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


Involved In Discussions
I agree completely with Golfman25. There should not necessarily be a "want" to make an adjustment. There should be a need to investigate both the impact of missing the target and whether or not the target is reasonable and necessary. It's possible to establish a "meaningful" indicator and an unreasonable target for it.
Agree, this was what i meant.


Involved In Discussions
Of course, your organization can have number of processes based on its size, complexity, operations, etc. factors.
check for instance the APQC Process Classification Framework (PFC). At this link you can freely download the Cross-industry framework. Process Classification Framework | APQC

Below the levels for classifying your processes. There are 13 Categories. Most companies will have at least 10 of those categories.


So, the Category 1.0 is "Develop Vision and Strategy"
This category has 4 Process Groups:

1.1 Define the business concept and long-term vision
1.2 Develop business strategy
1.3 Execute and measure strategic initiatives
1.4 Develop and maintain business models

Let's take process Group 1.2. It has 9 processes.

1.2.1 Develop overall mission statement
1.2.2 Define and evaluate strategic options to achieve the objectives
1.2.3 Select long-term business strategy
1.2.4 Coordinate and align functional and process strategies
1.2.5 Create organizational design
1.2.6 Develop and set organizational goals
1.2.7 Formulate business unit strategies
1.2.8 Develop customer experience strategy
1.2.9 Communicate strategies internally and externally

Each of these 9 processes have activities and activities have tasks. Just as an example, these are the activities and tasks for 1.2.8 customer experience1. and review customer touchpoints1. customer experience across touchpoints1. root cause analysis of problematic customer experiences1.2.8.2Design customer experience1. and manage personas1. customer journey maps1. single view of the customer for the organization1. a vision for the customer experience1. with customers1. experience with brand values and business strategies1. content strategy1.2.8.3Design customer experience support structure1. required capabilities1. impact on functional processes1.2.8.4Develop customer experience roadmap to develop and implement defined capabilities

The thread is about KPIs for Processes however. But even selecting ONLY the processes your company uses, you will have dozens, if not over a hundred processes.

Thus, we are left with a dissonance between Process studies field and the requirements of ISO and everything based on ISO. KPIs for every process? Really, this makes no sense.

As other answers in this thread indicated, people create many KPIs and targets for the auditors, not because it's important for the company. Someone else said that some KPI targets will be known long before the data is collected.

Imho, KPIs should come from Strategic Planning and Management Review, where Quality Objectives are defined.

There you will know which KPIs are important for the organization, and worth the time and money and collect them.

Even if a company has some good BI or other system to automatically collect data (from ERP, BPMS, CRM, HRMs and other legacy systems) still, just implanting the formulas to collect and transform the data will be time consuming and worthless if the objective is to please the auditor instead of complying with the overal organization defined Strategy.

(ps: it seems obvious that when you select KPIs based on the strategy, only a dozen processes will be generating KPIs, although the data to create those KPIs may be coming from several places.


Haste Makes Waste
Sorry Roger, I find that distracting.

4.4.1 is about the context of the organization and the quality management system and it's processes.

Whether or not a company set good KPIs or bad KPIs they are still supposed to make changes for KPIs that don't meet their goal.

I did work for a company, ISO9001, that just reduced the goal every with a sketchy justification.

Top Bottom