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

[Jim Wynne]

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.

Why is a graphical thing even necessary? I agree with the idea that the current pictures are inadequate, but I think it's because what they're attempting to depict doesn't lend itself to simple depiction.

 

[Big Jim]

Big Jim,

If you are referring to the model that Makrab quoted

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



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.)

Perhaps I should have said I felt there were weaknesses with the model. I agree it is far from perfect. It is not my model.

However, someone said (I don't know who to cite), "no models are perfect, but all are useful"

On that note, I think it is useful but limited. I have seen attempts to add section 4 to the model. One adds it in the top of the wheel, next to management responsibility. Another adds it to the center of the wheel, with arrows reaching out to the other four in the circle.

To me, though, it is still clear that it is attempting to show that is the application of what is in the wheel that leads to continual improvement.

 

[Big Jim]

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

Sidney,

Thanks for showing the model with the PDCA cycle noted within it. Now that you have posted it, I think I may have seen it before. This helps some, but in some ways shows even more that this model is very limited. That would be a very limited use of PDCA.

 

[Rinascimento]

However, someone said (I don't know who to cite), "no models are perfect, but all are useful"

Almost, but not quite.

Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.

• Box, George E. P.; Norman R. Draper (1987). Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces. Wiley. pp. p. 424. ISBN 0471810339.

 

[Patricia Ravanello]

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...etc

Hello Rinascimento and Yarik,

Although this subject has been broached countless times here on the Cove, I am nevertheless pleased to see the discussion resurrected, and enhanced with contributions from relative neophytes to the Cove.

I think both of you have come to the same conclusion that I did, some time ago. It's clear that you both have struggled with making the giant leap between what the standard seems to be saying and/or offering, and the definition/creation/evolution of your own "system model".

I basically dismissed the model in the ISO Standard because it is, IMHO:

Incomplete - It doesn’t include ALL Management system processes (per 4.1.a & b), implying that only those on the model need be included.

Cryptic - Management responsibility is not a process…so what does it mean in this context? And what is implied in “Resource Management”?

Overly-simplified – doesn’t capture how the PDCA cycle impacts on ALL Management processes .

Inaccurate – implies that the reaction to Measurement, Analysis and Improvement is “Continual Improvement”, when it should be” Corrective and Preventive Action”. - Further implies that Monitoring, Measurement and Analysis is only required for Product Realization processes, when in fact, it is required for ALL Management System Processes.

Misleading - there is no reference to Internal Audit, Corrective & Preventive Actions and other indisputably “management system” processes, and while it demonstrates some “sequence”, there is no “interaction” demonstrated.​

Many organizations have limited human or financial resources which compromise their ability to develop their own model, and so, often adapt or adopt the ISO model, resulting in the perpetuation of the errors, lack of scope, and omissions. These models remain, for the most part, unseen, unused, and of limited utility.

I hate to see anyone waste precious resources to create something that is of limited accuracy, use or applicablity. Your deliberations and ruminations will surely pay off, for you will create a model that addresses the errors and omissions of the ISO Model, and it will be a useful document for your organizations.

I applaud your perseverance and perspective , and look forward to seeing the fruits of your respective labours

Patricia Ravanello

 

[Yarik]

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.

I would love to try to offer a better suggestion, but... let's make one step back and re-read the original intent behind this chart. Let's consider the simpler version - that is, the one from ISO 9001:2008 (color highligting is mine just to make it easier to map further comments to this text):

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 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 Figure 1 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. PDCA can be briefly described as follows.​

Plan: establish the objectives and processes necessary to deliver results in accordance with customer requirements and the organization's policies.​

Do: implement the processes.​

Check: monitor and measure processes and product against policies, objectives and requirements for the product and report the results.​

Act: take actions to continually improve process performance.

(Let's put aside the ISO's "adaptation" of the original definition of PDCA it's one of my other pet peeves with ISO, and might eventually deserve a separate thread. Let's focus just on the goals that have been set for this chart.)


This "simple" chart tries to illustrate at least three relatively independent ideas/concepts:

• illustrate process linkages presented in Clauses 4 to 8;
• illustrate how customers, their requirements, and their satisfaction (very important concepts) fit into the "process approach";
• illustrate how PDCA can be applied to all processes

Isn't it too much of a challenge for one "simple" chart to illustrate so many things? We all know that whenever you try to do too many different things, you are likely to do all of them very poorly.

Here are the questions that popped up in my mind when I saw this chart for the first time (and keep popping up today):


(1) What exactly are "process linkages presented in Clauses 4 to 8"? And where are they on the diagram?

(2) What represents Clause 4 and process linkages presented in it? Again, what the heck is "process linkage"?

(3) Okay, I can live without seeing process details. But how come the model of process-based system does not show a single process? Of if it does, where and how? "Product Realization" sounds like it may be a process, but what kind of process would be named "Management Responsibility"? Ah, "Management Responsibility" is not a process? Okay, so where are any processes in this process-based system, anyway?

(4) Without showing any processes, how can this model illustrate how PDCA can be applied to all processes? And where the heck are the famous steps of PDCA, or at least the "Deming circle"? And why does anyone need a chart to illustrate application PDCA, anyway?

(5) Why do you need a picture to illustrate how customers play a significant role in defining requirements as inputs and monitoring of customer satisfaction requires the evaluation of information relating to customer perception as to whether the organization has met the customer requirements? Isn't it easier to just write that down? Wouldn't it better to use this chart to illustrate something that appears to be more relevant to the chapter that contains this chart... like... let me think... ah, yes, processes and maybe their interactions?!

I think I could continue, but I decided to limit myself to just five questions.

Can any of the fans of this chart answer any of these questions? Because I'm still perplexed, even after searching for weeks (here at Cove and elsewhere).

The bottom-line: if someone asked me to create a single picture that (a) tries to convey so many different ideas and concepts (some of which are not even defined anywhere!) and (b) does not illustrate one single thing that seems to be most relevant to the chart's placement - that is, processes... well, you know, maybe I would try to do that, but only at gunpoint!

This is not a simple explanatory chart. This is a complex charade. It does not replace 1000 words - it rather obfuscates something that could be said in a few simple sentences.

Perhaps, this chart is some version of a mind-map, but not a model of a process-based system. And this is sad because so many people buy it for what its title says and then waste a lot of valuable time trying to adapt this chart for purposes it was not designed for at all. For example, so many people seem to be using this chart as a basis for "showing sequences and interactions of processes" - come on! give me a break! this "basis" doesn't even try to show processes!!!


Anyway... now that I am working (slowly ) on my first QMS documentation, I will try to develop

• a clear diagram describing process interaction;
• (maybe) some educational graphics of PDSA/PDCA and how exactly does it apply to processes

and, whatever I come up with, I promise to post it here. Maybe I won't succeed with graphics, in which case I would admit that and go with text. But, with all due respect to ISO and all fans of the chart in question, I will not even think about trying to create any smorgasbords like this one.

Best regards,
Yarik.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I am baffled with so much discontentment for a simple chart that does the job, IMO.


Since TC's 176 and 207 want to make 9001 and 14001 even closer, they could have used the ISO 14001 spiral model:

 

[Patricia Ravanello]

I am baffled with so much discontentment for a simple chart that does the job, IMO.


Since TC's 176 and 207 want to make 9001 and 14001 even closer, they could have used the ISO 14001 spiral model:

Hi Sidney,

Thanks for posting the ISO 14001 spiral model, which, from from my professional perspective and experience, is inaccurate, even in it's simplicity.

Here's my

1) Corrective, Preventive or Continual Improvement Actions occur following Management Review, as they are an output of that review.

2) Continual Improvement is not the only output of Management Review...actions identified in review may be corrective/preventive/or improvement.

3) Continual Improvement does not spiral off into the stratosphere, but feeds back (input) into the processes on which they were intended to have impact.

4) Corrective Action is not the only output of "checking".​

While these "models" may not intend to be "all-encompassing", they have a tremendous impact on the ISO user-organizations. As such, it is paramount that they be useful and accurate. This one is "marginally" so.

I believe the attached Powerpoint show to be a more accurate depiction.

Patricia Ravanello

 

[Sidney Vianna]

1) Corrective, Preventive or Continual Improvement Actions occur following Management Review, as they are an output of that review.

corrective and preventive actions should be triggered as part of the CA/PA process. Normally, during management review, data is provided about the status of CA's and PA's, and, indirectly, indicates the robustness of the process.

2) Continual Improvement is not the only output of Management Review...actions identified in review may be corrective/preventive/or improvement.

continual improvement happens at different levels. The improvement of a process, many times, is decided by process owners, operators and line managers. For that, they don't have to wait for a management review. System improvement is object of discussion during management reviews.

3) Continual Improvement does not spiral off into the stratosphere, but feeds back (input) into the processes on which they were intended to have impact.

the upwards spiral is intended to signify that the system performance should improve over time. For some people, the z axis helps visualize the upward (improvement) aspect.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Hi Sidney,

Thanks for posting the ISO 14001 spiral model, which, from from my professional perspective and experience, is inaccurate, even in it's simplicity.

Here's my

1) Corrective, Preventive or Continual Improvement Actions occur following Management Review, as they are an output of that review.

2) Continual Improvement is not the only output of Management Review...actions identified in review may be corrective/preventive/or improvement.

3) Continual Improvement does not spiral off into the stratosphere, but feeds back (input) into the processes on which they were intended to have impact.

4) Corrective Action is not the only output of "checking".​

While these "models" may not intend to be "all-encompassing", they have a tremendous impact on the ISO user-organizations. As such, it is paramount that they be useful and accurate. This one is "marginally" so.

I believe the attached Powerpoint show to be a more accurate depiction.

Patricia Ravanello

That's a nice graphic you posted, but I think the latest from Sidney is OK too, perhaps except for the arrow ultimately going off into Never-Never Land. If management review is the sole medium for improvement, something's wrong, I think. MR should function as verification that the system is working as planned; it should be mainly an information review process. Of course,there might be plans for improvement that emanate from MR, but they should be relatively few.

As a remedy for all of the confusing and cluttered graphics, I propose a radical solution:

It's hard to improve on the original. If we need to complicate this in order to get people to understand, it we're not giving people much credit for being able to understand simple concepts.