The Process Approach: Is a process more than a procedure with a flowchart?

[NYHawkeye - 2005]

Mike S. said:
Well, what will work then?

Mike -

I tend to agree. Unless an organization is prepared for a radical change I don't believe there are many other choices than using "fictitious" process owners as a parallel structure to the department management.

My hope is that over a period of time we will be able to evolve to have our political and process structures better aligned.

At least for me, trying to radically change the political structure prior to showing the benefits of the process approach would probably result in total failure.

 

[JodiB]

I see dept. managment as existing for the purpose of immediate supervision. Making sure that the work is done correctly, dealing with personnel issues, assignment of duties, training of staff,etc.

For those activities, it makes sense to have small cohesive units that are specialized for a certain function. But for a process that crosses these departments, there needs to be a management level that oversees the running of the process as a whole. Not a Process Owner who is equal to or less than the department managers, but at a level above the department managers. If one of the department managers is tagged for this duty rather than having a separate layer, then that dept. mgr. is Boss when it comes to making the decisions for the process. Not a ficticious owner - an owner of record, authority, responsibility, and accountability.

To my mind, it's not a radical change, but is still a political challenge.

 

[NYHawkeye - 2005]

It may turn out to be a little bit of a overkill but at this point we have established two layers of "process management".

First we have the process owners who are responsible for the day to day effectiveness of the process, monitoring the objectives, CAPA, etc.... The process owners are not the department managers but often own processes across several departments.

Second, we have the process leader. The process leader reports directly to the president and is used by the process owner to help with the political barriers, etc... that the process owner does not have the clout to overcome. The process leader's main function is to work across the departments to help push improvements.

This two layer approach was set up because we wanted process owners who really know the in's and out's of the process. Unfortunately, these are not often the same people who have the political clout.

So far this approach is getting the job done.

 

[M Greenaway]

But how do we get over the fact that in a largish company there will be divisions of labour, no one person will liase with the market place, take the orders, design it, purchase material, make it, test it, pack it and then deliver it, and do a whole host of other support processes.

We will tend to divide labour into units of people with the same technical skills to perform the same or similar functions. These functions will naturally migrate around processes, and will be collated into departments that either function soley around a process, such as Design, Purchasing or Manufacturing, or function around a few similarly related processes, such as the Quality Department.

What does a process owner that cuts across departments bring to the party, and how does that relate to what the traditional department head should do ??

and do we need both then ???

and is the implication that we have to revise our whole corporate structure to attain ISO9001 certification (or even improve our business) ????

 

[M Greenaway]

Right

Isnt that the understanding of the system, i.e. how the discrete processes interrelate - we dont have to create end to end processes with single process ownership do we ?????

 

[NYHawkeye - 2005]

We have established 8 different processes and tried to keep things as simple as possible and linked to the structure of 9001-2000.

1. LEADERSHIP - this process includes the activities of the management representative and the senior management team. Focused on meeting the requirements of sections 4 and 5 of 9001-2000.

2. BUSINESS PLANNING - a fairly narrow process in our QMS with the primary purpose of converting non-financial strategic plans and directions provided by the leadership team into quantifiable financial objectives and constraints. Links together section 5 and 6 requirements.

3. RESOURCES - generally focused on meeting the requirements of section 6 of 9001-2000. Includes human resources, facilities, EH&S, information systems, etc.... This one cuts across a lot of departments.

4. CUSTOMER FULFILLMENT - includes primarily sales, marketing, product and program management. Meets requirements of section 7.2.

5. DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT - meets the requirements of section 7.3. Actually made up of several major subprocesses as we develop several types of products.

6. PRODUCTION - pretty much what it sounds like. Cuts across several manufacturing groups, quality, and engineering. Responsible for meeting section 7.5 & 7.6 requirements for production.

7. PURCHASING - again pretty straight forward and focused on meeting requirements of section 7.4. Cuts across materials, quality, and parts of manufacturing.

8. CUSTOMER SERVICE - includes what we call product service and field service. Meets requirements of 7.5 & 7.6 for service activities.

In addition, we have established a set of procedures in the quality organization that define the standard stuff required by ISO including documentation, CAPA, non-conforming material, etc....mostly focused on section 8.

Each of these processes has a handbook which describes the process and how it relates to the overall system, discusses continual improvement, and references any detailed procedures and/or work instructions that are required.

In addition to the 9001-2000 requirements, each of the processes includes a lot of things unique to us that are beyond what is in the standard.

 

[NYHawkeye - 2005]

Jim Wade said:
...not so much to revise the departmental structure of the organisation but rather to understand, describe and improve the process structure as an additional view of the business.

Good point Jim -

This reminds me of the sometimes continual debate I hear companies having regarding utilizing a centralized vs. decentralized organization.

The actual decision itself is probably not as important as the debate.

No, we don't have to totally reorganize in order to meet ISO requirements or even improve. I am convinced, however, that understanding, thinking about, and debating the process/systems approach is a great way to break organizations out of a functional mindset that discourages overall system improvements.

 

[Mike S.]

I agree with Jim's last two posts. Imagine that!

To go a bit further into Martin's questions: "What does a process owner that cuts across departments bring to the party, and how does that relate to what the traditional department head should do ?? and do we need both then ??? "

IMO a single department head COULD be the process owner of a process that cuts across different departments, in complete control of his/her own department, and prioritizing/scheduling the work of the other departments, if this person is an effective leader. Or it could be a different person. Or, like NYH's scenerio, they could have "dept. heads", "process owners", and "process leaders" all of which who are different. Whatever works for you.

IMO almost every company, in practice if not by specific title, has a "process owner that cuts across departments". In some companies they just happen to be called things like "President", "Managing Director", etc. If a process cuts across several departments, there must be someone somewhere who has authority over everyone, and commensurate responsibility.

 

[Andrej]

Mike S. wrote:
"... the process owner of a process that cuts across different departments, in complete control of his/her own department, and prioritizing/scheduling the work of the other departments ..." and
"If a process cuts across several departments, there must be someone somewhere who has authority over everyone, and commensurate responsibility."

I agree,

Traditional department (function) head gives directives about WHO is competent for specific task and HOW the task should be performed, since they are experts on certain function (design, purchasing, production...)

Process owner gives directives about WHAT should be done and WHEN, since he/she is responsible to the customer (internal or external).

Regards, Andrej

 

[Paul Simpson]

Are Sales ready for this

Firstly thanks to all who have been contributing to this thread. I have learnt a lot and that is why I joined the cove (again).

There are a number of posts about process ownership that I found really interesting. Using my earlier principles of "customer to customer" I think that the majority of processes should be owned by the people with responsibility for satisfaction of the customer - the Marketing or Sales departments? Each department head then has responsibility for their bit of the process and achieving the measures that apply across the whole process and to their "bit".

My concern would be that there isn't enough responsibility for the whole of the process in a department such as Sales and they may just be interested in owning the Sale (and the bonus).

For my part I think if Sales had ownership for ensuring the customer is satisfied by the process this would be a good thing and there would be fewer horror stories of overselling and underdelivering.

Any thoughts.