Systems Approach or Process Approach? Micro level of managing

[systems_thinker]

OK, now I understand! All of us Lemmings that are mindlessly following along the ISO road are on our way to H**l in a handbasket. So instead of defining the specific steps that will lead us towards a change in our direction, you just thought that you would provide us with a warning. Well thank you.

Telling me that I need to use a "Systems Approach" doesn't provide direction. Does that statement define what a systems approach is, how I implement it, or where I go to seek guidance? Or, should I seek out a copy of the Vanguard Standards to gain that information?

I think that we all concur that the current version of ISO 9001 misses the boat in that it defines itself as a "Quality" system (with requirements for "quality" policy and objectives, etc.) [mentioned a few times already in the Cove], but those "errors" should not keep us from properly developing an organization-wide system that meets the requirements of ISO 9001.

In taking a systems approach, is there not a point in time where I need to understand the inner processes that work within that system and ensure that those processes are working efficiently and effectively towards supporting that system? And to truly understand the effectiveness and efficiency of a system do I not need to know the relationships and interactions of those individual processes? And keeping in mind the purpose of the overall system (and yes the interaction of the individual processes), should I not be striving to implement improvement initiatives (or corrective actions where appropriate)?

Finally, this forum has many times discussed the error of implementing processes to gain a piece of paper (certification) -Vs- developing a system that leads to the success and continuous improvement of the business - with the understanding that some folks are in situations/companies where they have to do what they have to do (although they know and understand that it isn't the best method), but it is better than doing nothing at all. And we have to just hope that someday the powers that be will see value in what has been accomplished and will be enlightened enough to allow us to do it right.

Sorry for the rant, but I get tired of "experts" telling me that I've got my head up my *ss unless I do things their way.

Hi, David, and thanks for the reply. Let me deal with a couple of points you raise.

First, re your assertion that advocating a systems approach doesn't "provide direction", I would differ. It provides as much direction as the "process approach" if you will take the time to understand it. It will require that you invest some time and energy to learn the principles and concepts behind managing a system, but that can be done. As to where you can acquire that learning, there are several good books out there and I'll be happy to recommend them if you are interested.

Second, re the Vanguard Standards, I am not familiar with them. I do know of John Seddon, but I have not read his book The Case Against ISO 9000, nor do I intend to. I have arrived at my own conclusions about the process approach of ISO 9000 entirely on the basis of seeing it applied within some companies with whom I work.

You are, in the main, correct in what you say about at some point having to manage the processes within a system. My point is that you should not begin at that level without first acquiring an understanding of the total system and how you can influence its behaviour. This invariably raises a dilemma for ISO 9000 users: which system should we try to understand - the system for quality or the overall business system? My view is that they are one and the same and the bifurcation of them within some organizations causes immense problems.

Finally, I don't profess to be another expert telling you what to do. In fact, it is better for you to discover yourself what it is you need to do so that you can acquire the learning, knowledge, insight and understanding.

This forum, with over 8,000 posts, reveals a huge and commendable investment of time, energy and commitment by people such as yourself to apply ISO 9000. I would only ask that before undertaking any action on a business system, users step back and ask themselves how their actions are influencing the behaviour of their system to best meet its goal, and what additional value they are delivering to their customers as a result of those actions.

Cheers,

systems_thinker

 

[db]

Perhaps the root problem is that we tend to think either "system" or "process". In reality, it isn't an "either or", but a "both and". We have processes and we have systems. They must work independently dependent. There are processes in our systems, and systems in our processes. It can be very confusing. For example, our quality managment "system" is made up of many different "processes". One such process is our process to calibrate our measuring devices. We use our measurement "system" to perform our calibration "process". Are we just playing word games, or is there a definite difference? I know I'm confused. But I do know one thing:.....

I think it is important to understand your business, whether they be processes, or systems.

 

[NYHawkeye - 2005]

Welcome to the Cove systems_thinker!

Thanks for the thought provoking posts covering one of my favorite topics.

Having read your posts I don't quite understand why you are so concerned about making a distinction between the systems approach and taking a process approach. I don't believe that there is any fundamental disconnect between a focus on processes and the systems approach.

In fact, in his book "The Systems Approach", Churchman identifies the five basic considerations for systems thinking:

1. the total system objectives and, more specifically, the performance measures of the whole system;

2. the system's environment: the fixed constraints;

3. the resources of the system;

4. the components of the system, their activities, goals, and measures of performance;

5. the management of the system.​

I think if done correctly, ISO is a great way to implement some systems thinking. Unfortunately many organizations skip over considerations 1-3 all together, use an organization chart for #4, and manage the way they always have - using a suboptimized functional approach.

Processes are important because it just isn't feasible to manage at a system level. Processes are critical in providing us with the information we need to assess wether the complete system is operating properly and to help prioritize our improvement activities.

The key is that you have to make sure that the processes are defined and measures developed with the total system in mind.

Regards - NYHawkeye

 

[Craig H.]

Systems thinker:

Hi, and what a thought provoking thread.

One point I would like to make about what I believe to be your main thesis. Using ISO 9001:2000 as a tool to help establish and maintain a quality system and systems thinking ARE NOT mutually exclusive - in fact one can help the other.

One of the main requirements of the new standards, often debated in these threads, is the overall process map. From here, if properly done, we can gain an overall picture of the system, and the larger subsystems.

I believe that, as you stated in one of your posts (the first?), your problem with ISO is in the execution by some companies. I agree, but that does not make the ISO 9001 approach necessarily bad...

Just MHO. With threads like this you are going to be a valuable member.

Craig

Added later: OK, I should have said that a process map is often used to satisfy the requirement for identifying the QMS processes, not that it is required per se. 3 whaps with the rolled up 9001.

 

[Randy Stewart]

Sorry for the rant, but I get tired of "experts" telling me that I've got my head up my *ss unless I do things their way.

I know how you feel. I get frustrated with hearing all this about Toyota and how much better they are from your company leaders. When you ask about what we can do to make us more like Toyota, they either don't have an answer or tell you that it's not possible to operate like that.

What I was trying to stress was that it is not necessarily the standard or lack of a standard that makes them work. It's the culture that they promote. And somewhat contrary to what system_thinker has stated, they push the process.
As an operator, if I stick to and follow the process and still have NC parts, it's not held against my performance (unless I don't notify anyone).
The Toyota process review is very brutal and it is without finger pointing. That's what makes it happen. They even have trained facilitators come in to conduct the lessons learned meetings. Just to keep it on track. But that is the area they place the most resources on - training.

I took S_T's post more like our debates over having a quality manual. Some will have a rehash of the standard, some will have one written to be useable and some of us won't have one at all. It's all in how you view or address the requirements.
To comply with a standard with no vision of application on company function is IMO stupid. To blindly adhere to something for just a piece of paper is a big waste.
ISO can be a great help, but someone or some group must have a grip on how it is to be implemented to the organization as a whole.

 

[Mike S.]

How about this: The next version of ISO 9001 advocates the "systems approach". ISO gets to say they're constantly evolving and improving, and the consultants and registrars get more business. Cynical?

 

[systems_thinker]

Welcome to the Cove systems_thinker!

Thanks for the thought provoking posts covering one of my favorite topics.

Having read your posts I don't quite understand why you are so concerned about making a distinction between the systems approach and taking a process approach. I don't believe that there is any fundamental disconnect between a focus on processes and the systems approach.

In fact, in his book "The Systems Approach", Churchman identifies the five basic considerations for systems thinking:

1. the total system objectives and, more specifically, the performance measures of the whole system;

2. the system's environment: the fixed constraints;

3. the resources of the system;

4. the components of the system, their activities, goals, and measures of performance;

5. the management of the system.​

I think if done correctly, ISO is a great way to implement some systems thinking. Unfortunately many organizations skip over considerations 1-3 all together, use an organization chart for #4, and manage the way they always have - using a suboptimized functional approach.

Processes are important because it just isn't feasible to manage at a system level. Processes are critical in providing us with the information we need to assess wether the complete system is operating properly and to help prioritize our improvement activities.

The key is that you have to make sure that the processes are defined and measures developed with the total system in mind.

Regards - NYHawkeye

I think you may have articulated it better than I when you say that most will skip over the first 3 steps, grab tools, and begin working to improve discrete processes at step 4. Processes are the guts of the system, but we shouldn't forget that the objective of the improvement exercise is to improve the ability of the system to meet its goal, not just to improve individual processes. The 3 key questions anyone undertaking improvement has to answer are:

1. What to change?
2. What to change it to? and
3. How to cause the change.

These are system-level questions, not process-level. While the answers to these questions may have an impact on individual processes, theyre designed to focus efforts towards improving the system. Processes are important, but organizations live and die as systems, not processes. A systems approach to improvement guides and focuses the improvement effort and channels it to where it will improve the system. Mapping processes and then setting about improving them outwith the context of the system invariably results in wasted effort and sub-optimization.

Thanks for the better articulation,

systems_thinker

 

[systems_thinker]

I know how you feel. I get frustrated with hearing all this about Toyota and how much better they are from your company leaders. When you ask about what we can do to make us more like Toyota, they either don't have an answer or tell you that it's not possible to operate like that.

What I was trying to stress was that it is not necessarily the standard or lack of a standard that makes them work. It's the culture that they promote. And somewhat contrary to what system_thinker has stated, they push the process.
As an operator, if I stick to and follow the process and still have NC parts, it's not held against my performance (unless I don't notify anyone).
The Toyota process review is very brutal and it is without finger pointing. That's what makes it happen. They even have trained facilitators come in to conduct the lessons learned meetings. Just to keep it on track. But that is the area they place the most resources on - training.

I took S_T's post more like our debates over having a quality manual. Some will have a rehash of the standard, some will have one written to be useable and some of us won't have one at all. It's all in how you view or address the requirements.
To comply with a standard with no vision of application on company function is IMO stupid. To blindly adhere to something for just a piece of paper is a big waste.
ISO can be a great help, but someone or some group must have a grip on how it is to be implemented to the organization as a whole.

Randy, I don't think its so much culture as philosophy at Toyota. Their culture results from their philosophy of enabling value to FLOW to their customers without interruption or delay. Once that premise is recognized, it is easy to see why they have high quality, short lead times, low inventories, intrinsically motivated workers, and high profits even in recessionary times. And there are other companies who have adopted similar philosophies and supporting production systems that we can learn from, albeit with their own way of expressing it - Mitsubishi, for one.

Cheers,

systems_thinker

 

[NYHawkeye - 2005]

The 3 key questions anyone undertaking improvement has to answer are:

1. What to change?
2. What to change it to? and
3. How to cause the change.

Nice to see another Goldratt / TOC fan joining in these discussions

I agree with most of your points in this thread - I just don't believe that the ISO standard is the issue but rather the implementation approach taken by many organizations. For me, ISO has been the leverage point (it is a customer requirement) I have used to get more and more of our management team educated on the systems approach and TOC concepts.

 

[Randy Stewart]

high profits even in recessionary times

Attached is the comparison of profit per company per vehicle.

I just don't believe that the ISO standard is the issue but rather the implementation approach taken by many organizations.

Exactly, it's not a cure-all that's for sure.