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

[Marc]

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.

Some people say "vendor". Others say "supplier". It has nothing to do with "liberal" interpretations (what ever that is), and is certainly not only people on this forum who use different terms for the same thing from time to time.

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",

Bad strawman. Some people call a car a car. Others call it an auto or automobile. Still others call gasoline cars "ICE vehicles". My grandmother used to call what I know as a bicycle a "wheel".

The title of this discussion thread is "SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) vs. Policies, procedures and work instructions". It is an attempt to try to identify differences and/or similarities in the various terms in part because there isn't any standard which does so.

I do not understand why you want to disparage the people who participate in this forum when people all over do the same thing. The people discussing things in conversations here are no more egregious than elsewhere.

As to standards development and automotive auditing (especially with regard to the standards development) - I can't say I disagree with you, yet... Your complaints are the same that have been voiced for more than 25 years. I seriously doubt you will see any change. This is akin to discussions some years ago in aerospace where there was a group which wanted to set standards for aerospace consultants, such as 10 years of direct hire employment in the aerospace field. In my opinion it was a good idea, but the suggestion was dropped, whether for better or worse.

 

[skb76]

All,

i guess (guess only ..) ... unless you are from very big-big firm, maybe complexity is there,

however, i guess for ISO9001:2015 (documented information #7.5) ,

SOP (can be simple), (OR any document as above want apply) ... whatever organization you from

1) write what you do (when write/create SOP);
(nobody knows, its between organisation people and the process itself..)

2)DO WHAT YOU WRITE (sop) ;
~that (the concern comes) , Internal/EXTERNAL will audit SOP comply with process
(similar with other documented issue x with organisation process)

3)whatever its SOP or documented issue
~(pls review/verify/control ...

if my opinion the post (sorry me! ..)

p/s advise

thanks in advance!..

 

[Jim Wynne]

First you said:

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.

Then this:

I didn't say that there is a standard, and I don't think we necessarily need a "standard" to develop documentation.

I don't know how standardization can happen without a standard. The essence of a thing (as William Shakespeare famously observed over 400 years ago) doesn't change when you change the name of it.

 

[Patricia Ravanello]

First you said:

Then this:


I don't know how standardization can happen without a standard. The essence of a thing (as William Shakespeare famously observed over 400 years ago) doesn't change when you change the name of it.

Yes, a rose, by any other name....Agreed, but dialogue and progress (with confidence) can be severely hampered every time you have to stop and confirm that despite the different terminology, you're talking about the same thing.
A standardized terminology is simply a common language, nomenclature, classification, or taxonomy designed to be shared among users, both within and outside of a company. Perhaps you've hit upon something...that a standard for terminology would benefit the management system development process. But alas, people hate rules and constraints....it wouldn't be very popular.

 

[Jim Wynne]

A standardized terminology is simply a common language, nomenclature, classification, or taxonomy designed to be shared among users, both within and outside of a company.

Standardized and designed by whom? These things don't happen by themselves.

 

[Patricia Ravanello]

Standardized and designed by whom? These things don't happen by themselves.

Perhaps, in the name of continual improvement, a professional group like the certification bodies might be in a position to develop and disseminate such a standard. They would also be well-positioned to lead by example in their utilization of a standardized lexicon of terminology. The more standardized the usage is, the more internationally-transferable and powerful the management systems become.

It is said that a hallmark of a true profession is the universal use of a specialized vocabulary by its members. Standardized business/management system terminology provides a consistent basis for communicating. The use of imprecise vocabulary undermines the goals of consistency and reliability. Adoption of a single vocabulary appears tenuous at this juncture, however I expect that the use of standardized business/management system terminology will come with time, consistent use, and introduction through incorporation into the curriculum in trade schools, colleges and universities as well as via reference in professional journals.

I apologize if I've offended the audience here on the Cove, especially the very generous, talented and sincere contributors and mediators, however I feel strongly that the nonchalant usage of system terminology is a substantial and unnecessary impediment to the development, implementation and longevity of management systems.