Scope of a "process"? What is a Process?

[JaneB]

Big Jim,

If you are referring to the model that Makrab quoted

Please see the Appendix 'A' - Process Model on Page 11 of 17

which is what Yarik and I were referring to, I could not disagree more strongly with you when you say:

That chart is also called the "Deming Wheel".

Are you really saying you believe there is an 1:1 relationship between the process groups on the common ISO 9001 model of a QMS and the phases or stages of the PDCA model? (And yes, it did have 'something' to do with Deming indeed, that's true.)

 

[Rinascimento]

Hi Jane,

Thanks for pointing out that the model in ISO 9000/1/4 is not a PDCA. It merely lulls you into thinking it is. I should have looked at more closely. When I try to make sense of it I see that there is no clear way of interpreting it. It even seems to have errors in the mixing up product realisation with process improvement.

I am willing to be shown wrong. I would prefer if it made sense.

 

[JaneB]

Rinascimento,

Quite a few people make the mistake of thinking that the ISO 9000 process model is the same thing as PDCA or that PDCA maps equally to the process model. Not so.

The process model is process-based model of a quality management system -showing processes in certain groups.

PDCA by contrast is an improvement method or tool - and one that you can (and should!) use in almost every part and process of a QMS, and at many different levels.

When I try to make sense of it I see that there is no clear way of interpreting it.... I would prefer if it made sense.

I always prefer things to be clear and to make sense! In my opinion, that's one of the things we should constantly aim to achieve in quality.

 

[John Broomfield]

That chart is also called the "Deming Wheel". I would assume that Deming has something to do with the concept. The "Plan - Do - Check - Act" model is from Deming.

It is evident to me that the chart conveys that Section 5 (Management Responsibility), Section 6 (Resource Management), Section 7 (Product Realization) and Section 8 (Monitoring, Measuring, and Analysis) interact to produce Continual Improvement. It show those main elements of the standard and how they interrelate to each other. It is by the application of them that Continual Improvement is achieved.

I think the model missed Section 4 and somehow should show Document Control in the mix.

Any other comments on this chart would be welcome.

Big Jim,

The thick curvy arrows mainly signify "information" to me. This information must be valid and that covers clause 4.2.3 for me (valid information available where required). Some of us work to add value to materials while others of us work to add value to information and some do both.

John

 

[Sidney Vianna]

From http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogu...on_and_use/process_model_iso__9000_family.htm
to make things easier to understand:

 

[Yarik]

It is evident to me that the chart conveys that Section 5 (Management Responsibility), Section 6 (Resource Management), Section 7 (Product Realization) and Section 8 (Monitoring, Measuring, and Analysis) interact to produce Continual Improvement. It show those main elements of the standard and how they interrelate to each other. It is by the application of them that Continual Improvement is achieved.

I think the model missed Section 4 and somehow should show Document Control in the mix.

The thick curvy arrows mainly signify "information" to me. This information must be valid and that covers clause 4.2.3 for me (valid information available where required).

I am not sure about any connection between those thick curvy arrows and 4.2.3. If they wanted to show possible flow of some "information", why wouldn't they use the very same dashed arrows that are marked "information flow" in the legend?

Yes, those thick curvy arrows are obviously an attempt (IMHO, an extremely awkward one) to convey something like "processes in four groups somehow interact to achieve the ultimate goal of continual improvement". But how exactly do they interact? What's the nature of those interactions? They do not interact in a way that is usually designated by "control flow" or "information flow". Hence those fancy arrows with extremely vague meaning.

The result - a lot of confusion and, worse yet, some misleading like here

Hi Jane,
Thanks for pointing out that the model in ISO 9000/1/4 is not a PDCA. It merely lulls you into thinking it is...

or here

That chart is also called the "Deming Wheel". ...

or at the beginning of my own learning curve.

This "help" from ISO is a classic example of what we call "a bear's favour" in Russia (which means "a well-intended favour that is made in such a clumsy way that it does more harm than good").

If they wanted to say that "processes interact to provide continual improvement" they would be better off writing just that somewhere, in plain English, as a comment. (And better not make "continual improvement" itself look like another group of processes! )

Interestingly enough, there are no such arrows between "extended" groups of processes in the current draft of ISO 9004:2009...

BTW, from what I see in numerous document samples posted at Cove, many authors do realize that something is wrong with this "sample" provided by ISO. As a result, they elaborate only on interactions between product realization processes. Interactions with/between other processes are either being omitted or described in the same vague way as ISO "sample" does it. That's sad because those "other" interactions are very important to understand clearly...

 

[Yarik]

From http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogu...on_and_use/process_model_iso__9000_family.htm
to make things easier to understand:

Sidney, your must have been sarcastic, right? Because, IMHO, this new version of "process model" is just another attempt to mix a bunch of different concepts in one picture - it only makes things even more confusing and misleading...

 

[Rinascimento]

Well, This thread and a re-reading of ISO 9000/1/4 is starting to show me my mistakes - or perhaps how the standard documents are misleading.

I think that Figure (there are only minor differences between the figures) was, for me, initially confusing: so I read the top box (Continual Improvement of the Quality Management System) as a title rather than a process, and the circles and arrows led me to tyhink of the PDCA; and without too much further thought I identified the figure as a PDCA.

A re-reading of the text shows that it is not the PDCA.

ISO 9000:2005 -
Figure 1 illustrates the process-based quality management system described in the ISO 9000 family of standards.

ISO 9004:2008 -
The model of a process-based quality management system shown in Figure 1 illustrates the process linkages presented in clauses 4 to 8. This illustration shows that interested parties play a significant role in defining requirements as inputs. Monitoring the satisfaction of interested parties requires the evaluation of information relating to the perception of interested parties as to whether the organization has met their requirements. The model shown in Figure 1 does not show processes at a detailed level.

ISO90001:2008
The model of a process-based quality management system shown in Figure1 illustrates the process linkages presented in Clauses4 to 8. This illustration shows that customers play a significant role in defining requirements as inputs. Monitoring of customer satisfaction requires the evaluation of information relating to customer perception as to whether the organization has met the customer requirements. The model shown in Figure1 covers all the requirements of this International Standard, but does not show processes at a detailed level.
NOTE In addition, the methodology known as "Plan-Do-Check-Act" (PDCA) can be applied to all processes.
​

So it would appear to add PDCA to this process model it would require something like adding a (small) symbol for a PDCA in a corner of each process.

There is another thread active recently on How to show the interactions of processes in the QMS (ISO 9000:2000 4.2.2.c). I am wondering if the ISO committee think this figure is a good example or starting point for this. I would find it easier to start from scratch, I think.

I am sorry if my ramblings are a waste of time, but they indicate to me that the diagrams and associated narrative could do with some improvement.

Looking at this checklist from Daniel Freedman's Handbook of Walkthroughs, Inspections, and Technical Reviews highlights where the diagram could be improved.
a) Are diagrams, pictures, or other visual materials clear?
i. Used where necessary?
ii. Relevant where used?
iii. Contribute to understanding?
iv. Clearly rendered?
v. Misleading?
vi. Wrong?
vii. Less effective than their potential?
viii. Appropriate amount of information?

 

[Yarik]

ISO 9000:2005 -
Figure 1 illustrates the process-based quality management system described in the ISO 9000 family of standards.

ISO 9004:2008 -
The model of a process-based quality management system shown in Figure 1 illustrates the process linkages presented in clauses 4 to 8. This illustration shows that interested parties play a significant role in defining requirements as inputs. Monitoring the satisfaction of interested parties requires the evaluation of information relating to the perception of interested parties as to whether the organization has met their requirements. The model shown in Figure 1 does not show processes at a detailed level.

ISO90001:2008
The model of a process-basedquality management system shown in Figure1 illustrates the process linkages presented in Clauses4 to 8. This illustration shows that customers play a significant role in defining requirements as inputs. Monitoring of customer satisfaction requires the evaluation of information relating to customer perception as to whether the organization has met the customer requirements. The model shown in Figure1 covers all the requirements of this International Standard, but does not show processes at a detailed level.
NOTE In addition, the methodology known as "Plan-Do-Check-Act" (PDCA) can be applied to all processes.

​

That's pretty much how I interpret this "model", too. (After some considerable effort invested to weed out all the misunderstandings, as well.)

The irony is: neither of its elements depicts a real process. My understanding is that those four boxes that may appear to represent processes actually have 1:1 relationship to so called "typical types of processes" (yes, "typical types" - see 3.2 in ISO's guidance on process approach, http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogu...e_process_approach_for_management_systems.htm).

Well, with some mental effort, the "Product Realization" box could be interpreted as one big fat process that takes requirements as input, utilizes resources provided by "Resource Management" processes, and delivers some product in hope to satisfy customers. But the rest of the picture... If the goal was to demonstrate process-based approach... I think this diagram is such a gross oversimplification that it does not provide any real value.

BTW, please take a look at the Figure 4 in the guidance document referred just above. I is not much better in terms of depicting a "process-based system", but it is better, IMHO...

So it would appear to add PDCA to this process model it would require something like adding a (small) symbol for a PDCA in a corner of each process.

It seems I've seen something like this trick published somewhere at Cove. But I doubt that this would really help anyone... IMHO, some short narration would be a better wat to convey the idea of ubiquity of PDCA.

On a second thought, what about using PDCA cycle as a wallpaper (a small circle in each tile) for this diagram?

I am wondering if the ISO committee think this figure is a good example or starting point for this. I would find it easier to start from scratch, I think.

I am sorry if my ramblings are a waste of time, but they indicate to me that the diagrams and associated narrative could do with some improvement.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I have to admit that, many times, I have voiced criticism to some of the TC 176 decisions, but, when it comes to the simplified chart, trying to show how a QMS should follow the PDCA cycle, I like it. It helped tremendously (and still does) in killing the old mis-concept that ISO 9001 was simply do-what-you-say; say-what-you-do (serious candidate to the moronic concept of the century)

Maybe the people who don't like the chart can offer a better suggestion. I would like to see how the critics of the chart would like to see it drawn.