite constant cleaning.
 

Top Bottom