SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) vs. Policies, Procedures and Work Instructions

[ronarendas]

Re: SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) vs. Policies, procedures and work instructio

I completely agree with JaneB. The difference between process and procedure is sometimes muddled, but I see Process as a series of actions (not steps here but procedures and WI) and operations that proceed from a point of input and lead to a result. These actions can include procedures by workers, computer processing, machine functioning, natural processes, time, etc..

A procedure is step-by-step instruction that defines major operations that can be divided into roles and responsibilities. WI are detail-oriented little operations performed by one worker as one task (one broken-down step in the larger procedure, for example).

Anyone confused?

 

[kgott]

Re: SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) vs. Policies, Procedures and Work Instructio

In my organisation if I prepare a description of how the process works or how a task is done its called a QUAxxx. If the safety person prepares a document its a SAFxxx. If the projects people prepare a document its a PROxxx

Talk about the silo approach.

I keep telling them they are PRO-j-e-c-t documents. A procedue describes how a part of the process by which customer inputs get transformed into customer deliverables and that a work instruction (I'm sure theres a better name than that too) describes how a discrete part of that process is done.

For some xyz reason word "protocols" is used ubiquitously in safety these days and I'm stuffed if I know what they are???.

mitigate is used in place of 'control' now

When is the luancy going to end?

Sorry; but I do feel better now.

 

[ebidyke]

Re: SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) vs. Policies, procedures and work instructio

Whatever the client organisation likes and works for them. Some like SOP for everything (procedures, instructions etc), some loathe the term.

In general, I tend to think of them as roughly:
Level 1, Policy
Level 2, Process
Level 3, Procedure
Level 4, instruction/checklist etc. ('work instruction' if you insist)

But I work with organisations ranging from very small (a few people) up to very large (hundreds). Naturally the amount & type of doco they have varies accordingly.


Middle, usually - ie, procedures. Could also be processes.

I have seen some people say "Please give me you 'Method Statement'. Which level do you think such document belongs - under procedures or work instructions

 

[massfrompak]

Re: SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) vs. Policies, Procedures and Work Instructio

good keep it up

 

[storyqh]

I stopped using the term SOPs in 1992 and went to the more ISO 900x friendly terms of policies, procedures and work instructions. At this division, we have lots of technical and supervisory personnel who were hired not only from competitors, but also from other countries. I have found that a lot of the folks from outside the USA still use SOP in their lingo. Unfortunately, I have also found that they do not necessarily use SOP in a standardized way. Some of them use SOP to define procedures, others work instruction, and sometimes to mean any or all tiers.

What terminology do you use?

What tier of documentation do you think of when someone uses the term SOP?

I realize that it really doesn't matter as long as the terminology is consistent and works within our system, but I really find that SOP as used here is just a tad bit vague. Or am I just being too anal? (putting on my kevlar and turnout gear for this one!)

Thanks Cove members, and especially Marc for all the great info we get here.

Dear SteelMaiden
I'm thinking about your question
SOPs = Standard Operating Procedures = Working instruction
LV1: Manual (Policy, Objective)
LV2: Process
LV3: Procedure
LV4: Work instruction

 

[dkgurr]

Thanks for this.

Would you mind telling me what software you use to write the SOPs?

Dear SteelMaiden
I'm thinking about your question
SOPs = Standard Operating Procedures = Working instruction
LV1: Manual (Policy, Objective)
LV2: Process
LV3: Procedure
LV4: Work instruction

 

[Tagin]

Ours is similar to others, except for level 4, 5.

• Level 1: Company-wide (quality policy, org chart,
• Level 2: Process
• Level 3: Procedures, Job Aids, etc.
• Level 4: Forms/Templates
• Level 5: Reports

We make extensive use of SSRS (SQL Server Reporting Services) reports, and the intent of a level 5 is to label each report with a "doc ID" similar to ones we would use for other qms docs. It makes it easier to reference the proper report in the qms process/procedure docs, and not rely on solely on report names.

I find procedures, job aids, work instructions to all be creatures of the same ilk, so they share level 3. But forms/templates are of a different genera and therefore are given a separate level.

 

[Patricia Ravanello]

Thanks for this.

Would you mind telling me what software you use to write the SOPs?

Hi Dkgurr,
For the most part, I use MSVisio for the flow-charting of Standard Operating Procedures. I'll attach one as an example (has been saved as a pdf). I've also done procedural flow charts in everything from MS Word to MSExcel....it just depends what software is available. My personal preference is MSVisio.

I don't come here very often any more. This thread is a representative example of why. The whole purpose of the implementation of "standards", is the "standardization" of management and business systems to facilitate the interactions, communications and transactions of suppliers and their customers....or suppliers and other tier suppliers, etc....

How laughable that this discussion has devolved into..."Procedure" means whatever your company wants it to mean. That's like saying, company "A" calls this vehicle a "car", but company "B" just can't get their head around that nomenclature, so they insist on calling it a "transport module", and company ."C" calls it a "Whatever"....Wow, this usage and latitude of definitions has done nothing to "standardize" the dialogue, and in fact has engendered and/or precipitated a lot of the queries and confusion that is witnessed on this forum.

It might be more prudent for those who offer advice on this forum to try to clarify things rather than "muddy" the water with their liberal interpretations which deviate from the core purpose of standardization.



Patricia

 

[Jim Wynne]

It might be more prudent for those who offer advice on this forum to try to clarify things rather than "muddy" the water with their liberal interpretations which deviate from the core purpose of standardization.

Can you advise as to the standard we should use in developing documentation systems? Surely if there's a standard, it's codified somewhere.

 

[Patricia Ravanello]

Can you advise as to the standard we should use in developing documentation systems? Surely if there's a standard, it's codified somewhere.

Hi Jim,
Thanks for the inquiry.

I didn't say that there is a standard, and I don't think we necessarily need a "standard" to develop documentation.. There is at least some guidance that comes from the ISO standard itself, however ambiguous and/or onerous that might be for the neophyte, but I think that the burden perhaps might fall on the certification bodies whose member auditors provide guidance (in the creation of the requisite documentation...yes, I know, they can't "consult", but they inadvertently do when they offer "opportunities for improvement" and certainly by way of the "pre-assessment audits) and so they have the opportunity to standardize their dialogue and communicate it to their customers, emphasizing the need for terminology and nomenclature that means the same to all parties in the chain. It's not like it's asking them to learn a new language, just to engage in some refined language usage.

Frankly, I think they've done a less than stellar job in providing meaningful direction for system development, and I've seen all manners of the external auditor "settling" for whatever "systems" their clients present. One thing is certain...almost 100% of companies that attempt it will obtain ISO certificates...but the disparity between systems, implementation, performance and compliance can be dramatic...most CEO's wouldn't even know where to find or how to navigate their management system documentation (of course, it would be a poor marketing strategy for certification bodies to advertise the number of "failed" certification outcomes, so it precludes the possibility of total certainty about the actual number of failed attempts at certification. The true distinction of being certified is nebulous at best. (So where is the "monitoring and measurement" data from the certification bodies anyway???)

Which brings me to another bone of contention as it pertains to the automotive industry in particular. I feel strongly that the auditors should be hired by, paid by, and report directly to the car manufacturers (Ford, GM, etc) and not by the company being audited. The allegiance of auditors is inclined to be with the entity that is buttering their bread. How can they not be biased when a failed audit could precipitate a loss of revenue? I see this practice as more than just a mild conflict of interest and more importantly, it clearly compromises the value and significance of certification.

Amen...enough ranting...

Patricia